JustinM Posted January 5, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 144 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,512 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 625 Days Won: 10 Joined: 04/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/07/1979 Share Posted January 5, 2016 18 minutes ago, completedbeliever1 said: I tell ya, this is not a big deal. No matter what our founding fathers wrote, and what it is for, we as christians should not own guns. That is my observation of how the scriptures read. How can we protect the ones we love if we do not have weapons? Easy. We stop abiding by a man made article, and follow the article by YAH. We are NOT Americans. We have another country, and one that was not made by man. We should be seeking first the kingdom, and everything beyond that is just something extra. We should not fight. We should ALWAYS stand for what we believe, without violence. If it means death, then it is death. Since we believe in the resurrection, we should not fear death. Lets not worry about what Ammon Bundy is doing. LEt us not worry about what Obama is doing. Let us seek first the kingdom, and we will be okay. Jesus's disciples were instructed to bear arms. So, what scriptures are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SINNERSAVED Posted January 5, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 6 Topic Count: 150 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 2,195 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 2,409 Days Won: 14 Joined: 07/30/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted January 5, 2016 13 minutes ago, JustinM said: Jesus's disciples were instructed to bear arms. So, what scriptures are you referring to? I agree with you brother, and it was a statement for general purpose not directed to you, blessings brother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
completedbeliever1 Posted January 5, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 3 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 181 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 184 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/06/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/15/1975 Share Posted January 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, JustinM said: Jesus's disciples were instructed to bear arms. So, what scriptures are you referring to? No, they were not instructed to have any weapons. Peter told Yashua that they had two swords, and Yashua said, that is enough. Many scholars have said that Yashua was saying that they had enough weapons, but what he was doing was rebuking Peter. Yet, it had to be fulfilled. Then, they go to the mount of olives. There, he tells the disciples to pray to not fall into temptation. In light of what he was saying before, rebuking Peter at the last supper, he is saying the same thing here, knowing that Peter and the others will strike with the sword. But he warned them not to fall into that temptation. Then just as he had predicted, Peter in his zealous nature, asked to strike, but Yashua didnt have a chance to reply before Peter cuts off the guards ear. Yashua replied, "No more of this!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted January 5, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.34 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 5, 2016 3 hours ago, JustinM said: On the other hand, if Clinton supports his executive actions, she may be able to motivate her base enough to get her elected, but I doubt it, they have been pretty fat and happy for the last 8 years, getting everything they have ever dreamed of from this President, I don't see much of anything left for them to get excited about. If it was only from the President, that would be one thing. But when they have been getting everything from the RINOs without a murmur, that should be extremely disturbing. That was betrayal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted January 5, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,711 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,528 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted January 5, 2016 He's really out of touch if he thinks the majority of Americans want this...it may come back and bite him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted January 5, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,229 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,954 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted January 5, 2016 2 hours ago, completedbeliever1 said: I tell ya, this is not a big deal. No matter what our founding fathers wrote, and what it is for, we as christians should not own guns. That is my observation of how the scriptures read. How can we protect the ones we love if we do not have weapons? Easy. We stop abiding by a man made article, and follow the article by YAH. We are NOT Americans. We have another country, and one that was not made by man. We should be seeking first the kingdom, and everything beyond that is just something extra. We should not fight. We should ALWAYS stand for what we believe, without violence. If it means death, then it is death. Since we believe in the resurrection, we should not fear death. Lets not worry about what Ammon Bundy is doing. LEt us not worry about what Obama is doing. Let us seek first the kingdom, and we will be okay. that's pretty shallow. Why is it that the first time Jesus told the disciples to go out to teach he told them not to take anything with them, not even an extra coat and no money at all...... people had no wealth and was not a target for thieves. But the second time he sent them out he told them to take extra money and coat and a weapon...... even if they had to sell an extra coat to afford it take a weapon. So I disagree that the bible says we are not to be armed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted January 5, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,229 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,954 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted January 5, 2016 1 hour ago, the_patriot2015 said: He's really out of touch if he thinks the majority of Americans want this...it may come back and bite him. I think it may be good for Trump and Cruise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted January 5, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,711 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,528 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted January 5, 2016 16 minutes ago, other one said: I think it may be good for Trump and Cruise. Let's hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
completedbeliever1 Posted January 5, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 3 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 181 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 184 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/06/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/15/1975 Share Posted January 5, 2016 1 hour ago, other one said: that's pretty shallow. Why is it that the first time Jesus told the disciples to go out to teach he told them not to take anything with them, not even an extra coat and no money at all...... people had no wealth and was not a target for thieves. But the second time he sent them out he told them to take extra money and coat and a weapon...... even if they had to sell an extra coat to afford it take a weapon. So I disagree that the bible says we are not to be armed. It really is the truth. The second time was not to protect their wealth with a sword, as you are thinking.... Here, read this article. "The historical context of Luke 22:36 demonstrates that for three years Jesus avoided making a public, triumphal entry of his visits to Jerusalem because he understood that when he set foot in the holy city in this way, he would fulfill his mission to die, in a