Summations Only

I have to wonder what kind of Christianity doesn't at least make an attempt to follow Christ. It seems that they simply make Him up in their own image which involves a mixture of the Bible, their nationalism, their politics and their sense of wanting to belong to an identifiable group.All of this requires a total misuse and understanding of the Scriptures that we call the Bible. It is, IMHO, important to read and understand the OT in order to understand who Jesus was and what He was about in His Jewish context, but to in order to understand what God was doing in the OT we have to look at it through the lens of Jesus.

I would enjoy reading a debate between you and Faith on this question.

If everyone has a gun we'll all be safer. Hmmmm... maybe notMan shot, killed while stopping to help driver stranded in snowstorm: Sheriff | CTV News

If only this 8 year had been armed she could have protected herself.....or maybe we would just have 2 dead kids.11-year-old boy convicted of killing 8-year-old girl - National | Globalnews.caEquating the widespread ownership of guns with freedom simply rings hollow, and from a Christian perspective it is exactly the opposite of the message of Jesus Christ. Understanding the Bible as inerrant means that you can put any interpretation on anything you want including the proliferation of guns.

OK. Let's look at Luke 22:36 in context.

quote:

---

35 Then Jesus asked them, When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?Nothing, they answered. 36 He said to them, But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment. 38 The disciples said, See, Lord, here are two swords. That’s enough! he replied.

---

First we can see that Jesus asks them if when he had sent them out with nothing if they had lacked anything and they reply that no they hadn't. Then he says but now you figure you need a purse, a bag and swords. Then he quotes Isaiah 53:12 which is the part of Isaiah that talks about the suffering servant.

quote:

---

....he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

---

So here Jesus is saying that they are the transgressors as they are still thinking that they should be armed and as a result that He is being numbered with them.Then when they say they have two swords he says "that's enough" and puts an end to the discussion.So He is actually saying that He has shown them that they not only don't need swords to follow Him but they don't need money or other worldly goods. In spite of this that they still don't get it.You then quoted Matthew 10:34 which says: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." This is also quoted in Luke 12:51 where it is translated as bringing division as opposed to a sword. The point He is making is that His message is controversial and the following verses in both cases then talks about bringing division even within families.Jesus lived in a country that was under the brutal domination of the Romans and here He was telling them that they were to love their enemies, turn the other cheek and when a Roman soldier told them to carry his pack for a mile they were to go an extra mile. The point was that the Romans weren't the enemy as in the larger context it was evil itself that was the enemy, and that the weapon against evil is goodness as expressed in kindness and love.This would not be very different than to tell some one in Holland in 1942 that their response to the Nazis should be to love them and turn the other cheek. (Which is not the same thing as collaborating.) That is a very divisive message. Jesus is simply saying that following Him would be anything but easy, and goes on to say when He quotes Micah 7:6 that they are likely to even suffer divisions within their own families.

Actually other translations have Him saying that is enough. All through the Gospels we see that the disciples cannot get beyond the view that the messiah would militarily defeat their enemies, in this case the Romans. This whole thing is just another example of that mindset. When He says "that's enough" or "it is enough" when taken in the context of this particular story, or in the broader context of the whole Gospel, it makes sense to see it as Jesus just putting an end to the discussion. Well. in the first place it wasn't an actual whip but a bunch of "cords" that He had picked up.

quote:

---

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

---

It would seem to me that driving out the livestock and overturning all the tables would pretty much empty the place as people went about protecting their interests. I just don't see this as being the equivalent of running someone through with a sword. That question presumes that the Bible is to be read as Faith would understand it. I don't agree with that understanding at all. That god that you are talking about is not the one that I worship. I worship the God whose Word or wisdom was perfectly embodied by Jesus the Jewish Messiah. That God did not wipe out the entire planet. I don't know about a pacifistic Jesus. We only see Him the context of a first century Jew speaking to first century Jews. His one rule was that love rules. How do we apply that in the 21st century? It isn't easy and there is a great deal of ambiguity. However, the message is that ultimately the only way of defeating evil is by changing hearts, but in the meantime if you see a little old lady being mugged there isn't a lot of point in simply going and telling the perpetrator that he is loved until the you have put an end to the crime. In the larger context how does that look when it comes to dealing with ISIL? Not easy questions.I apologise if this is viewed as having veered off topic, but I do think it is also relevant to the discussion as it pertains to the mindset of gun ownership and the preparedness of people to actually use those weapons against another human.

First off it is anything but clear that he is telling His followers that they should be armed. I think that it is clear that is just the opposite of what you are claiming, as I explained in the post you have replied to.Let's look at the broader context. Is there any where where we see His followers actually using a sword, except right after that in the same chapter where they used against a slave of the High Priest and Jesus tells says"Stop! No more of this".If Jesus was telling His followers to use a sword to protect themselves then why do we never see that happening. If you want a crystal clear statement of what Jesus has to say about this then just look at Matthew 26:52.

quote:

---

Put your sword back in its place, Jesus said to him, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword".

