How do you justify violence as a Christian?
Comments
-
Dave & David,
Consider this contribution to the conversation...
George Kalantzis’ illustrates that before the age of Constantine, there was a firm Christian “non-violent” witness; at least as far as written theological treatises are concerned. That is, a strong conviction that violence in all its forms is un-Christian. Whether retributive, defensive, or military, violence is seen by these early theologians as deeply out of step for a people who worship a God who submitted to violence out of love for His enemies and attackers.
What About Self-Defense?
Most relevant to today’s conversation is where Ambrose, in one of his dogmatic treatises, directly addresses the question of self-defense:
- “…yet I do not think that a Christian, a just and a wise man, ought to save his own life by the death of another; just as when he meets with an armed robber he cannot return his blows, lest in defending his life he should stain his love toward his neighbor. The verdict on this is plain and clear in the books of the Gospel. Put up your sword, for every one that takes the sword shall perish with the sword.”
Ambrose’s mention of “love toward neighbor,” as a paradigm for how one treats an assailant is crucial. For Ambrose, love of neighbor translates into an obligation to preserve the life of a neighbor, even when that neighbor is an assailant. If someone privileges their own life over another, even an attacker, they are guilty of not loving their neighbor.
"If one believes in legitimate violence, they must acknowledge non-violence as a Christian value."
He continues,
- “Why do you consider yourself greater than another, when a Christian man ought to put others before himself, to claim nothing for himself, usurp no honours, claim no reward for his merits? . . . . A virtuous and a shameful life cannot go together, since they are absolutely severed by the law of nature”
Ambrose is explicit that the equality of all humans before God implies that the Christian cannot privilege his or her own life above any one else’s, not even an enemy. To do anything else is shameful and un-virtuous.
Sources:
-- George Kalantzis, Caesar and the Lamb: Early Christian Attitudes on War and Military Service (Wipf & Stock, 2012).-- Lois J. Swift, “St. Ambrose on Violence and War,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 101 (1970), p. 534.
Other resources, if you can find it: CM
-- Does God want Christians to arm themselves for the purpose of self-defense?
-- http://www.missioalliance.org/weapons-violence-and-peace-according-to-a-fourth-century-bishop/ via @missioalliance-- Love thy sinful neighbor, even at risk of your own safety.
---http://www.missioalliance.org/weapons-violence-and-peace-according-to-a-fourth-century-bishop/ via @missioalliance
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
-
@C_M_ said:
Dave & David,Consider this contribution to the conversation...
George Kalantzis’ illustrates that before the age of Constantine, there was a firm Christian “non-violent” witness; at least as far as written theological treatises are concerned. That is, a strong conviction that violence in all its forms is un-Christian. Whether retributive, defensive, or military, violence is seen by these early theologians as deeply out of step for a people who worship a God who submitted to violence out of love for His enemies and attackers.
What About Self-Defense?
Most relevant to today’s conversation is where Ambrose, in one of his dogmatic treatises, directly addresses the question of self-defense:
- “…yet I do not think that a Christian, a just and a wise man, ought to save his own life by the death of another; just as when he meets with an armed robber he cannot return his blows, lest in defending his life he should stain his love toward his neighbor. The verdict on this is plain and clear in the books of the Gospel. Put up your sword, for every one that takes the sword shall perish with the sword.”
Ambrose’s mention of “love toward neighbor,” as a paradigm for how one treats an assailant is crucial. For Ambrose, love of neighbor translates into an obligation to preserve the life of a neighbor, even when that neighbor is an assailant. If someone privileges their own life over another, even an attacker, they are guilty of not loving their neighbor.
"If one believes in legitimate violence, they must acknowledge non-violence as a Christian value."
He continues,
- “Why do you consider yourself greater than another, when a Christian man ought to put others before himself, to claim nothing for himself, usurp no honours, claim no reward for his merits? . . . . A virtuous and a shameful life cannot go together, since they are absolutely severed by the law of nature”
Ambrose is explicit that the equality of all humans before God implies that the Christian cannot privilege his or her own life above any one else’s, not even an enemy. To do anything else is shameful and un-virtuous.
Sources:
-- George Kalantzis, Caesar and the Lamb: Early Christian Attitudes on War and Military Service (Wipf & Stock, 2012).-- Lois J. Swift, “St. Ambrose on Violence and War,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 101 (1970), p. 534.
Other resources, if you can find it: CM
-- Does God want Christians to arm themselves for the purpose of self-defense?
-- http://www.missioalliance.org/weapons-violence-and-peace-according-to-a-fourth-century-bishop/ via @missioalliance-- Love thy sinful neighbor, even at risk of your own safety.
---http://www.missioalliance.org/weapons-violence-and-peace-according-to-a-fourth-century-bishop/ via @missioalliance
Thanks for the clear cut examples. This helps me to understand what I'm trying to say. It appears you posted the same link twice. Which BTW is a very good article.
-
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for the clear-cut examples. This helps me to understand what I'm trying to say. It appears you posted the same link twice. Which BTW is a very good article.
"...if you can find it."
You decide. I am just the supplier. Enjoy. CM
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
The Two Swords interpretation rests solidly on scripture, more than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
You are the one that is adding the interpretation into your reading. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors regardless of the swords in two ways.
- They were outlaws.
- He hung between two transgressors on the cross.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
You are the one that is adding the interpretation into your reading. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors regardless of the swords in two ways.
- They were outlaws.
- He hung between two transgressors on the cross.
But according to Luke, it was the swords that made Jesus a transgressor in the eyes of those arresting him.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
You are the one that is adding the interpretation into your reading. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors regardless of the swords in two ways.
- They were outlaws.
- He hung between two transgressors on the cross.
But according to Luke, it was the swords that made Jesus a transgressor in the eyes of those arresting him.
No, that is according to YOUR reading of Luke.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
You are the one that is adding the interpretation into your reading. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors regardless of the swords in two ways.
- They were outlaws.
- He hung between two transgressors on the cross.
But according to Luke, it was the swords that made Jesus a transgressor in the eyes of those arresting him.
No, that is according to YOUR reading of Luke.
Why would Luke include a "transgressors" tools in the narrative about Jesus being numbered with the transgressors, if not pertinent?
