General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumssop
(10,177 posts)"and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation"
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)33 But he replied, Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.
34 Jesus answered, I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.
35 Then Jesus asked them, When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?
Nothing, they answered.
36 He said to them, But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you dont have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
underpants
(182,803 posts)There are considered to be 4 writers of the Bible. Basically 4 eras and influences of those times.
https://radicallychristian.com/luke-2236-re-examined-sell-your-cloak-to-buy-a-sword/
Why They Needed Swords
Most importantly, verse 37 tells us why the apostles needed swords that particular night. Jesus said, For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me
That first word, for is incredibly important. It is the Greek word gar. It ties verses 36 and 37 together and it assigns purpose.
The reason Jesus wanted His apostles to have swords that night was so that a particular Scripture would be fulfilled. The Scripture the swords would fulfill was Isaiah 53:12, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
After Jesus explained the purpose for the swords, the apostles said, Look, Lord, here are two swords. And Jesus said, It is enough. We might ask, enough for what? Enough for eleven men to protect themselves on separate missionary journeys? That doesnt make any sense.
Two swords was not enough for later self-defense, but they were enough to serve the purpose He just explained, That this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: And he was numbered with the transgressors.Jesus did NOT say they needed swords to protect themselves. He said they needed swords because He was about to be treated like a criminal.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)In my business one of the first steps one takes is to make an assessment of mission and safety critical aspects affecting planning and development. With the foreknowledge of the followers remaining mostly together in one building, short term defense might be inferred but certainly not long term defense.
Within hermeneutics I tend to hold mostly the same as I would within statutory interpretation, I believe that recorded direct quotes can't be presumed to be without effect or relevance.
As relevant to today, I infer specifically that while non-violence is preferred, simply owning weapons is not wrong. The somewhat contradictory admonishments are a source of confusion in the interpretations.
I don't currently advocate that people in general go armed in their business and travels. I don't own a gun. I do believe in a right to keep and bear arms. I also personally prefer Romans 12:21.
LeftInTX
(25,331 posts)a tee shirt and bumper sticker, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before thee" with a picture of an AR-15 on it. I wonder what their reaction would be?
70sEraVet
(3,501 posts)LeftInTX
(25,331 posts)I don't think so!
keithbvadu2
(36,806 posts)Warlike Jesus - the guy who never turned the other cheek, didn't forgive others trespasses and preached only the strong would inherit the earth - would have carried an AR-15.
Caliman73
(11,738 posts)The United States is not run under the dictates of any religious text. The United States exists under the Constitution of the United States and the various laws made by the States.