death that looked like one of a common criminal, just as Isaiah the prophet had predicted hundreds of years before (Is. 53:12). He needed to complete his work outside of Jerusalem. Now, however, Jesus finally enters the city famous for killing her prophets (Luke 13:33-34), a few days before his arrest, trial and crucifixion, all of which he predicted. Religious leaders were spying on him and asked him trick questions, so they could incriminate him (Luke 20:20). These insincere questions, though they were also asked before he entered the city, increased in frequency during these compacted tense days. But he answered impressively, avoiding their traps. Despite the tension, each day Jesus taught in the temple, and crowds gathered around him, so the authorities could not arrest him, for fear of the people. Then Judas volunteered to betray him, saying that he would report back to the authorities when no crowd was present (Luke 22:1-6). As Passover drew near, Jesus asked some of his disciples to prepare the Last Supper (most likely the Seder). He elevated the bread and the wine, representing his body and blood, which was broken and shed for the sins of the world in the New Covenant (Luke 22:17-20). However, during the meal, Judas slipped out to search for the authorities because he knew that it was the custom of Jesus to go to the Mount of Olives to pray (Luke 21:37), and that night would be no different. At this point we pick up the textual context of Luke 22:36 (bold print). He is eating the Last Supper on the night he was betrayed. Luke 22:35-38 says: 35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], "When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "No, not a thing." 36 He said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled." 38 They [the disciples] said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "It is enough," he replied. (NRSV) The textual context reveals at least two truths. First, Jesus contrasts his ministry before his arrival in Jerusalem with the tense few days in Jerusalem when spies and the authorities themselves were seeking to trap him. Does the tension play a part in understanding why he told his disciples to go out and buy swords? This is answered, below. Second, he says that he would be arrested and tried as a criminal, as the prophecy in Is. 53:12 predicted. Does this have anything to do with swords? Do criminals carry them around? This too is explained, below. Jesus may have a deeper meaning in mind than the violent use of the swords. What is it? The interpretation of the verses can follow either a strictly physical direction in which swords must be used, or a nonphysical one in which swords must not be used, during Jesus’ last hours. The surest and clearest direction is the nonliteral one, but first we analyze why the literal one will not fit into Luke 22:34-38 and into the passage about the arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:39-53). Jesus says to the disciples to buy swords, but when they show him two, Jesus says the two are enough. The first direction, the literal one, is inadequate for two reasons. First, the obvious question is: two swords are enough for what? Are they enough for a physical fight to resist arrest? This is hardly the case because during Jesus’ arrest a disciple (Peter according to John 18:10) took out his sword and cut off the ear of the servant (Malchus according to John 18:10) of the high priest. Jesus sternly tells Peter to put away his sword, "No more of this!" and then he heals the servant, restoring his ear (Luke 22:49-51). Resisting arrest cannot be the purpose of the two swords. Second, were the two swords enough for an armed rebellion to resist the authorities and to impose the new Jesus movement in a political and military way? Jesus denounces this purpose in Luke 22:52, as the authorities are in the process of arresting him: "Am I leading a rebellion that you have come with swords and clubs?" The answer is no, as he is seized and led away (v. 54). So the physical interpretation of Luke 22:36 (the two swords were intended to be used) will not work in the larger context. Two swords are not enough to resist arrest, to pull off a revolt of some kind, or to fully protect themselves in the Garden of Gethsemane. "The contextual meaning of the swords In contrast to the literal interpretation of using swords physically, the following interpretation works smoothly in context so that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. First, Jesus reminds the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 9:3; 10:1-17). Did they need a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because people were friendlier, and their opposition to him was spread out over three years. Now, however, he is in Jerusalem, and he has undergone the compacted antagonism of religious leaders seeking to trap him with self-incriminating words. When the authorities are not present, they send their spies. The atmosphere is therefore tense, and the two swords—no more than that—represent the tension. Jesus’ mission has shifted to a clear danger, and the disciples must beware. However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, as we just saw in the literal interpretation, above, for he is about to tell Peter to put away his sword. Second, "For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’" (Luke 22:37). By far the clearest purpose of the two swords is Jesus’ reference to Isaiah’s prophecy (53:12). He was destined to be arrested like a criminal, put on trial like a criminal, and even crucified like a criminal (but his arrest, trial, and execution were based on false evidence. He did nothing but good.) Yet, he was hung on the cross between two thieves, which is also a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Luke 23:32; 39-43). What are criminals known for carrying with them? Weapons, and to be numbered among criminals, Jesus must also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough—to fulfill this prophecy. Also, Matthew mentions fulfilling prophecy (26:54). If Peter had kept on physically using the sword to prevent Christ’s arrest, prophecy would not have been accomplished smoothly and without hindrance. Jesus says that he could call on twelve legions of angels to protect him, meaning he is destined by God to die; he was not permitted to stop even the mighty Roman Empire from fulfilling its role (Matt. 26:53). That is why Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in its place (Matt. 26:52). And in Luke he says to Peter after the disciple cut off an ear, "No more of this!" (22:51). The third and final nonliteral interpretation says that Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep and so on) to teach nonphysical, universal truths, and the same is possibly true of the two swords. This interpretation of clarification is supported by Matt. 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword." As seen in this article on Matt. 10:34, in context he does not mean a physical sword that cuts up and bloodies the family, but a spiritual and moral one that may divide it up nonphysically. And it is precisely Luke who clarifies Jesus’ meaning of "sword" as nonliteral, in the two parallel passages of Matt. 10:34 and Luke 12:51. If Luke does this in 12:51, then why would he not shift slightly the meaning of "sword" in 22:36-38?" "A Brief Explanation of the Sword in Luke 22:36 James M. Arlandson" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted January 5, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted January 5, 2016 3 hours ago, JustinM said: Jesus's disciples were instructed to bear arms. So, what scriptures are you referring to? I wouldn't call what Jesus said an instruction to bear arms. It was for fulfillment of the scriptures which is even stated in the very same place. There is no record of any disciple carrying a sword again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts