Would Jesus start a war?

[Raphael]

This article was in the Catholic Review this week.  My wife read me snippets last night, sounded like a good read.

Anyway, the question i pose is, what would Jesus do if he lived now in times of terrorism?  How are we to live?  I was never a war on Iraq supporter but have heard good cases for it.  Still, though, in the end it just doesn't seem right.  No war seems justified if you hurt your fellow man.  Jesus started with the "turn the other cheek" thing, and when He could very well have asked His Holy Father to save him from the cross, He didn't. 

Those are the Christian values. 

Not trying to make it sound bad, but I'm guessing we are to just wait here like sitting ducks and let the terrorists do what they want.  Because I'm guessing in the end, Our Father's will be done.

(Don't really know the reason for this rant.  Just on my mind and wondering if this will lead anywhere.  That and I'm a bit worried about all these new supposed threats of terrorism...)

 

[ZiSunka]

He lived in the Roman occupation of Israel, times that were as dangerous and violent as today. He had plenty of opportunities to start a war, and a lot of people were hoping he would. They thought he was there to save them from Roman oppression, and that he would raise up an army to drive the Romans off.

But he didn't.

That says everything.

 

[Avila]

Yep...

 

[Wolseley]

But on the other hand, He did say"I have not come to bring peace upon the earth, but the sword" (Matthew 10:34-35); and He also told His followers, "He that does not have a sword should sell his coat and buy one" (Luke 22:36).......

(I know they're out of context. I'm just acting as devil's advocate. )

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Jesus wouldn't start a war.

He would recognize that war is a prerogative of the state however.

 

[jukesk9]

Hmmm. Interesting topic. If I may, taking the position of Devil's Advocate, what then is Armageddon? Is that not a war? And what of the Angels gathering the wicked and throwing them into the lake of fire and brimstone?

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Hey Jukes, I don't mind you being an advocate, but you might want to consider alternate clientele. I hear yours has a losing case

As for Armageddon, that's a good question. I suppose the answer would be that Jesus didn't start that war, but he has no qualms about finishing it.

Revelation 19:
The Beast and His Armies Defeated
17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, "Come and gather together for the supper of the great God, 18that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, both small and great."
19And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

 

[paulewog]

/me wonders about the war He is gonna start when He comes back?

 

[VOW]

To Paul:

I don't think Jesus STARTS the war. But He sure finishes it!!


Peace,
~VOW

 

[jukesk9]

Good point, Squalid. Last week at Mass, during the homily, we were told to make sure the things we were doing were just. He even gave an example to make sure if we went to war, it was a just war. So, with Jesus finishing Armageddon, I would say that if a nation was unjustly attacked, it should have no problem defending itself. ie, Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11th.

 

[panterapat]

God supported the Hebrews/Jews in many wars. But I have a hard time imagining Jesus going to war. He would have had the wisdom to avoid the necessity for war. We do not have that wisdom and Jesus knows that. There IS such a thing as a just war.

In Christ, Patrick

 

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by Wolseley
But on the other hand, He did say"I have not come to bring peace upon the earth, but the sword" (Matthew 10:34-35); and He also told His followers, "He that does not have a sword should sell his coat and buy one" (Luke 22:36).......

(I know they're out of context. I'm just acting as devil's advocate. )

Gee, Wolseley, I don't think the devil needs any help! He seems to have enough influence in this world without using the saints to cast doubt on God's word.

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Lambslove

devil's advocate is a term. It has a specific meaning, that being someone who takes the worse side just for the sake of argument. Wolselely was not casting doubt on God's word, in fact by using that terminology he was implying that it was an argument that did not have his convictions, but which he presented for the sake of bringing out the answer, thus, Wolselely was actively promoting God's word by eliciting it's truths by his question.

 

[Wolseley]

"devil's advocate: A person who upholds the wrong side or an indefensible cause for the sake of argument."

(Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary, 3rd Ed.)

 

[ZiSunka]

Geez, I know that! I think you used the term incorrectly, though. That was my point.

Why give the devil a voice when the saints had already settled the issue? why cast doubts on God's character when it was unnecessary?

 

[Hoonbaba]

Originally posted by Wolseley
But on the other hand, He did say"I have not come to bring peace upon the earth, but the sword" (Matthew 10:34-35); and He also told His followers, "He that does not have a sword should sell his coat and buy one" (Luke 22:36).......

(I know they're out of context. I'm just acting as devil's advocate. )

Hi Wolseley,

I just thought I'd mention something related.  For a while people kept telling me that Jesus's teachings are contradictory, since Jesus came to bring peace, yet Matt 10:34-35 sounds like the exact opposite.  Atheists are great at finding 'contraditions'.  Anyway, matt 10:34-35 may be referring to the judgment that would fall upon the Jews in 70AD, which was spoken of in Matt 23-24 and the coming of the son of man (Matt 10:23).  By the way, Scott Hahn believes that what happened in 70AD was a coming of Jesus, while the 'final' coming is off in the future.

In anycase, the importance of this is that there were many 'day o the lords' which happened in the Old Testament.  And here's how this ties into wars and such.  In the Old Testament, God used a nation to bring judgment upon another nation.  This happened to Edom, Babylon, Egypt, Nineveh.  And then there was Jerusalem.  One 'hypothesis' I've been thinking is that since God destroyed several nations by using another nation to cast judgment, I'm thinking that maybe God is using America to bring judgment to Iraq, that's if we go to war.  This is of course a 100% guess, but I'm beginning to wonder if what I'm saying might be at least somewhat right.

Of all the books you've read, do you happen to know of any books that expand on this kind of idea?

God bless!

-Jason

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by lambslove
Geez, I know that! I think you used the term incorrectly, though. That was my point.

Why give the devil a voice when the saints had already settled the issue? why cast doubts on God's character when it was unnecessary?

In the middle ages, theologians often would try to argue against the existence of God just to make sure that any proofs that they presented were valid. One would look foolish if one met some non-Christians and presented a invalid proof that was promptly disproved.

Also, growth requires adversity. If we never test our conclusions, we become intellectually and spiritually stunted. When a crisis comes, an immature faith will wither and die like seed sown in rocky soil.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Wolseley
But on the other hand, He did say"I have not come to bring peace upon the earth, but the sword" (Matthew 10:34-35); and He also told His followers, "He that does not have a sword should sell his coat and buy one" (Luke 22:36).......

(I know they're out of context. I'm just acting as devil's advocate. )

But He also said that His servants are not of this world, and they would fight if they were of this world.

Confusing issue...  

 

[VOW]

To Souljah:

WELCOME BACK!!!!!!!!!!

(you gonna be a good boy now??)






Peace and nonsense,
~VOW

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by VOW
To Souljah:

WELCOME BACK!!!!!!!!!!

(you gonna be a good boy now??)



Peace and nonsense,
~VOW

I always have good intentions...we will see what happens.