Evidence for God from Science

phillip wrote: One needs to justify protecting their family???!!! Even Jesus told his disciples to carry a sword - the handgun of the day

Phillips comment in the gun thread caught my eye.

I found this article which gives one suggestion..
http://reknew.org/2008/01/why-does-jesu ... k-2236-37/

What do you guys think?

Nessa wrote:

phillip wrote: One needs to justify protecting their family???!!! Even Jesus told his disciples to carry a sword - the handgun of the day

Phillips comment in the gun thread caught my eye.

I found this article which gives one suggestion..
http://reknew.org/2008/01/why-does-jesu ... k-2236-37/

What do you guys think?

Jesus was not advocating spreading the word by sword or for his disciples to protect him or for fighting against the Roman soldiers,it was for self defense for the disciples,this is why Jesus makes it clear that he is about to be crucified. It was for self defense for his disciples however because we do not spread the word by the sword the disciples never used their swords to do it.

Also biblically there are only about three ways you can kill and it is not murder in the eyes of God. If you are a soldier in a war you can use any force necessary in battle to kill as long as you are following orders,also if you are apart of law enforcement upholding the laws of the land or for self defense of you and your family. Thou shalt not kill means murder.

One bible passage can not contradict another.
It is clear, just as that article states, that Jesus was against violence.
History shows that no Christian ever fought back during the persecutions ( though I am sure some may have, the number was so insignificant that there is no record of it).
So, what did Jesus mean when He said :

35 And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36 And He said to them, “But now, [e]whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and [f]whoever has no sword is to sell his [g]coat and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its [h]fulfillment.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

He quite obviously did NOT means for them to go armed as he rebuke of them (it is enough) shows, so what did he mean?

He statement of "‘And He was numbered with transgressors’, was a prophetic statement that He would be associated with rebels ( and he was) and that some would actually use violence ( Peter did).

PaulSacramento wrote:One bible passage can not contradict another.
It is clear, just as that article states, that Jesus was against violence.
History shows that no Christian ever fought back during the persecutions ( though I am sure some may have, the number was so insignificant that there is no record of it).
So, what did Jesus mean when He said :

35 And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36 And He said to them, “But now, [e]whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and [f]whoever has no sword is to sell his [g]coat and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its [h]fulfillment.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

He quite obviously did NOT means for them to go armed as he rebuke of them (it is enough) shows, so what did he mean?

He statement of "‘And He was numbered with transgressors’, was a prophetic statement that He would be associated with rebels ( and he was) and that some would actually use violence ( Peter did).

Sorry but I don't buy it. Jesus knew he was about to be crucified before he even asked them. Jesus was saying went I sent you out preaching and ministering did you lack anything? And they said NO,then he said but now I'm telling you to go and sell whatever you have and buy you a sword,then says the things concerning me have an end,because he was about to be crucified,it was out of concern for their well being that he told them to now buy a sword.To interpret it like you do you makes it seem like Jesus staged it by making them look like aggessors ready to take on Rome,etc and that was not what happened,they already were carrying swords and he was making sure they were out of concern for them.They were actually afraid while Jesus was being crucified.

Just because we have a gun for protection does not mean we would not ever be in situations where we become martyrs like Christians in the past. But also it does not prove you love Jesus if you were willing to lay your life down for him if real faith,hope and love is not behind it,some people if their heart is not right can be willing to die because of misery,etc in their lives.

Jesus know the future and the truth of Eccl 3:1-8 concerning the times.

Sadly, Christians are taught to ignore discerning the times.

It is true historically that people sickened of the slaughter of Christians in the Roman arenas and pogroms enacted against Christians thus winning the much of the world for Christ for a period of time. It is also true historically that that if the church remained silent and just accepted the Muslim Invasion during the late the middle ages by taking the pacifist approach the world would be a darker place now.

Jesus was saying, that under the Holy Spirit's guidance and influence, He will grant us the ability to discern the times correctly when it is a time for war and a time for peace.

Now for all pacifist out there, why bother with Eph 6:10-18 and 2 Co 10:2-6 why even bother with 1 Peter 5:8 regarding the spiritual foes? You should then just submit to the evil and let evil have its way with you and your family, church, life, etc, to prove how true to Jesus you really are?

What has happened to Holt Spirit inspired Christian common sense?
-
-
-

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:One bible passage can not contradict another.
It is clear, just as that article states, that Jesus was against violence.
History shows that no Christian ever fought back during the persecutions ( though I am sure some may have, the number was so insignificant that there is no record of it).
So, what did Jesus mean when He said :

35 And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” 36 And He said to them, “But now, [e]whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and [f]whoever has no sword is to sell his [g]coat and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its [h]fulfillment.” 38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

He quite obviously did NOT means for them to go armed as he rebuke of them (it is enough) shows, so what did he mean?

He statement of "‘And He was numbered with transgressors’, was a prophetic statement that He would be associated with rebels ( and he was) and that some would actually use violence ( Peter did).

