brujaq
Member
Would you beat your children for correction ?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
jasonc
Member
Really ,how many gun attacks have you disarmed 100 ft or more away?
How many knife attacks have you.disarmed? HoW many fights have you fought against multiple attackers with or without attackers?
How many guns have you had pointed at you at point blank range and disarmed the weapon .
All without leaving scratch. Harm is harm. I hate violence and own no gun.monica does as she and had jaci dad draw a weapon at at point blank range.
So please pony up on how you do it.
LovethroughDove
Member
I don't understand what this is referring to? Hell? or suffering? What?
LovethroughDove
Member
I think we are just going to have to leave it at..........We are not going to see eye to eye. Anything I will say, you will not understand (or think I'm living in la, la land) I don't care.
jasonc
Member
I was a pacifist.I avoid violent movies,I eschew needless gore.
As i. thought .a man who knows violence ,knows how to avoid it's use. I waa trained in that manner.
brujaq
Member
Would you whip your children physically for correction to save their life ? Has God ever whipped you spiritually or allowed chastisement for your correction ?
Butch5
Member
The historical record indicates that Christians didn't use violence in any form until some 300 years after Christ.
Drew
Member
Of course.
Some see Jesus instruction to buy a sword (Luke 22) as part of a provisioning activity whereby Jesus is equipping his followers to survive in the world they will face after the cross. That would be a possible interpretation if one stopped reading after Jesus mentions the suggestion to buy a sword. But, if one takes seriously the explanation that follows - about how Jesus and his followers must be seen as transgressors - it becomes clear exactly why Jesus instructs them to buy a sword - Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him.
There is a certain common sense appeal to the “provisioning for self-defence” argument. One problem is that such an interpretation makes no sense of the limit of two swords. If the issue were really that Jesus is outfitting his disciples with provisions, including swords, then clearly there is no sense in setting a limit of two - presumably each person should have a sword.
The other problem is that the provisioning explanation does not make sense of the connection to being numbered with transgressors (as per above). Jesus follows his instructions to buy a sword with the rather clear implication that the intent of buying the sword is not self-defence, but so that Jesus and his followers will be seen to be transgressors - armed trouble makers. In fact, this very specific focus on the intent to be seen as a transgressor is powerfully sustained by Jesus’ statement that there is prophecy that He (Jesus) must be seen as a transgressor. And Jesus concludes that two swords are sufficient to achieve this effect.
If Jesus is really simply "provisioning" his followers to be able to survive in the broader world, He gives a very strange follow on explanation - that the group of them are to be seen as transgressors. That makes no sense in such a context. Would you suggest provisions for people "so that they will be seen as transgressors?
The more likely explanation is that Jesus is telling them to get a sword for precisely the reason he immediately gives - that they will been as transgressors.
Drew
Member
How about "blessed are the peacemakers"?
How about "they shall beat their swords into plowshares"?
jasonc
Member
I can't live in la la land.
While I train to defend myself, I also know that I can avoid violence when it's possible.I can control me,that's it.I can't control what happens to me ,I can control my reaction.
UntIL all worst governments cease,and sin there will always be wars,violence.
I had a run In with a wing nut at work I choose not to allow her to get to me.she has had cops called on her to allow utilities acess as its the law that they get acess to her yard for their equipment.
While I train to defend myself, I also know that I can avoid violence when it's possible.I can control me,that's it.I can't control what happens to me ,I can control my reaction.
UntIL all worst governments cease,and sin there will always be wars,violence.
I had a run In with a wing nut at work I choose not to allow her to get to me.she has had cops called on her to allow utilities acess as its the law that they get acess to her yard for their equipment.
Douglas Summers
Member
Hi Peter, Jesus is not a pacifist in the sense that war is unjustified, but God is "JUST" and demands justice upon sinful and disobedient men, So much so that sin (transgression of God's commands, "without Christ", is death). All men would perish if it were not for His Mercy and Grace (Gen. 6:5-8)....and God is not done with his wrath to those who have corrupted His perfect creation, bringing decay, death and heartache.....For what is "salvation", but being saved from the wrath of God to an eternal and glorious state. (Rom. 5:8-10; Rom. 1:18; Rom. 3:25; Eph. 2:3; 1 Thes. 1:10; Rom. 5:1) God has an army, and is Just!