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
You are the one that is adding the interpretation into your reading. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors regardless of the swords in two ways.
- They were outlaws.
- He hung between two transgressors on the cross.
But according to Luke, it was the swords that made Jesus a transgressor in the eyes of those arresting him.
No, that is according to YOUR reading of Luke.
Why would Luke include a "transgressors" tools in the narrative about Jesus being numbered with the transgressors, if not pertinent?
And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Even if the exact interpretation of this verse is uncertain,49 it is clear that a new situation is envisioned. The disciples would soon encounter greater opposition and even persecution (cf. Acts 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). The reference to the purchase of a sword is strange. Attempts to interpret this literally as a Zealot-like call to arms, however, are misguided and come to grief over the saying’s very “strangeness.” Understood as a call to arms, this saying not only does not fit Jesus’ other teachings but radically conflicts with them. Also if two swords are “enough” (22:38), war with the legions of Rome was certainly not envisioned. See 20:20–26, “Context.” The “sword” is best understood in some metaphorical sense as indicating being spiritually armed and prepared for battle against the spiritual foes. The desperate need to be “armed” for these future events is evident by the command to sell one’s mantle, for this garment was essential to keep warm at night (see comments on 6:29).
22:37 It is written … must be fulfilled in me. For a more literal translation of this verse see the RSV. Once again the divine “must” (dei) appears. Jesus’ forthcoming death had been foretold in Scripture, so that it was not fate or tragedy that awaited him but the fulfillment of the divine will and plan. See Introduction 8 (1). The divine passive is present in the infinitive “be fulfilled,” i.e., God will fulfill it in me.
p 556 He was numbered with the transgressors. Compare Isa 53:12. This finds its fulfillment for Luke in 23:32–33, 39–43. This is the only place in the Gospels where Isa 53 is quoted.
What is written about me is reaching its fulfillment. This last clause in the Greek text can mean either (1) What is written about me is now to be fulfilled or (2) What has been written about me now comes to its climax. The difference is not so much one of substance as nuance. Each interpretation reinforces the first part of the verse, which emphasizes the central place of Jesus’ death in Scripture and God’s sovereign rule in all that was about to take place. The purpose of this verse is to explain the “but now” of Luke 22:36. Whereas their union of destinies will one day lead to the apostles’ sharing in the Son of Man’s reign (22:29–30), in the more immediate future the treatment facing Jesus also awaited them. Thus they must arm themselves with a similar resolve to fulfill God’s plan for them despite prison, persecution, and even death.
22:38 See, Lord, here are two swords. The disciples misunderstood Jesus’ words in 22:36 by interpreting them literally, and their lack of understanding is most evident at this point. That they were armed is evident from 22:49–50. The wearing of a sword for protection against thieves was common (Sabb. 6:4).
“That is enough,” he replied. Clearly two swords were not enough for any planned armed resistance. Jesus’ words are best understood as breaking off further conversation as in Deut 3:26, i.e., “Enough of this [foolish] conversation.” Compare also 1 Kgs 19:4; 1 Chr 21:15.Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 555–556.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
You are the one that is adding the interpretation into your reading. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors regardless of the swords in two ways.
- They were outlaws.
- He hung between two transgressors on the cross.
But according to Luke, it was the swords that made Jesus a transgressor in the eyes of those arresting him.
No, that is according to YOUR reading of Luke.
Why would Luke include a "transgressors" tools in the narrative about Jesus being numbered with the transgressors, if not pertinent?
And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Even if the exact interpretation of this verse is uncertain,49 it is clear that a new situation is envisioned. The disciples would soon encounter greater opposition and even persecution (cf. Acts 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). The reference to the purchase of a sword is strange. Attempts to interpret this literally as a Zealot-like call to arms, however, are misguided and come to grief over the saying’s very “strangeness.” Understood as a call to arms, this saying not only does not fit Jesus’ other teachings but radically conflicts with them. Also if two swords are “enough” (22:38), war with the legions of Rome was certainly not envisioned. See 20:20–26, “Context.” The “sword” is best understood in some metaphorical sense as indicating being spiritually armed and prepared for battle against the spiritual foes. The desperate need to be “armed” for these future events is evident by the command to sell one’s mantle, for this garment was essential to keep warm at night (see comments on 6:29).
22:37 It is written … must be fulfilled in me. For a more literal translation of this verse see the RSV. Once again the divine “must” (dei) appears. Jesus’ forthcoming death had been foretold in Scripture, so that it was not fate or tragedy that awaited him but the fulfillment of the divine will and plan. See Introduction 8 (1). The divine passive is present in the infinitive “be fulfilled,” i.e., God will fulfill it in me.
p 556 He was numbered with the transgressors. Compare Isa 53:12. This finds its fulfillment for Luke in 23:32–33, 39–43. This is the only place in the Gospels where Isa 53 is quoted.
What is written about me is reaching its fulfillment. This last clause in the Greek text can mean either (1) What is written about me is now to be fulfilled or (2) What has been written about me now comes to its climax. The difference is not so much one of substance as nuance. Each interpretation reinforces the first part of the verse, which emphasizes the central place of Jesus’ death in Scripture and God’s sovereign rule in all that was about to take place. The purpose of this verse is to explain the “but now” of Luke 22:36. Whereas their union of destinies will one day lead to the apostles’ sharing in the Son of Man’s reign (22:29–30), in the more immediate future the treatment facing Jesus also awaited them. Thus they must arm themselves with a similar resolve to fulfill God’s plan for them despite prison, persecution, and even death.
22:38 See, Lord, here are two swords. The disciples misunderstood Jesus’ words in 22:36 by interpreting them literally, and their lack of understanding is most evident at this point. That they were armed is evident from 22:49–50. The wearing of a sword for protection against thieves was common (Sabb. 6:4).
“That is enough,” he replied. Clearly two swords were not enough for any planned armed resistance. Jesus’ words are best understood as breaking off further conversation as in Deut 3:26, i.e., “Enough of this [foolish] conversation.” Compare also 1 Kgs 19:4; 1 Chr 21:15.Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 555–556.
Regardless, you would contradict everything Jesus said about non-violence to support your views. And not one shred of scripture suggests you are right when we study the pacifism of the NT figures. The only mention of violence as you would have it, James condemns as carnal mindedness.
