Why did Jesus tell his disciples to carry swords?

[Nessa]

http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/video-dai ... z3oIVzvG3c

[Nessa]

Should she have shot the 12yr old?

[RickD]

I think the REAL question is...

What the hell is a lolly bag?

[Nessa]

I think the REAL question is...

What the hell is a lolly bag?

US: candy bags
Everywhere else: lolly bags

[PaulSacramento]

Jesus told his disciples to carry swords for protection.

Seems pretty obvious.

Did they Rick?
Did they fight back against the Romans or when being thrown out of the synagogues?
Any record of Christians doing that?

[RickD]

Jesus told his disciples to carry swords for protection.

Seems pretty obvious.

Did they Rick?
Did they fight back against the Romans or when being thrown out of the synagogues?
Any record of Christians doing that?

Did they Rick, what?

I said Jesus told the disciples to carry swords for their protection. Jesus is a he, not a they.

If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

I suppose he was telling them to buy a sword to use as a letter opener.

[PaulSacramento]

Jesus told his disciples to carry swords for protection.

Seems pretty obvious.

Did they Rick?
Did they fight back against the Romans or when being thrown out of the synagogues?
Any record of Christians doing that?

Did they Rick, what?

I said Jesus told the disciples to carry swords for their protection. Jesus is a he, not a they.

If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

I suppose he was telling them to buy a sword to use as a letter opener.

Did they ( His followers) indeed carry swords and use them to protect themselves?
Other than Peter who was rebuked?
Was there any record of Christian ever fighting back against the Romans or their persecutors?
While it is easy to take what Jesus said at face value( though it doesn't mean we SHOULD), if we really wanna know what He meant OR how His followers understood them, we have to take into account what they actually did.
Again, outside of Peter, there is no record of Christians arming themselves and fighting against persecution.

[B. W.]

Jesus told his disciples to carry swords for protection.

Seems pretty obvious.

Did they Rick?
Did they fight back against the Romans or when being thrown out of the synagogues?
Any record of Christians doing that?

Did they Rick, what?

I said Jesus told the disciples to carry swords for their protection. Jesus is a he, not a they.

If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

I suppose he was telling them to buy a sword to use as a letter opener.

Did they ( His followers) indeed carry swords and use them to protect themselves?
Other than Peter who was rebuked?
Was there any record of Christian ever fighting back against the Romans or their persecutors?
While it is easy to take what Jesus said at face value( though it doesn't mean we SHOULD), if we really wanna know what He meant OR how His followers understood them, we have to take into account what they actually did.
Again, outside of Peter, there is no record of Christians arming themselves and fighting against persecution.

Does not mean that they didn't protect themselves carry large sums of money back to Jerusalem other than - perils of robbers...

It never says that that the disciples ate lentils or that they ate the bread they broke...

And by the way, how many angels can dance on the head of a stick pin?
-
-
-

[Philip]

OK, let's please leave Peter and the scene of smiting the ear in the garden out of this! Peter was attempting to prevent the very thing Jesus came here to do (be arrested, convicted, killed, gloriously resurrected!). Peter still had not changed his attitude over this, as remember why Jesus previously rebuked him over his attitude over this very issue, when Jesus had emphasize what was going to happen to Him.

Also, very interesting: Jesus well knew Peter had that sword before he ever used it. Those disciples that had those two swords they responded to Jesus and His cautions over - He well knew of these as well. So, if He deemed these unacceptable offensive weapons of violence, why did He tolerate them in His midst? Why never a rebuke - EVEN WHEN His disciples revealed there presence? What were they for - back scratchers? Roasting marshmallows? And just think of the teachable moment that the question and answer about the two swords presented - what better point to powerfully crush the idea that self defensive use of weapons is acceptable - instead, the simple response: "That is enough!" AND, He sees having or obtaining a sword being so practical that He tells the disciples that if they DON'T HAVE a sword, to sell their cloak and buy one. To me, this is an unspinnable passage.

There IS "a time to kill," to defend, to protect, etc. That is what Scripture teaches. But there is also a time not to. We want to love our enemies, but there are times when THEY force our hand in the opposite direction. Yes, frighten off IF possible. ONLY wound IF you can. But these are not always options. You either stand up to evil or you don't. And that is the example in Scripture as well. People can cherry pick Scriptures as they so desire, but they must look across the whole of Scripture as well as context.