In His Eternal Mercy and Grace,
Douglas Summers
Jim Parker
Member
godsquadgeek
Member
the short sword was a sword used to defend against robbers while going from town to town as well as animals. This should be obvious to see from history of the short sword. The long sword was used by military which I will talk about later. First I think the juxt of this topic is as follows...
: Is war Biblical? Doesn’t God say not to murder in the old testament somewhere and isn’t go to war just like killing? When Jesus said in the Bible to love your enemy, what I think what he meant was “Don’t kill them.” If this was the case then, why would God command in the Old Testament to “slay the children and men and save the virgins for themselves?” Why would God say one thing then tell His children to go and murder and plunder the goods?
Before I answer this question another question is to ask yourself would be “is hiring a security guard biblical? Or is funding the police department biblical?” A pacifist would say, NO of course not, that is for the government to do, not the church. Well what if a pastor has His life threatened by some violent group, should he hire an armed guard, or any guard at all for that matter? This is not so easy to answer.
Let’s put religion aside and talk about securing freedoms and preserving peace in YOUR neighborhood. I don’t think we realize exactly how much money is spent in countries to protect neighborhoods, to stop crimes and to stop militias and small factions of armored gangs. Say you lived in east LA, or even worse I think is MIAMI. Say you lived in a neighborhood in east LA (which has one of the highest crime rate per-capita I think.)
What if someone comes into your ghetto home and murders and rapes your daughters and mothers and children (men too)? Is it right to defend yourself? For the sake of argument Just say No. Okay so you don’t think its okay. Well if it’s not okay for you to protect your home with use of fire arms, is it okay for the police to protect your family by use of fire power? You say yes, I agree that the answer is yes. Every government should have some type of structured guard unit, military, police, swat, whatever. There definitely needs to be something. Or there is no government right? So obviously there is a branch of the government devoted to security. Just for the record.
Everything so far has been your general consensus. Let me know if it’s not because it’s going to get worse from here.
Well, what if there was no police because you didn’t agree with their actions and you voted a funding cut? Then you say it would be okay to use personal fire power. Okay the general consensus is yes, right? So far so good, but it gets worse.
Now open your mind up to the world, not just the new kids on the block, but look at the global neighborhood for a second and look at the global village for a moment. In order for these separate police to not fight with each other there is a UNITED NATIONS counsel. This is a separate police department comprised of a representative of all the nations. Their sole purpose is to make sure that all the local police don’t fight with each other.
Now let’s say you were running for office in your own country to help the poor, feed the homeless, and help out the needy orphans that live down town under the bridge. To your surprise you are elected not as the mayor but as president of the whole country. You realize that you can still help the orphans and the homeless, maybe even on a broader level than a mayor could. Soon you hear that a sister country is in need and they send letters for your help. Realizing that this group is violent and angry they will never negotiate. You have to ask yourself a question, should local government use violence in the opposition to the enslavement of lower casts and classes of individuals? You ask yourself ethical questions, like “should the government FIGHT to endorse a slave free territory?” Or “should slavery be permitted to exist in foreign colonies and tribes and sister countries?” To what extent? Is it okay for a foreign country to get involved with the affairs of a different cultures slavery issue? What if they don’t ask for help? What if they do? These are all questions that only you can make, after all YOU ARE the president.
What if people are unreasonable when you tell them to stop beating their slaves? What if you send ambassadors to talk to these groups and negotiate by offering money to buy back the slaves? One problem however there is too many, and these unreasonable dictators want way too much money. Is it ever okay to go into this area and plow them down with a Gatling gun? Well if you don’t use heavy fire power then they will kill your ambassadors and freedom fighters. To preserve their lives you must use heavy fire power, bombs. Nerve gas, etc. Is it ever right to torture a person if it means that they will reveal the location of many more human beings and children and young women being beaten and raped to the death? These are all hard questions that any state has to answer. I will not answer it for you. Everything so far has been your general consensus. Let me know if it’s not because it’s going to get worse from here.