No one is more courageous than Jesus and the NT role models we follow. And to have it your way makes cowards of them all.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
You are the one that is adding the interpretation into your reading. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors regardless of the swords in two ways.
- They were outlaws.
- He hung between two transgressors on the cross.
But according to Luke, it was the swords that made Jesus a transgressor in the eyes of those arresting him.
No, that is according to YOUR reading of Luke.
Why would Luke include a "transgressors" tools in the narrative about Jesus being numbered with the transgressors, if not pertinent?
And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Even if the exact interpretation of this verse is uncertain,49 it is clear that a new situation is envisioned. The disciples would soon encounter greater opposition and even persecution (cf. Acts 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). The reference to the purchase of a sword is strange. Attempts to interpret this literally as a Zealot-like call to arms, however, are misguided and come to grief over the saying’s very “strangeness.” Understood as a call to arms, this saying not only does not fit Jesus’ other teachings but radically conflicts with them. Also if two swords are “enough” (22:38), war with the legions of Rome was certainly not envisioned. See 20:20–26, “Context.” The “sword” is best understood in some metaphorical sense as indicating being spiritually armed and prepared for battle against the spiritual foes. The desperate need to be “armed” for these future events is evident by the command to sell one’s mantle, for this garment was essential to keep warm at night (see comments on 6:29).
22:37 It is written … must be fulfilled in me. For a more literal translation of this verse see the RSV. Once again the divine “must” (dei) appears. Jesus’ forthcoming death had been foretold in Scripture, so that it was not fate or tragedy that awaited him but the fulfillment of the divine will and plan. See Introduction 8 (1). The divine passive is present in the infinitive “be fulfilled,” i.e., God will fulfill it in me.
p 556 He was numbered with the transgressors. Compare Isa 53:12. This finds its fulfillment for Luke in 23:32–33, 39–43. This is the only place in the Gospels where Isa 53 is quoted.
What is written about me is reaching its fulfillment. This last clause in the Greek text can mean either (1) What is written about me is now to be fulfilled or (2) What has been written about me now comes to its climax. The difference is not so much one of substance as nuance. Each interpretation reinforces the first part of the verse, which emphasizes the central place of Jesus’ death in Scripture and God’s sovereign rule in all that was about to take place. The purpose of this verse is to explain the “but now” of Luke 22:36. Whereas their union of destinies will one day lead to the apostles’ sharing in the Son of Man’s reign (22:29–30), in the more immediate future the treatment facing Jesus also awaited them. Thus they must arm themselves with a similar resolve to fulfill God’s plan for them despite prison, persecution, and even death.
22:38 See, Lord, here are two swords. The disciples misunderstood Jesus’ words in 22:36 by interpreting them literally, and their lack of understanding is most evident at this point. That they were armed is evident from 22:49–50. The wearing of a sword for protection against thieves was common (Sabb. 6:4).
“That is enough,” he replied. Clearly two swords were not enough for any planned armed resistance. Jesus’ words are best understood as breaking off further conversation as in Deut 3:26, i.e., “Enough of this [foolish] conversation.” Compare also 1 Kgs 19:4; 1 Chr 21:15.Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 555–556.
Regardless, you would contradict everything Jesus said about non-violence to support your views. And not one shred of scripture suggests you are right when we study the pacifism of the NT figures. The only mention of violence as you would have it, James condemns as carnal mindedness.
I've already shown that is not the case.
No one is more courageous than Jesus and the NT role models we follow. And to have it your way makes cowards of them all.
No I don't. That is your crazy twisted interpretation. Fortunately, your interpretation of Scripture, as well as your interpretation of my words, are not reality.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
You are the one that is adding the interpretation into your reading. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors regardless of the swords in two ways.
- They were outlaws.
- He hung between two transgressors on the cross.
But according to Luke, it was the swords that made Jesus a transgressor in the eyes of those arresting him.
No, that is according to YOUR reading of Luke.
Why would Luke include a "transgressors" tools in the narrative about Jesus being numbered with the transgressors, if not pertinent?
And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Even if the exact interpretation of this verse is uncertain,49 it is clear that a new situation is envisioned. The disciples would soon encounter greater opposition and even persecution (cf. Acts 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). The reference to the purchase of a sword is strange. Attempts to interpret this literally as a Zealot-like call to arms, however, are misguided and come to grief over the saying’s very “strangeness.” Understood as a call to arms, this saying not only does not fit Jesus’ other teachings but radically conflicts with them. Also if two swords are “enough” (22:38), war with the legions of Rome was certainly not envisioned. See 20:20–26, “Context.” The “sword” is best understood in some metaphorical sense as indicating being spiritually armed and prepared for battle against the spiritual foes. The desperate need to be “armed” for these future events is evident by the command to sell one’s mantle, for this garment was essential to keep warm at night (see comments on 6:29).
22:37 It is written … must be fulfilled in me. For a more literal translation of this verse see the RSV. Once again the divine “must” (dei) appears. Jesus’ forthcoming death had been foretold in Scripture, so that it was not fate or tragedy that awaited him but the fulfillment of the divine will and plan. See Introduction 8 (1). The divine passive is present in the infinitive “be fulfilled,” i.e., God will fulfill it in me.
p 556 He was numbered with the transgressors. Compare Isa 53:12. This finds its fulfillment for Luke in 23:32–33, 39–43. This is the only place in the Gospels where Isa 53 is quoted.
What is written about me is reaching its fulfillment. This last clause in the Greek text can mean either (1) What is written about me is now to be fulfilled or (2) What has been written about me now comes to its climax. The difference is not so much one of substance as nuance. Each interpretation reinforces the first part of the verse, which emphasizes the central place of Jesus’ death in Scripture and God’s sovereign rule in all that was about to take place. The purpose of this verse is to explain the “but now” of Luke 22:36. Whereas their union of destinies will one day lead to the apostles’ sharing in the Son of Man’s reign (22:29–30), in the more immediate future the treatment facing Jesus also awaited them. Thus they must arm themselves with a similar resolve to fulfill God’s plan for them despite prison, persecution, and even death.
22:38 See, Lord, here are two swords. The disciples misunderstood Jesus’ words in 22:36 by interpreting them literally, and their lack of understanding is most evident at this point. That they were armed is evident from 22:49–50. The wearing of a sword for protection against thieves was common (Sabb. 6:4).