[PaulSacramento]

Jesus told his disciples to carry swords for protection.

Seems pretty obvious.

Did they Rick?
Did they fight back against the Romans or when being thrown out of the synagogues?
Any record of Christians doing that?

Did they Rick, what?

I said Jesus told the disciples to carry swords for their protection. Jesus is a he, not a they.

If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

I suppose he was telling them to buy a sword to use as a letter opener.

Did they ( His followers) indeed carry swords and use them to protect themselves?
Other than Peter who was rebuked?
Was there any record of Christian ever fighting back against the Romans or their persecutors?
While it is easy to take what Jesus said at face value( though it doesn't mean we SHOULD), if we really wanna know what He meant OR how His followers understood them, we have to take into account what they actually did.
Again, outside of Peter, there is no record of Christians arming themselves and fighting against persecution.

Does not mean that they didn't protect themselves carry large sums of money back to Jerusalem other than - perils of robbers...

It never says that that the disciples ate lentils or that they ate the bread they broke...

And by the way, how many angels can dance on the head of a stick pin?
-
-
-

Oh, I don't doubt that they did, my point is that nowhere do you see it written in the historical accounts of Christians being violent, or fighting back.
On the contrary actually, they were renowned for their pacifism as well as charity.

IMO, it is important to NOT read MORE into what Jesus said about "take up the sword" so as to justify violence.
His very explicit statement on "live by the sword and die by the sword" carries far less ambiguities then His comment on "sell your cloak and buy one".

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
Oh, I don't doubt that they did, my point is that nowhere do you see it written in the historical accounts of Christians being violent, or fighting back.
On the contrary actually, they were renowned for their pacifism as well as charity.

Nowhere is it written in the historical accounts, of Christians being violent, or fighting back?

Did the Crusades slip your memory?

Not that it matters, as far as this discussion. But really?

[Philip]

Paul: IMO, it is important to NOT read MORE into what Jesus said about "take up the sword" so as to justify violence.
His very explicit statement on "live by the sword and die by the sword" carries far less ambiguities then His comment on "sell your cloak and buy one."

And so, who would LIVE by the sword? Farmers? Peasants? Laborers? NO! People of violence and conquerors! Thieves! Those in ANY army, employed defensively or aggressively. And so, what should such people expect that their occupation would likely incur but death BY THE SWORD???!!! Again, people want to spin even this saying to promote a supposed pacifist meaning.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
Oh, I don't doubt that they did, my point is that nowhere do you see it written in the historical accounts of Christians being violent, or fighting back.
On the contrary actually, they were renowned for their pacifism as well as charity.

Nowhere is it written in the historical accounts, of Christians being violent, or fighting back?

Did the Crusades slip your memory?

Not that it matters, as far as this discussion. But really?

LOL !

[PaulSacramento]

Paul: IMO, it is important to NOT read MORE into what Jesus said about "take up the sword" so as to justify violence.
His very explicit statement on "live by the sword and die by the sword" carries far less ambiguities then His comment on "sell your cloak and buy one."

And so, who would LIVE by the sword? Farmers? Peasants? Laborers? NO! People of violence and conquerors! Thieves! Those in ANY army, employed defensively or aggressively. And so, what should such people expect that their occupation would likely incur but death BY THE SWORD???!!! Again, people want to spin even this saying to promote a supposed pacifist meaning.

It's not about pacifism OR militantism.
BOTH extremes are wrong.

Just as one can NOT use "live by the sword, die by the sword" to justify pacifism, you can't use " go out and buy a sword" to justify going around armed.

The apostles and at least the first generation Christians knew this and that is why there wasn't any evidence of violence being used by them against their persecutors ( though I am sure there probably were some isolated cases of course).

[RickD]

Should she have shot the 12yr old?

I think so. She should've grabbed her broom, aimed it at the tyke, and yelled, "PEW, PEW". Like the sound of laser guns in Star Wars.

But seriously, what kind of crazy gun laws do you kiwis have, that allow a 12 year old to have a gun permit?