Sorry but I don't buy it. Jesus knew he was about to be crucified before he even asked them. Jesus was saying went I sent you out preaching and ministering did you lack anything? And they said NO,then he said but now I'm telling you to go and sell whatever you have and buy you a sword,then says the things concerning me have an end,because he was about to be crucified,it was out of concern for their well being that he told them to now buy a sword.To interpret it like you do you makes it seem like Jesus staged it by making them look like aggessors ready to take on Rome,etc and that was not what happened,they already were carrying swords and he was making sure they were out of concern for them.They were actually afraid while Jesus was being crucified.

Just because we have a gun for protection does not mean we would not ever be in situations where we become martyrs like Christians in the past. But also it does not prove you love Jesus if you were willing to lay your life down for him if real faith,hope and love is not behind it,some people if their heart is not right can be willing to die because of misery,etc in their lives.

What Jesus said to his apostles at the time doesn't really have anything to do with us in a direct sense.
Nothing Jesus said or was written in the NT explicitly states that His followers should arm themselves against aggression and history certainly shows that the majority did NOT fight against persecution and death.
Romans 8:36 even implies that they went as "sheep to the slaughter".
That said, I don't think that Christ DEMANDS of all of us to not fight back when we CAN.
We need to realize that for the persecuted Christians of that time, fighting back was NOT possible against Rome and would have made things even worse.
We can never forget that Jesus and His apostles spoke and wrote to people DIRECTLY that were going to go through a tremendous tribulation and they were being prepared for that.

It is clear that it was a practical advice related to coming threats and for their safety. They even indicated to Jesus that they had two swords in their possession - of which, His response is, "it is enough, to me, means that, WITH GOD'S PROTECTION, that is all they would need. Notice, we don't see some admonishment of them arming themselves, of them supposedly having more faith in having a weapon as having faith in God (remember, JESUS is the one who suggested they arm themselves). Being armed was the disciples part; the protection and empowerment of how these swords might be employed was God's part. The second part, obviously, was FAR more important. Israel had an army, and while God wanted them to have that and guided its use, He also limited its number, as He did not want them to miss that their ultimate protection was from the Him.

No thats not clear.

If Jesus really meant it that way then why two swords? Why isnt one enough?

Nessa wrote:No thats not clear.

If Jesus really meant it that way then why two swords? Why isnt one enough?

In case one breaks. Duh!

Why did the golfer bring two pairs of pants?

In case he got a hole in one.

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:No thats not clear.

If Jesus really meant it that way then why two swords? Why isnt one enough?

In case one breaks. Duh!

Why did the golfer bring two pairs of pants?

In case he got a hole in one.

That at least would make more sense

If Jesus really meant it that way then why two swords? Why isnt one enough?

Why five whole loaves? Two fishes? Did He really need ANY loaves or fishes? Why suggest ANY swords, following that logic - I mean, did Moses REALLY need a staff? It is interesting that people are disturbed that Jesus might suggest that one take practical measures to defend themselves. Is Jesus not God? Does God CHANGE? Is this not the same God who instructed the land be eradicated of unbelieving pagans? When Israel's enemies attacked, why did they need an army, swords, shields, lances, bow and arrows, horses, chariots, etc., if God only needed to miraculously vanquish them? Or were such things not tools God worked through man's use of to accomplish His objectives of warfare, which were often (but not always) defensive in nature? So why NOT two measly swords?

Philip wrote:

If Jesus really meant it that way then why two swords? Why isnt one enough?

Why five whole loaves? Two fishes? Did He really need ANY loaves or fishes? Why suggest ANY swords, following that logic - I mean, did Moses REALLY need a staff? It is interesting that people are disturbed that Jesus might suggest that one take practical measures to defend themselves. Is Jesus not God? Does God CHANGE? Is this not the same God who instructed the land be eradicated of unbelieving pagans? When Israel's enemies attacked, why did they need an army, swords, shields, lances, bow and arrows, horses, chariots, etc., if God only needed to miraculously vanquish them? Or were such things not tools God worked through man's use of to accomplish His objectives of warfare, which were often (but not always) defensive in nature? So why NOT two measly swords?

it is clear that it was a practical advice related to coming threats and for their safety. They even indicated to Jesus that they had two swords in their possession - of which, His response is, "it is enough, to me, means that, WITH GOD'S PROTECTION, that is all they would need

I was just trying to challenge you with your thinking that two swords would 'be enough'
Like its some kind of equation: jesus + two swords = enough.

You did seem to indicate in your other post that you were giving that equation

I cant see Jesus thinking like that. He is already enough. Its not a question of what else we need
to 'be enough' in this case. Its looking at what being enough really meant here.

He said about getting a legion of angels to help him if he needed Matthew 26:53 . Thats my point. But he chooses to use different things for different reasons.

Now dont take me out of context saying well we might as well not go to work cos jesus is 'enough' he will provide.....it might tempt rick to quit his job

Rick's wife says that God told her that he should have TWO jobs - as one is not enough! What if He ever gave Rick that mandate with wives? TWO???!!!