“That is enough,” he replied. Clearly two swords were not enough for any planned armed resistance. Jesus’ words are best understood as breaking off further conversation as in Deut 3:26, i.e., “Enough of this [foolish] conversation.” Compare also 1 Kgs 19:4; 1 Chr 21:15.Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 555–556.
Regardless, you would contradict everything Jesus said about non-violence to support your views. And not one shred of scripture suggests you are right when we study the pacifism of the NT figures. The only mention of violence as you would have it, James condemns as carnal mindedness.
I've already shown that is not the case.
No one is more courageous than Jesus and the NT role models we follow. And to have it your way makes cowards of them all.
No I don't. That is your crazy twisted interpretation. Fortunately, your interpretation of Scripture, as well as your interpretation of my words, are not reality.
Produce one shred of scripture showing any of the disciples using violence to defend themselves. I can show many instances where they did not when confronted.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
You are the one that is adding the interpretation into your reading. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors regardless of the swords in two ways.
- They were outlaws.
- He hung between two transgressors on the cross.
But according to Luke, it was the swords that made Jesus a transgressor in the eyes of those arresting him.
No, that is according to YOUR reading of Luke.
Why would Luke include a "transgressors" tools in the narrative about Jesus being numbered with the transgressors, if not pertinent?
And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Even if the exact interpretation of this verse is uncertain,49 it is clear that a new situation is envisioned. The disciples would soon encounter greater opposition and even persecution (cf. Acts 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). The reference to the purchase of a sword is strange. Attempts to interpret this literally as a Zealot-like call to arms, however, are misguided and come to grief over the saying’s very “strangeness.” Understood as a call to arms, this saying not only does not fit Jesus’ other teachings but radically conflicts with them. Also if two swords are “enough” (22:38), war with the legions of Rome was certainly not envisioned. See 20:20–26, “Context.” The “sword” is best understood in some metaphorical sense as indicating being spiritually armed and prepared for battle against the spiritual foes. The desperate need to be “armed” for these future events is evident by the command to sell one’s mantle, for this garment was essential to keep warm at night (see comments on 6:29).
22:37 It is written … must be fulfilled in me. For a more literal translation of this verse see the RSV. Once again the divine “must” (dei) appears. Jesus’ forthcoming death had been foretold in Scripture, so that it was not fate or tragedy that awaited him but the fulfillment of the divine will and plan. See Introduction 8 (1). The divine passive is present in the infinitive “be fulfilled,” i.e., God will fulfill it in me.
p 556 He was numbered with the transgressors. Compare Isa 53:12. This finds its fulfillment for Luke in 23:32–33, 39–43. This is the only place in the Gospels where Isa 53 is quoted.
What is written about me is reaching its fulfillment. This last clause in the Greek text can mean either (1) What is written about me is now to be fulfilled or (2) What has been written about me now comes to its climax. The difference is not so much one of substance as nuance. Each interpretation reinforces the first part of the verse, which emphasizes the central place of Jesus’ death in Scripture and God’s sovereign rule in all that was about to take place. The purpose of this verse is to explain the “but now” of Luke 22:36. Whereas their union of destinies will one day lead to the apostles’ sharing in the Son of Man’s reign (22:29–30), in the more immediate future the treatment facing Jesus also awaited them. Thus they must arm themselves with a similar resolve to fulfill God’s plan for them despite prison, persecution, and even death.
22:38 See, Lord, here are two swords. The disciples misunderstood Jesus’ words in 22:36 by interpreting them literally, and their lack of understanding is most evident at this point. That they were armed is evident from 22:49–50. The wearing of a sword for protection against thieves was common (Sabb. 6:4).
“That is enough,” he replied. Clearly two swords were not enough for any planned armed resistance. Jesus’ words are best understood as breaking off further conversation as in Deut 3:26, i.e., “Enough of this [foolish] conversation.” Compare also 1 Kgs 19:4; 1 Chr 21:15.Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 555–556.
Regardless, you would contradict everything Jesus said about non-violence to support your views. And not one shred of scripture suggests you are right when we study the pacifism of the NT figures. The only mention of violence as you would have it, James condemns as carnal mindedness.
I've already shown that is not the case.
No one is more courageous than Jesus and the NT role models we follow. And to have it your way makes cowards of them all.
No I don't. That is your crazy twisted interpretation. Fortunately, your interpretation of Scripture, as well as your interpretation of my words, are not reality.
Produce one shred of scripture showing any of the disciples using violence to defend themselves. I can show many instances where they did not when confronted.
That has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. You isolate Scripture, ignoring the rest. Unless you decide to use proper Biblical Interpretation skills I am done with this conversation.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
You are the one that is adding the interpretation into your reading. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors regardless of the swords in two ways.
- They were outlaws.
- He hung between two transgressors on the cross.
But according to Luke, it was the swords that made Jesus a transgressor in the eyes of those arresting him.
No, that is according to YOUR reading of Luke.
Why would Luke include a "transgressors" tools in the narrative about Jesus being numbered with the transgressors, if not pertinent?
And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Even if the exact interpretation of this verse is uncertain,49 it is clear that a new situation is envisioned. The disciples would soon encounter greater opposition and even persecution (cf. Acts 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). The reference to the purchase of a sword is strange. Attempts to interpret this literally as a Zealot-like call to arms, however, are misguided and come to grief over the saying’s very “strangeness.” Understood as a call to arms, this saying not only does not fit Jesus’ other teachings but radically conflicts with them. Also if two swords are “enough” (22:38), war with the legions of Rome was certainly not envisioned. See 20:20–26, “Context.” The “sword” is best understood in some metaphorical sense as indicating being spiritually armed and prepared for battle against the spiritual foes. The desperate need to be “armed” for these future events is evident by the command to sell one’s mantle, for this garment was essential to keep warm at night (see comments on 6:29).
22:37 It is written … must be fulfilled in me. For a more literal translation of this verse see the RSV. Once again the divine “must” (dei) appears. Jesus’ forthcoming death had been foretold in Scripture, so that it was not fate or tragedy that awaited him but the fulfillment of the divine will and plan. See Introduction 8 (1). The divine passive is present in the infinitive “be fulfilled,” i.e., God will fulfill it in me.
p 556 He was numbered with the transgressors. Compare Isa 53:12. This finds its fulfillment for Luke in 23:32–33, 39–43. This is the only place in the Gospels where Isa 53 is quoted.