---

If it is clarity you want then I don't think it can be any more clear than that. Yes, things are going to change but not in the way that you are suggesting. Jesus knows that what He is going to do in Jerusalem is going to wind up with Him being crucified. It was a very unforgiving society and He was going to upset virtual everyone in authority, whether Jew or Roman.What happened when Jesus was taken to be crucified. Essentially they all gave up on the movement and disappeared to save their own neck. It was with the resurrection everything changed and the movement was marked by their love and certainly not by the sword. Yes, the division that you are referring to can and often does lead to brutal consequences just as Jesus said it would. Doing the right thing often does come at a cost but doing the "right thing" is still the "right thing". What you are saying just goes to make my point. The scripture can and are being misused to support any idea that comes up including gun control.

Well we disagree on what that scripture means and we just aren't going to agree. Actually on looking back at the early part of this thread in 2013 we have already argued this one out.As far as me changing the scripture it is hardly the case. I quoted the scripture as written. Again, we simply disagree about what Jesus meant. Your understanding is completely at odds with everything that Jesus preached and everything that the writers of the epistles wrote.What would it say about Jesus if at one point He says "those that live by the sword die by the sword" and then later tells His followers to arm themselves with swords. Your understanding of that text repudiates the entirety of the rest of the NT.

But I would contend that one of the reasons for the violence in the US is the proliferation of guns. We aren't talking about guns used for hunting but about guns owned for the presumed point of keeping people safe from other people. In some states they can be carried openly like the wild west.This then presumes that the people owning the guns are quite prepared to use them in order to kill or maim. In some cases it obviously will mean shooting first and asking questions later, which even seems to be happening with the police. Do you really think that this mindset doesn't go a long way towards producing a more violent society?

Good thing she was armed so she could take care of this guy. Bad Hair DayDraw your own conclusions.

Hardly a reasonable comparison. Aside from hobbyists guns are bought with the intent of killing or maiming, which isn't done unless the buyer and/or others is prepared to use it for that purpose. When this is the norm, as it seems to be for many in the US, it inevitably creates a more violent mindset within the whole society. Look at the number of police shootings you have. It so often seems to be shoot first and ask questions later even amongst those who are bound to uphold the law.Football (soccer) is intended for fun and entertainment and even as an outlet for violent behaviour.

Fair enough Faith, but can I suggest then that the ambiguity can be removed when taken in the broader context of the entire message of Christ including blessed are the meek and the peacemakers. I would also add the context of the non-violent method that the first followers of Jesus used in their ministry. Paul outlines the weapons that Jesus said that should be used.

quote:

---

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armour of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armour of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

---

I agree He is talking about real swords but I contend He is saying that they don't need them. I agree that it can be understood either way in that we don't have the benefit of hearing the inflection He has in his voice. For example I contend that He is saying "but now" and with the inflection in His voice there is the unspoken phrase of "in spite of that" this is what you are doing.So once again as we don't have the benefit of hearing the inflection, (or for that matter the original Aramaic), we have to go with the context of the entire message of Christ. I think you picked a rather terrible example to make your point considering our European ancestors occupied their homeland and brought their guns with them.However, as Jesus says later in Luke 22 that He didn't come to lead an armed rebellion. This is in spite of the fact that this is what the Jews expected a messiah to do, and in spite of the fact that His people were living in their homeland occupied and taxed by a brutal Roman regime.Our actions are to be based on having hearts that find their joy in love, peace and justice and in living that out there is ambiguity.

Not an easy question is it? In the end it is about following the law that God has given us through Jesus. We are called to love God and neighbour. If we see somebody being mugged on the street who are we going to love? I say that we are to love both by doing what we can to stop the mugging, which may include violence against the mugger as an act of love in regards to the victim, but we can also pray, or maybe even buy a meal or something for the mugger, as our way of showing love for him.So yes I would agree that as a Christian there is a time to be armed but I don't believe that in the North American environment there is any reason for that. We aren't called to live a life in fear, and we are both blessed to live where there isn't a reason to live in constant fear. Yes there are evil people and bad things happen but I don't believe that there is a need to give evil the victory by giving into fear.Again, it is all about the heart.

THis is from the linked article below.

quote:

---

In the decades before the Port Arthur killings, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia (defined by academics as the killing of five or more people, not including the shooter).

​

Since the 1996 gun reform, Australia has not had another mass shooting,

​

This is not to say gun violence has been eliminated. In December 2014, an armed gunman entered a Sydney cafe during the morning rush hour and took a group of people hostage. Two people were killed, and four were injured during the attack.

---

Impact of Aussie Gun Laws