-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Christianity and self defense
- Thread starter 77zach
- Start date
Wstar425
Regular Member
Must not have made a lasting impression?
repomasterstl
Regular Member
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.”
— Luke 22:36, NIV
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
— Luke 22:36, NIV
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
repeating a previous of mine...
sorry say what?
according to the KJV, Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." This verse doesn't say a bloody thing about our duty to be armed, let alone to protect ourselves and loved ones...
added: quote: They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves. unquote http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/22-36.htm Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
ipse
Religion is cool.
Just make sure you have a taster for his 'communion wine'...
Communal wine.
repomasterstl
Regular Member
Exodus 22:2-3New International Version (NIV)
2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.
“Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft.
In other words, the Law is saying that lethal self-defense is allowed, but we are not to hunt down thieves and kill them; larceny is not a capital crime. The sun having risen cannot be taken in a rigidly literal sense; it indicates the thief being found at some later time, rather than while he was breaking in as in the first scenario.
Above-mentioned was from a preacher.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.
“Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft.
In other words, the Law is saying that lethal self-defense is allowed, but we are not to hunt down thieves and kill them; larceny is not a capital crime. The sun having risen cannot be taken in a rigidly literal sense; it indicates the thief being found at some later time, rather than while he was breaking in as in the first scenario.
Above-mentioned was from a preacher.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
repomasterstl
Regular Member
Luke 22:37–39 (ESV)
37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
OP, Those good Christian Muftis will put out fatwa(s) against you for what they consider 'profound lack of reverence' which the precedent would be interesting to say the least.
or as Shakespeare wrote Merchant of Venice:
“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”
ipse
this concludes our Readings for today!!
Last edited:
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
If the story is to be believed, then Jesus worked on Friday, slept on Saturday (the Sabbath, not working), and then went back to work on Sunday. Thus making a great observation of the Sabbath.
The story was an illustration of keeping the Sabbath holy as a day of rest.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I am less sure.
In old-time England, and for a long time in this country, search warrants could only be executed during daylight hours.
It would be too easy for the scripturist to just say that lethal force for burglary is only allowed at the time of the burglary, not tracking down the burglar later. Certainly, the ancient Sanhedrin (ancient Jewish courts) had no problem explaining their take on the Fifth Amendment*, and explaining their take on precision thinking by witnesses (what they saw vs what they concluded from what they saw).**
I am less sure we need to inject inferences or distort the text. Certainly, the men who promulgated that common law were quite capable of expressing themselves.
*Nothing the accused said could be used against him. Nothing. No fannying-about over whether he was properly Mirandized. No rationalizations that the 5th Amendment is a fighting right and has to be invoked. No screwing around figuring out whether being hand-cuffed in the back of a police car counts as being in custody. Nothing the accused said could be used against him. See the Appendix of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Origins of the Fifth Amendment: The Right Against Self-Incrimination by historian and history professor Leonard Levy.
Note: Levy explained that the reason he put the information about the Sanhedrin in the Appendix is because there is no historical proof the ancient Sanhedrin influence English history on the Fifth Amendment. How's that for historical integrity? He's got to be laying out the Sanhedrin information for comparison by the reader.
**Same book as the first asterisk. The Sanhedrin instructed witnesses to this effect (paraphrase): If you see one man chasing another with a sword. And, both run into a house. And, you follow. And, upon coming into the house you see the chaser standing over the runner with blood on his sword, and the runner in his death agonies--you saw nothing. Think about that for a moment. That is a very important distinction--it requires the witness to distinguish between what he actually saw, and his conclusions based on what he saw. The Sanhedrin were basically saying that observations are not conclusions; and, the witness needs to separate the two.
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
WTF? Please ask Henry since when the "sword of the spirit" can be bought with gold? Sounds like he didn't think this through...
darn stealthy...that one is so easy...don't need to ask 'Henry' nada
Ephesians 6:17 states: "take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."
cited whichever good book youlike..
and if you don't believe the Book...http://www.gotquestions.org/sword-of-the-Spirit.html
quote:
The sword is both an offensive and defensive weapon used by soldiers or warriors. In this case it is a weapon belonging to the Holy Spirit. Swords were used to protect oneself from harm or to attack the enemy to overcome or kill him. In both cases it was necessary for a soldier to get rigid training on the proper use of the sword to get maximum protection. All Christian soldiers need the same rigid training to know how to properly handle the Sword of the Spirit, “which is the word of God.” The sword that Paul refers to here is the Holy Scriptures. We know from 2 Timothy 3:16–17 that the word of God is from the Holy Spirit and written by men. Since every Christian is on the spiritual battle with the satanic and evil forces of this world, we need to know how to handle the Word properly. Only then will it be an effective defense against evil, but it will also be an offensive weapon we use to “demolish strongholds” of error and falsehood (2 Corinthians 10:4–5) unquote
more about the sword in the article cited
ipse
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Based on reading three of his books, I am gonna guess that conclusive proof (as opposed to mere evidence) would require a direct, verifiable thread of documentary evidence which logically led to the conclusion.
For example, in his book Origins of the Bill of Rights, Levy discusses the Fourth Amendment (right against unreasonable searches and seizures, warrants, requirement for probable cause). Levy points out that a thread is present. John Adams was a young lawyer in the courtroom as an observer for Paxton's case where Paxton sought re-issue of the general warrant called a Writ of Assistance. Otis argued for something like four hours against re-issuing the Writ of Assistance for Paxton, a customs agent if I recall. Years later Adams wrote (paraphrase) that the flame of Liberty was born in that courtroom. Adams later advocated to James Madison (who wrote the Bill of Rights for the new congress to consider) for a right against general warrants--the Fourth Amendment. So, there is documentary evidence of a direct link between what happened in that courtroom in Paxton's case, its influence on John Adams, and the final result--the adoption of the Fourth Amendment.
So, I am guessing Levy would hold a similar standard of proof on the Fifth Amendment. And, I can tell you, if Levy had a shred of evidence that even one advocate of the right against self-incrimination used ancient Talmudic law as an argument in Elizabethan England, or against James I, or Charles I, or Oliver Cromwell, I cannot see Levy omitting to mention it in Origins of the Fifth Amendment. That is to say, if even one document discussing the statements or writings of advocates of the right against self-incrimination across English history even mentioned Talmudic law, much less citing it as a foundational premise, Levy would have pointed it out in the main body of the text of Origins of the Fifth Amendment.
But, I am getting down in the weeds--trying to draw inferences about what such-and-such person thought, when the real question is the right itself, its ramifications, how government has violated it historically, how government diminishes it today, etc.
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
You got me, but, you answer as if I asked "how" and not "since when." Not every use of the word sword is a reference to the sword of the spirit. Jesus was not telling them to go buy Bibles, which didn't exist yet. When he told them to buy swords if they didn't have any, they said here's two, and Jesus said it was enough. He didn't say "that's not what I meant." And just a bit later, the ear of a guard was cut off with one of those swords, so it was probably the bladed weapon, and not a book.
Last edited:
where are you pulling this information from...comic book, holy book, the Daily Star, Esquire, TMZ?
Stealthy, term under discussion was the sword of the spirit...then you threw some reference to gold in, now, i have some poor guard, where i am truly not sure where the devil the guard manifested from, who's ear is missing ~ similar to van Gogh!!
ipse
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
There is no way my meaning is lost on you... Let's not drag this out... Mr. Henry's interpretation is silly... That's all...
nawlll not on the radio drama...tho the big band music was pleasant respite..
ipse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs0K4ApWl4g