What is written about me is reaching its fulfillment. This last clause in the Greek text can mean either (1) What is written about me is now to be fulfilled or (2) What has been written about me now comes to its climax. The difference is not so much one of substance as nuance. Each interpretation reinforces the first part of the verse, which emphasizes the central place of Jesus’ death in Scripture and God’s sovereign rule in all that was about to take place. The purpose of this verse is to explain the “but now” of Luke 22:36. Whereas their union of destinies will one day lead to the apostles’ sharing in the Son of Man’s reign (22:29–30), in the more immediate future the treatment facing Jesus also awaited them. Thus they must arm themselves with a similar resolve to fulfill God’s plan for them despite prison, persecution, and even death.
22:38 See, Lord, here are two swords. The disciples misunderstood Jesus’ words in 22:36 by interpreting them literally, and their lack of understanding is most evident at this point. That they were armed is evident from 22:49–50. The wearing of a sword for protection against thieves was common (Sabb. 6:4).
“That is enough,” he replied. Clearly two swords were not enough for any planned armed resistance. Jesus’ words are best understood as breaking off further conversation as in Deut 3:26, i.e., “Enough of this [foolish] conversation.” Compare also 1 Kgs 19:4; 1 Chr 21:15.Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 555–556.
Regardless, you would contradict everything Jesus said about non-violence to support your views. And not one shred of scripture suggests you are right when we study the pacifism of the NT figures. The only mention of violence as you would have it, James condemns as carnal mindedness.
I've already shown that is not the case.
No one is more courageous than Jesus and the NT role models we follow. And to have it your way makes cowards of them all.
No I don't. That is your crazy twisted interpretation. Fortunately, your interpretation of Scripture, as well as your interpretation of my words, are not reality.
Produce one shred of scripture showing any of the disciples using violence to defend themselves. I can show many instances where they did not when confronted.
That has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. You isolate Scripture, ignoring the rest. Unless you decide to use proper Biblical Interpretation skills I am done with this conversation.
What I said above refutes your commentary's position. And it leaves your position without substance.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
You are the one that is adding the interpretation into your reading. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors regardless of the swords in two ways.
- They were outlaws.
- He hung between two transgressors on the cross.
But according to Luke, it was the swords that made Jesus a transgressor in the eyes of those arresting him.
No, that is according to YOUR reading of Luke.
Why would Luke include a "transgressors" tools in the narrative about Jesus being numbered with the transgressors, if not pertinent?
And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Even if the exact interpretation of this verse is uncertain,49 it is clear that a new situation is envisioned. The disciples would soon encounter greater opposition and even persecution (cf. Acts 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). The reference to the purchase of a sword is strange. Attempts to interpret this literally as a Zealot-like call to arms, however, are misguided and come to grief over the saying’s very “strangeness.” Understood as a call to arms, this saying not only does not fit Jesus’ other teachings but radically conflicts with them. Also if two swords are “enough” (22:38), war with the legions of Rome was certainly not envisioned. See 20:20–26, “Context.” The “sword” is best understood in some metaphorical sense as indicating being spiritually armed and prepared for battle against the spiritual foes. The desperate need to be “armed” for these future events is evident by the command to sell one’s mantle, for this garment was essential to keep warm at night (see comments on 6:29).
22:37 It is written … must be fulfilled in me. For a more literal translation of this verse see the RSV. Once again the divine “must” (dei) appears. Jesus’ forthcoming death had been foretold in Scripture, so that it was not fate or tragedy that awaited him but the fulfillment of the divine will and plan. See Introduction 8 (1). The divine passive is present in the infinitive “be fulfilled,” i.e., God will fulfill it in me.
p 556 He was numbered with the transgressors. Compare Isa 53:12. This finds its fulfillment for Luke in 23:32–33, 39–43. This is the only place in the Gospels where Isa 53 is quoted.
What is written about me is reaching its fulfillment. This last clause in the Greek text can mean either (1) What is written about me is now to be fulfilled or (2) What has been written about me now comes to its climax. The difference is not so much one of substance as nuance. Each interpretation reinforces the first part of the verse, which emphasizes the central place of Jesus’ death in Scripture and God’s sovereign rule in all that was about to take place. The purpose of this verse is to explain the “but now” of Luke 22:36. Whereas their union of destinies will one day lead to the apostles’ sharing in the Son of Man’s reign (22:29–30), in the more immediate future the treatment facing Jesus also awaited them. Thus they must arm themselves with a similar resolve to fulfill God’s plan for them despite prison, persecution, and even death.
22:38 See, Lord, here are two swords. The disciples misunderstood Jesus’ words in 22:36 by interpreting them literally, and their lack of understanding is most evident at this point. That they were armed is evident from 22:49–50. The wearing of a sword for protection against thieves was common (Sabb. 6:4).
“That is enough,” he replied. Clearly two swords were not enough for any planned armed resistance. Jesus’ words are best understood as breaking off further conversation as in Deut 3:26, i.e., “Enough of this [foolish] conversation.” Compare also 1 Kgs 19:4; 1 Chr 21:15.Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 555–556.
Regardless, you would contradict everything Jesus said about non-violence to support your views. And not one shred of scripture suggests you are right when we study the pacifism of the NT figures. The only mention of violence as you would have it, James condemns as carnal mindedness.
I've already shown that is not the case.
No one is more courageous than Jesus and the NT role models we follow. And to have it your way makes cowards of them all.
No I don't. That is your crazy twisted interpretation. Fortunately, your interpretation of Scripture, as well as your interpretation of my words, are not reality.
Produce one shred of scripture showing any of the disciples using violence to defend themselves. I can show many instances where they did not when confronted.
That has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. You isolate Scripture, ignoring the rest. Unless you decide to use proper Biblical Interpretation skills I am done with this conversation.
What I said above refutes your commentary's position. And it leaves your position without substance.
What you have said yes, but what you have said is not what Scripture, the WHOLE of Scripture, says. So no, you have not brought down my position in the slightest.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
You are the one that is adding the interpretation into your reading. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors regardless of the swords in two ways.