Only on an elected governmental level, the answer should be that YES war is sometimes necessary to preserve the FREEDOM of certain people groups deemed as valuable.
Now my answer to the question. Should religions war? No. I do not think that religion is something to war over. Then again I am American I come from a war free territory; I live in a war bought country. Even though I think that religion is not something to war over. I still think that countries that are ruled by religious governments should be able to structurally defend and arm themselves (at least on a legal level, and not a religious level). Now before there was a separation of church and state, that was how America was. It was a group of religious colonists that wanted free enterprise and free religious liberty. At this point war is a grey area. When the church divides from the state, this is when war becomes a state issue and not a religious issue.
When Jesus said love your neighbor as yourself, again this was in a war free time for the Jews. This was like the seventies, not to say that Jesus was a hippy or nothing. At the risk of being a heretic, I guess what I am saying is that, if the Jews could not travel in a free world at the time of Christ, Jesus MAY have not said the verse about loving your enemies. Not that HE was a radical; I personally think Jesus was more passive regarding war. But why would he heal the roman centurion’s kid and not rebuke Him for his pagan Job? I think it was because the Jews were at peace, the Romans were not. In one way look at it this way, the Jews were the church, the Romans were the state sort to say. There was a separation of church and state and therefore there was a halt in Religious police. Not to say that the church should always be separate from the state 100%. I believe that churches and police departments should not have the same funding source. In other words “religious police” should become “secular police.” Any country that is establishing government should strive for this separate branching of the government. In this way I guess you could say that there is at least this type of separation of church and state. This would stop religious wars world wide.
godsquadgeek
Member
Many pacifists hold the argument that because Jesus said that only two swords is enough, and because two swords is not enough to protect twelve disciples that therefore Jesus motive for the buying of the swords was not for protection at all. And that is simply refuted in the verse, 36 of luke 22. It mentions that anyone that has a garment (or cloak), was to sell it and buy a sword. Some may not have had a cloak or garment to spare, and thus this is the reason for the limitation, the reason they were not more protected was that they did not have garments to spare. That is the most straight forward answer to refute the pacifist claims. But there are other explanations as well: This site mentions that it is possible that when Jesus said "it is enough" that it was talking not about the swords but about the words. Here is more on that:
"But as we see repeatedly throughout the Gospels, the disciples never really "got" the whole "Jesus is going to die and then be resurrected" thing until after it was all accomplished. Here, they hear him talking about swords, and someone says "yeah, we've got a couple here already." They just don't understand what he's trying to explain, and you can almost hear the Master's resigned sigh. "Sure, that'll be fine.""
https://christianity.stackexchange....y-did-jesus-tell-his-disciples-to-buy-a-sword
another pastor and teacher that believes the second interpretation of this passage:
"c. It is enough means enough of this kind of talk (Jesus’ firm way of ending the conversation), not two swords will be enough. How could two swords ever be enough against all those who came to arrest Jesus?
i. Jesus’ disciples must be “just as determined and whole-hearted as a fighting man who gives up everything, even his garment, as long as he only possesses a sword to continue the struggle with.” (Geldenhuys)
-David Guzik is the new Senior Pastor of Calvary Chapel Santa Barbara. His excellent study materials have been edifying the Christian community for the past seven years. Currently he is the director of the Calvary Chapel Bible College in Siegen, Germany. Sources: Guzik, David. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". "David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible". "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/guz/view.cgi?bk=41&ch=22. 1997-2003.
I tend to believe the first explanation over the second, but that is just my opinion.
Last edited:
godsquadgeek
Member
I didn't see many commentaries or pastors who shared your viewpoint about the luke passage, I however have acquired quite a few that support my premises:
Other commentators who believe in a literal Luke 22:36:
----------------------------------------
And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword.