- They were outlaws.
- He hung between two transgressors on the cross.
But according to Luke, it was the swords that made Jesus a transgressor in the eyes of those arresting him.
No, that is according to YOUR reading of Luke.
Why would Luke include a "transgressors" tools in the narrative about Jesus being numbered with the transgressors, if not pertinent?
And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Even if the exact interpretation of this verse is uncertain,49 it is clear that a new situation is envisioned. The disciples would soon encounter greater opposition and even persecution (cf. Acts 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). The reference to the purchase of a sword is strange. Attempts to interpret this literally as a Zealot-like call to arms, however, are misguided and come to grief over the saying’s very “strangeness.” Understood as a call to arms, this saying not only does not fit Jesus’ other teachings but radically conflicts with them. Also if two swords are “enough” (22:38), war with the legions of Rome was certainly not envisioned. See 20:20–26, “Context.” The “sword” is best understood in some metaphorical sense as indicating being spiritually armed and prepared for battle against the spiritual foes. The desperate need to be “armed” for these future events is evident by the command to sell one’s mantle, for this garment was essential to keep warm at night (see comments on 6:29).
22:37 It is written … must be fulfilled in me. For a more literal translation of this verse see the RSV. Once again the divine “must” (dei) appears. Jesus’ forthcoming death had been foretold in Scripture, so that it was not fate or tragedy that awaited him but the fulfillment of the divine will and plan. See Introduction 8 (1). The divine passive is present in the infinitive “be fulfilled,” i.e., God will fulfill it in me.
p 556 He was numbered with the transgressors. Compare Isa 53:12. This finds its fulfillment for Luke in 23:32–33, 39–43. This is the only place in the Gospels where Isa 53 is quoted.
What is written about me is reaching its fulfillment. This last clause in the Greek text can mean either (1) What is written about me is now to be fulfilled or (2) What has been written about me now comes to its climax. The difference is not so much one of substance as nuance. Each interpretation reinforces the first part of the verse, which emphasizes the central place of Jesus’ death in Scripture and God’s sovereign rule in all that was about to take place. The purpose of this verse is to explain the “but now” of Luke 22:36. Whereas their union of destinies will one day lead to the apostles’ sharing in the Son of Man’s reign (22:29–30), in the more immediate future the treatment facing Jesus also awaited them. Thus they must arm themselves with a similar resolve to fulfill God’s plan for them despite prison, persecution, and even death.
22:38 See, Lord, here are two swords. The disciples misunderstood Jesus’ words in 22:36 by interpreting them literally, and their lack of understanding is most evident at this point. That they were armed is evident from 22:49–50. The wearing of a sword for protection against thieves was common (Sabb. 6:4).
“That is enough,” he replied. Clearly two swords were not enough for any planned armed resistance. Jesus’ words are best understood as breaking off further conversation as in Deut 3:26, i.e., “Enough of this [foolish] conversation.” Compare also 1 Kgs 19:4; 1 Chr 21:15.Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 555–556.
Regardless, you would contradict everything Jesus said about non-violence to support your views. And not one shred of scripture suggests you are right when we study the pacifism of the NT figures. The only mention of violence as you would have it, James condemns as carnal mindedness.
I've already shown that is not the case.
No one is more courageous than Jesus and the NT role models we follow. And to have it your way makes cowards of them all.
No I don't. That is your crazy twisted interpretation. Fortunately, your interpretation of Scripture, as well as your interpretation of my words, are not reality.
Produce one shred of scripture showing any of the disciples using violence to defend themselves. I can show many instances where they did not when confronted.
That has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. You isolate Scripture, ignoring the rest. Unless you decide to use proper Biblical Interpretation skills I am done with this conversation.
What I said above refutes your commentary's position. And it leaves your position without substance.
What you have said yes, but what you have said is not what Scripture, the WHOLE of Scripture, says. So no, you have not brought down my position in the slightest.
Jesus and the disciples set the standard of righteousness by example. They also defined courage. Anything less than how they lived and died is sin and cowardice.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
You are the one that is adding the interpretation into your reading. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors regardless of the swords in two ways.
- They were outlaws.
- He hung between two transgressors on the cross.
But according to Luke, it was the swords that made Jesus a transgressor in the eyes of those arresting him.
No, that is according to YOUR reading of Luke.
Why would Luke include a "transgressors" tools in the narrative about Jesus being numbered with the transgressors, if not pertinent?
And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Even if the exact interpretation of this verse is uncertain,49 it is clear that a new situation is envisioned. The disciples would soon encounter greater opposition and even persecution (cf. Acts 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). The reference to the purchase of a sword is strange. Attempts to interpret this literally as a Zealot-like call to arms, however, are misguided and come to grief over the saying’s very “strangeness.” Understood as a call to arms, this saying not only does not fit Jesus’ other teachings but radically conflicts with them. Also if two swords are “enough” (22:38), war with the legions of Rome was certainly not envisioned. See 20:20–26, “Context.” The “sword” is best understood in some metaphorical sense as indicating being spiritually armed and prepared for battle against the spiritual foes. The desperate need to be “armed” for these future events is evident by the command to sell one’s mantle, for this garment was essential to keep warm at night (see comments on 6:29).
22:37 It is written … must be fulfilled in me. For a more literal translation of this verse see the RSV. Once again the divine “must” (dei) appears. Jesus’ forthcoming death had been foretold in Scripture, so that it was not fate or tragedy that awaited him but the fulfillment of the divine will and plan. See Introduction 8 (1). The divine passive is present in the infinitive “be fulfilled,” i.e., God will fulfill it in me.
p 556 He was numbered with the transgressors. Compare Isa 53:12. This finds its fulfillment for Luke in 23:32–33, 39–43. This is the only place in the Gospels where Isa 53 is quoted.
What is written about me is reaching its fulfillment. This last clause in the Greek text can mean either (1) What is written about me is now to be fulfilled or (2) What has been written about me now comes to its climax. The difference is not so much one of substance as nuance. Each interpretation reinforces the first part of the verse, which emphasizes the central place of Jesus’ death in Scripture and God’s sovereign rule in all that was about to take place. The purpose of this verse is to explain the “but now” of Luke 22:36. Whereas their union of destinies will one day lead to the apostles’ sharing in the Son of Man’s reign (22:29–30), in the more immediate future the treatment facing Jesus also awaited them. Thus they must arm themselves with a similar resolve to fulfill God’s plan for them despite prison, persecution, and even death.
22:38 See, Lord, here are two swords. The disciples misunderstood Jesus’ words in 22:36 by interpreting them literally, and their lack of understanding is most evident at this point. That they were armed is evident from 22:49–50. The wearing of a sword for protection against thieves was common (Sabb. 6:4).
“That is enough,” he replied. Clearly two swords were not enough for any planned armed resistance. Jesus’ words are best understood as breaking off further conversation as in Deut 3:26, i.e., “Enough of this [foolish] conversation.” Compare also 1 Kgs 19:4; 1 Chr 21:15.Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 555–556.
Regardless, you would contradict everything Jesus said about non-violence to support your views. And not one shred of scripture suggests you are right when we study the pacifism of the NT figures. The only mention of violence as you would have it, James condemns as carnal mindedness.
I've already shown that is not the case.
No one is more courageous than Jesus and the NT role models we follow. And to have it your way makes cowards of them all.
No I don't. That is your crazy twisted interpretation. Fortunately, your interpretation of Scripture, as well as your interpretation of my words, are not reality.
Produce one shred of scripture showing any of the disciples using violence to defend themselves. I can show many instances where they did not when confronted.
That has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. You isolate Scripture, ignoring the rest. Unless you decide to use proper Biblical Interpretation skills I am done with this conversation.
What I said above refutes your commentary's position. And it leaves your position without substance.
What you have said yes, but what you have said is not what Scripture, the WHOLE of Scripture, says. So no, you have not brought down my position in the slightest.
Jesus and the disciples set the standard of righteousness by example. They also defined courage. Anything less than how they lived and died is sin and cowardice.
Thank you for your opinion. You have nothing new to offer so let's just agree to disagree. We will never agree on this so let's quit wasting time and energy saying the same things over and over again. Deal?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
You are the one that is adding the interpretation into your reading. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors regardless of the swords in two ways.
- They were outlaws.
- He hung between two transgressors on the cross.
But according to Luke, it was the swords that made Jesus a transgressor in the eyes of those arresting him.
No, that is according to YOUR reading of Luke.
Why would Luke include a "transgressors" tools in the narrative about Jesus being numbered with the transgressors, if not pertinent?
And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Even if the exact interpretation of this verse is uncertain,49 it is clear that a new situation is envisioned. The disciples would soon encounter greater opposition and even persecution (cf. Acts 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). The reference to the purchase of a sword is strange. Attempts to interpret this literally as a Zealot-like call to arms, however, are misguided and come to grief over the saying’s very “strangeness.” Understood as a call to arms, this saying not only does not fit Jesus’ other teachings but radically conflicts with them. Also if two swords are “enough” (22:38), war with the legions of Rome was certainly not envisioned. See 20:20–26, “Context.” The “sword” is best understood in some metaphorical sense as indicating being spiritually armed and prepared for battle against the spiritual foes. The desperate need to be “armed” for these future events is evident by the command to sell one’s mantle, for this garment was essential to keep warm at night (see comments on 6:29).
22:37 It is written … must be fulfilled in me. For a more literal translation of this verse see the RSV. Once again the divine “must” (dei) appears. Jesus’ forthcoming death had been foretold in Scripture, so that it was not fate or tragedy that awaited him but the fulfillment of the divine will and plan. See Introduction 8 (1). The divine passive is present in the infinitive “be fulfilled,” i.e., God will fulfill it in me.
p 556 He was numbered with the transgressors. Compare Isa 53:12. This finds its fulfillment for Luke in 23:32–33, 39–43. This is the only place in the Gospels where Isa 53 is quoted.
What is written about me is reaching its fulfillment. This last clause in the Greek text can mean either (1) What is written about me is now to be fulfilled or (2) What has been written about me now comes to its climax. The difference is not so much one of substance as nuance. Each interpretation reinforces the first part of the verse, which emphasizes the central place of Jesus’ death in Scripture and God’s sovereign rule in all that was about to take place. The purpose of this verse is to explain the “but now” of Luke 22:36. Whereas their union of destinies will one day lead to the apostles’ sharing in the Son of Man’s reign (22:29–30), in the more immediate future the treatment facing Jesus also awaited them. Thus they must arm themselves with a similar resolve to fulfill God’s plan for them despite prison, persecution, and even death.
22:38 See, Lord, here are two swords. The disciples misunderstood Jesus’ words in 22:36 by interpreting them literally, and their lack of understanding is most evident at this point. That they were armed is evident from 22:49–50. The wearing of a sword for protection against thieves was common (Sabb. 6:4).
“That is enough,” he replied. Clearly two swords were not enough for any planned armed resistance. Jesus’ words are best understood as breaking off further conversation as in Deut 3:26, i.e., “Enough of this [foolish] conversation.” Compare also 1 Kgs 19:4; 1 Chr 21:15.Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 555–556.
Regardless, you would contradict everything Jesus said about non-violence to support your views. And not one shred of scripture suggests you are right when we study the pacifism of the NT figures. The only mention of violence as you would have it, James condemns as carnal mindedness.
I've already shown that is not the case.
No one is more courageous than Jesus and the NT role models we follow. And to have it your way makes cowards of them all.
No I don't. That is your crazy twisted interpretation. Fortunately, your interpretation of Scripture, as well as your interpretation of my words, are not reality.
Produce one shred of scripture showing any of the disciples using violence to defend themselves. I can show many instances where they did not when confronted.
That has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. You isolate Scripture, ignoring the rest. Unless you decide to use proper Biblical Interpretation skills I am done with this conversation.
What I said above refutes your commentary's position. And it leaves your position without substance.
What you have said yes, but what you have said is not what Scripture, the WHOLE of Scripture, says. So no, you have not brought down my position in the slightest.
Jesus and the disciples set the standard of righteousness by example. They also defined courage. Anything less than how they lived and died is sin and cowardice.
Thank you for your opinion. You have nothing new to offer so let's just agree to disagree. We will never agree on this so let's quit wasting time and energy saying the same things over and over again. Deal?