The absolute pacifist tradition among Christians of all ages and the acceptance of it by many commentators make this verse "a real problem" for many. Most commentators view the passage as figurative, as did Geldenhuys, who said, "The Lord intended (these words) in a figurative sense."[19] But if the sword is figurative, what about the purse, the wallet, and the cloak?
As Hobbs said, "It is impossible to tone down this statement; neither can we dismiss it as not being a genuine saying of Jesus."[20] The clear meaning of the passage is that "a sword" is the one thing needful, even surpassing in priority such an important item as a cloak. The two errors to be avoided here are (1) the supposition that the gospel should be spread by the sword, and (2) the notion that a sword should ever be employed against lawful authority. Before the evening was over, the Lord would have further occasion to demonstrate the proper and improper uses of the sword. Barnes was certainly correct in his view that "These directions (concerning the sword) were not made with reference to his being taken in the garden but to their future lives."[21]
J. S. Lamar, an eminent Restoration scholar, expressed surprise "to find several of the ablest Protestant expositors interpreting (this passage) as a warrant for self-defense."[22] Nevertheless, the view maintained here is that self-defense is exactly what Jesus taught. Self-defense is a basic, natural right of all men, and there is no lawful government on earth that denies it. Just why should it be supposed that Jesus denied to Christians such a basic right has never been explained. "Resist not evil ... go the second mile ... turn the other cheek... give thy cloak also, etc." are not applicable to situations in which one's life is threatened, or endangered.
[19] Ibid., p. 672.
[20] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 307.
[21] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 150.
[22] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary, Vol. II (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), p. 260.
Coffman, James Burton. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". "Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament". "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/view.cgi?bk=41&ch=22&vs=1&search=luke 22:36". Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.
----------------------------------------------
We are living in difficult days. The Lord said, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Why? For self protection, of course. They were living in days that required a sword. We need to recognize that fact also. If we do not resist evil today, all kinds of evil will befall us. We could end up in the hospital or have some of our loved ones slain.
McGee, J. V. (1997). Thru the Bible commentary (electronic ed., Vol. 4, p. 347). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
----------------------------------------------------
22:36. Jesus’ instructions here reflect the culmination of His mission and the crescendo of antagonism from the leadership in Jerusalem. The increased context of hostility called for supplies that would facilitate self-preservation (a “money bag” or knapsack) and self defense (a sword). Although the supplies would change, they would still lack nothing (v 35).
Valdés, A. S. (2010). The Gospel according to Luke. In R. N. Wilkin (Ed.), The Grace New Testament Commentary (p. 340). Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society.
---------------------------------------------------
When the disciples had depended on God to provide for their needs, those needs were met through generous people. However, the situation had changed. Jesus here instructed His disciples to take a money bag, a knapsack, and a sword on their journeys in order to be prepared for the rejection that was to come.
Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary (Lk 22:35–36). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.
-----------------------------------------------------
The Galileans generally travelled with swords. Christ wore none himself, but he was not against his disciples’ wearing them.
Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 1903). Peabody: Hendrickson.
-----------------------------------------------------
Jesus is saying: “I am on the point of leaving you, and when I am gone, you must use common sense means for provision and protection.” Such practical considerations were not needed before, but were needed now.
b. The disciples had been sent out to do ministry without Jesus before (Luk 10:1-17), but then they were received with goodwill and hospitality. Now they are facing a hostile world without Jesus, and must be prepared.
c. It is enough means enough of this kind of talk (Jesus’ firm way of ending the conversation), not two swords will be enough. How could two swords ever be enough against all those who came to arrest Jesus?
i. Jesus’ disciples must be “just as determined and whole-hearted as a fighting man who gives up everything, even his garment, as long as he only possesses a sword to continue the struggle with.” (Geldenhuys)
-David Guzik is the new Senior Pastor of Calvary Chapel Santa Barbara. His excellent study materials have been edifying the Christian community for the past seven years. Currently he is the director of the Calvary Chapel Bible College in Siegen, Germany. Sources: Guzik, David. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". "David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible". "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/guz/view.cgi?bk=41&ch=22. 1997-2003.
here are more commentators that agree with a literal interpretation of the verse suggesting that the Disciples, sell their coat and buy a sword:
( I could not fit them all in one post)
Buy a sword (ἀγορασατω μαχαιραν [agorasatō machairan]). This is for defence clearly. The reference is to the special mission in Galilee (Luke 9:16=Mark 6:613=Matt. 9:3511:1). They are to expect persecution and bitter hostility (John 15:1821). Jesus does not mean that his disciples are to repel force by force, but that they are to be ready to defend his cause against attack. Changed conditions bring changed needs.
Robertson, A. T. (1933). Word Pictures in the New Testament (Lk 22:36). Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.
godsquadgeek
Member
again, here I post ad naseum my sources of pastors and commentators and theologians who believe the the luke passage where they buy swords is for protection and that because of this, pacifism is not fully taught by Jesus...
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luke 22:36. ἀλλὰ νῦν, but now, suggesting an emphatic contrast between past and present, or near future. ἀράτω, lift it: if he has a purse let him carry it, it will be needed, either to buy a sword or, more generally, to provide for himself; he is going now not on a peaceful mission in connection with which he may expect friendly reception and hospitality, but on a campaign in an enemys country. ὁ μὴ ἔχων, he who has not; either purse and scrip, or, with reference to what follows, he who hath not already such a thing as a sword let him by all means get one. πωλησάτω τὸ ἱμάτιον, let him sell his upper garment, however indispensable for clothing by day and by night. A sword the one thing needful. This is a realistic speech true to the manner of Jesus and, what is rare in Lk., given without toning down, a genuine logion without doubt.
Nicol, W. Robertson, M.A., L.L.D. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". The Expositor's Greek Testament. "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/egt/view.cgi?bk=41&ch=22&vs=36&search=luke 22:36". 1897-1910.
------------------------------------------------------
While our Savior was with them on the earth, He miraculously fed, clothed, and protected them when it was necessary. Consequently they could go without these provisions, incident to human life, indiscriminately. But now that He is going away to leave them, they must take heed and give the necessary attention to the temporalities essential to their physical support and protection. The Orientals wear two garments the cheiton, interior, and the himation, exterior. The outer garment they frequently carried while traveling and laid aside when at labor, keeping it for night and storms. Jesus here tells them, if necessary, to sell the himation and buy a sword. I never could understand why He told them to take a sword till I traveled in that country and saw the necessity of carrying weapons. I did not carry any, as I did not know how to use them; but a sanctified preacher in our company carried a revolver, our dragman also being armed with a revolver and a dagger. In some places we were compelled to hire an armed escort to keep the robbers off. Why were you compelled to do it? Our guide refused to go without the armed escort. Going round in Jerusalem, men, as a rule, had no visible weapons; but traveling through the country, all we met were armed with guns, swords, or huge clubs, almost as large as an American rifle, and convenient to kill a man with a single stroke. The guide-books advise all travelers to go armed, but not to use their weapons, their utility being that of intimidation, as robbers abound everywhere, who do not content themselves by simply taking your money, but take everything you possess, leaving you utterly destitute of clothing, baggage, etc. In that day there were no firearms, the sword being the most common weapon of defense; also regarded as a badge of itinerancy. You see, when they pointed out these two swords, He said they were sufficient. The presumption is that the sword was a prudential, peace, and safety provision, for the intimidation of robbers and for personal security in case of emergency, as persons openly avowing the absence of all protecting weapons in their peregrinations would soon fall a prey to the robbers. Along the road from Jerusalem down to Jericho, where the traveler (Luke 10) was attacked by the robbers, the Roman Government had a garrison of armed men to protect the travelers, as the robbers were so troublesome.
Godbey, William. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". "William Godbey's Commentary on the New Testament". ( a Wesleyan evangelist.)
Luke 22 Commentary - William Godbey's Commentary on the New Testament
----------------------------------------
He that hath not, i.e., purse or wallet, let him sell his cloke (outer garment), necessary as that is, and buy a sword, which is now more indispensable than clothing. One who had not a sword, might still have a purse, and thus not be obliged to sell his garment; a point overlooked by the rendering of the E. V. This is not to be taken literally, nor yet allegorically, as though the purse, wallet, and sword had each a spiritual signification; but the whole is a figurative setting forth of the fact that henceforth self-defence would be their chief necessity, in view of the outward perils which would come upon them. This opposes the non-resistant theory of the Quakers, and also the view, that force can be used aggressively in the cause of Christ; self-defence alone is in question.
Schaff, Philip. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". "Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament". "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/scn/view.cgi?bk=41&ch=22&vs=36&search=luke 22:36". 1879-90..
-------------------------------------------
he told them that matters were now altered, they were to be violently assaulted by their enemies; were to meet with the strongest temptations, and to be so hotly persecuted bytheir countrymen, that they could no longer expect anysuccour at their hands; for which reason, he ordered them, in their future journeys, to provide money, and clothes, and a sword, for themselves: that is to say, besides relying on the divine Providence as formerly, they were to use prudent precautions in fortifying themselves against the trials which were coming on them; and our Lord tells them they were thus to arm themselves, because he was to be treated as a malefactor, condemned and crucified, agreeably to the predictions of the prophets.
Coke, Thomas. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible. "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tcc/view.cgi?bk=41&ch=22&vs=36&search=luke 22:36". 1801-1803.
--------------------------------------------
Didnt Jesus mention pacifism in the Beatitudes like Mathew 5?
Matthew 5:39 and that is that personal revenge is taken out of our hands, and that applies to lynch-law. Aggressive or offensive war by nations is also condemned, but not necessarily defensive war or defence against robbery and murder. Professional pacifism may be mere cowardice.
The Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament. Copyright � Broadman Press 1932,33, Renewal 1960. All rights reserved. Used by permission of Broadman Press (Southern Baptist Sunday School Board)
In similar thought, Dallas Seminary former president exclaims:
Although some might deduce from the principles of the kingdom expounded here that the Bible supports pacifism, most interpreters would not draw this conclusion. In dealing with publicans, John the Baptist instructed them not to abuse their power (Lk 3:13-14). Jesus here was not trying to give hard and fast principles that are applicable under all circumstances, but was stating the ideals which govern His kingdom.
John Walvwoord-series on MATTHEW THY KINGDOM COME, Ch 5 on Matthew 5, 1/1/2008
https://bible.org/seriespage/chapter-5-moral-principles-kingdom
Jim Parker
Member
How about when a group of murdering thugs accost you, your wife and your children?
Do you defend them or do you just turn your other cheek and watch you wife and children raped and murdered while rejoicing in serving the king?
just wondering....
godsquadgeek
Member
I just posted six or eight pastors and commentaries that support christian police and christian military members. Check it out. They don't have any references to their arguments, just comes from some blog somewhere randomly. Basic hermeneutics, if it's new, it's not true. If it's true it's not new and it has a history of supporters.
Drew
Member
The thing about the centurion is a common argument but it is not very convincing. The argument appears to be that since Jesus did not rebuke the centurion for participating in a system of armed force, that Jesus is OK with it. Well, if Jesus took the time to criticize every person he met for their various sins, he would never get anything else done.
Drew
Member
Where, in this long tale, is an explanation as to why the swords fulfilled the prophecy that Jesus be numbered among transgressors?
Nowhere.
This oversight is fatal to the argument. Jesus clearly means to tell us that he wanted his followers to appear to be a band of armed hooligans thus, of course, fulfilling the prophecy!
Any explanation for Luke 22 must deal with the "numbered with transgressors" prophecy to be remotely taken seriously.