Thanks for the discussion. You need not reply if you want to call it quits. But I would like to keep the thread open for others. It's really all about the path of non-resistance vs the path of "most resistance". Where disobedience to Christ involves killing others.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_LCorrect. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.
Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.
Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.
We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.
Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.
Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?
Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.
Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.
Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?
And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.
How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?
Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.
Thanks for helping to keep this thread interesting. The way I understand Peter using the sword was purely defensive. Because he was not out looking for the Pharisees. They were the aggressors looking for Jesus. And Peter thought to defend him. But Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peter was not acting in pure defense. He was acting in rage and agression. That is clear in the passage. Even if it was defense, this is an extraordinary circumstance. Christ had to be arrested and did not want the disciples to resist. That is very different than the circumstances we are discussing.
I also believe they had the two swords because Jesus had to fulfill prophecy about being numbered with the transgressors. The swords were the tools of the trade for the "transgressors" they identified Jesus as being. Possibly Peter using the sword against them helped bolster his identity as a transgressor in their thinking.
I don't think you can find actual basis for that interpretation.
You cannot deny the fact Jesus rebuked Peter for using violence in self-defence. How can you love your enemy and do violence to them? Of course Peter was just as upset as any carnal minded person would be.
I'm pretty sure I just did.
You cannot truthfully deny the Jews attacked, Peter reacted in self-defence regardless of his mental state.
The Two Swords interpretation rests more so on scripture than any other I've heard of. Consider:
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For [because of this] I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
What translation are you using? I don't think that prophecy has anything to do with the swords at all.
I normally use the Net Bible or any based on NA28.
I meant what translation did you use above?
NET. Bible. Here it is without my [brackets].
“He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”” (Luke 22:36–37)
Notice, Luke does not give self-defence as the reason for the swords. He shows Jesus must be identified as a transgressor.
You are the one that is adding the interpretation into your reading. Jesus was numbered with the transgressors regardless of the swords in two ways.
- They were outlaws.
- He hung between two transgressors on the cross.
But according to Luke, it was the swords that made Jesus a transgressor in the eyes of those arresting him.
No, that is according to YOUR reading of Luke.
Why would Luke include a "transgressors" tools in the narrative about Jesus being numbered with the transgressors, if not pertinent?
And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Even if the exact interpretation of this verse is uncertain,49 it is clear that a new situation is envisioned. The disciples would soon encounter greater opposition and even persecution (cf. Acts 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). The reference to the purchase of a sword is strange. Attempts to interpret this literally as a Zealot-like call to arms, however, are misguided and come to grief over the saying’s very “strangeness.” Understood as a call to arms, this saying not only does not fit Jesus’ other teachings but radically conflicts with them. Also if two swords are “enough” (22:38), war with the legions of Rome was certainly not envisioned. See 20:20–26, “Context.” The “sword” is best understood in some metaphorical sense as indicating being spiritually armed and prepared for battle against the spiritual foes. The desperate need to be “armed” for these future events is evident by the command to sell one’s mantle, for this garment was essential to keep warm at night (see comments on 6:29).
22:37 It is written … must be fulfilled in me. For a more literal translation of this verse see the RSV. Once again the divine “must” (dei) appears. Jesus’ forthcoming death had been foretold in Scripture, so that it was not fate or tragedy that awaited him but the fulfillment of the divine will and plan. See Introduction 8 (1). The divine passive is present in the infinitive “be fulfilled,” i.e., God will fulfill it in me.
p 556 He was numbered with the transgressors. Compare Isa 53:12. This finds its fulfillment for Luke in 23:32–33, 39–43. This is the only place in the Gospels where Isa 53 is quoted.
What is written about me is reaching its fulfillment. This last clause in the Greek text can mean either (1) What is written about me is now to be fulfilled or (2) What has been written about me now comes to its climax. The difference is not so much one of substance as nuance. Each interpretation reinforces the first part of the verse, which emphasizes the central place of Jesus’ death in Scripture and God’s sovereign rule in all that was about to take place. The purpose of this verse is to explain the “but now” of Luke 22:36. Whereas their union of destinies will one day lead to the apostles’ sharing in the Son of Man’s reign (22:29–30), in the more immediate future the treatment facing Jesus also awaited them. Thus they must arm themselves with a similar resolve to fulfill God’s plan for them despite prison, persecution, and even death.
22:38 See, Lord, here are two swords. The disciples misunderstood Jesus’ words in 22:36 by interpreting them literally, and their lack of understanding is most evident at this point. That they were armed is evident from 22:49–50. The wearing of a sword for protection against thieves was common (Sabb. 6:4).
“That is enough,” he replied. Clearly two swords were not enough for any planned armed resistance. Jesus’ words are best understood as breaking off further conversation as in Deut 3:26, i.e., “Enough of this [foolish] conversation.” Compare also 1 Kgs 19:4; 1 Chr 21:15.Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 555–556.
Regardless, you would contradict everything Jesus said about non-violence to support your views. And not one shred of scripture suggests you are right when we study the pacifism of the NT figures. The only mention of violence as you would have it, James condemns as carnal mindedness.
I've already shown that is not the case.
No one is more courageous than Jesus and the NT role models we follow. And to have it your way makes cowards of them all.
No I don't. That is your crazy twisted interpretation. Fortunately, your interpretation of Scripture, as well as your interpretation of my words, are not reality.
Produce one shred of scripture showing any of the disciples using violence to defend themselves. I can show many instances where they did not when confronted.
That has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. You isolate Scripture, ignoring the rest. Unless you decide to use proper Biblical Interpretation skills I am done with this conversation.
What I said above refutes your commentary's position. And it leaves your position without substance.
What you have said yes, but what you have said is not what Scripture, the WHOLE of Scripture, says. So no, you have not brought down my position in the slightest.
Jesus and the disciples set the standard of righteousness by example. They also defined courage. Anything less than how they lived and died is sin and cowardice.
Thank you for your opinion. You have nothing new to offer so let's just agree to disagree. We will never agree on this so let's quit wasting time and energy saying the same things over and over again. Deal?
Thanks for the discussion. You need not reply if you want to call it quits. But I would like to keep the thread open for others. It's really all about the path of non-resistance vs the path of "most resistance". Where disobedience to Christ involves killing others.
If that were the case, why did John the Baptist not tell the Roman soldiers to leave the army rather than telling them to do their jobs well?
-
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.
-
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
