rolexbenz190e
Regular Member
imported post
Ok, so I saw a picture on the internet of Jesus holding an AR15... It was this crappy version
So I decided to photo edit a better version and this is the finished producted
....I showed some of my friends (who are both Pro-2A and Christian) and some were offended and called me a sinner.... So I wrote them a little letter explaining as to why I feel this picture NOT to be sack-religious (for those of you who are religious), and it went like this (just thought it would be interesting to share with all of you):
Who isn't a sinner on this earth? Besides, how does Jesus holding an AR15 insinuate that I'm a sinner? They didn't have guns back in those days... But the sword was the AR-15 of that era in time. The best in technology back then.
Jesus said to his apostles in Matt 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Jesus obviously knew that arming the righteous would bring forth the righteous (law abiding citizens).
He told us in Luke 22:36 that if we cant afford to arm ourselves, we should sell our belongings in order to arm our selves. Both in the Old Testament and the New Testament the scriptures state that we should not just sit around around watch our homes being broken into by thieves, but should defend our property and our own family.
In 1 Tim 5:8 it says "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. " It would be absurd to buy a house, furnish it with food and facilities for one's family, and then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family and the property.
In Exodus 22:2 and Matt 24:43 states that if a thief was caught breaking in and was killed, there should be no punishment to he who defended their home and their family. Because the "goodman" of the house shall not "suffer his house to be broken up" or else you have denied the faith and are worse than an infidel.
To better demonstrate the biblical heritage of individuals bearing and keeping arms, during David's time in the wilderness avoiding capture by Saul, "David said to his men, 'Every man gird on his sword.' So every man girded on his sword, and David also girded on his sword" (1 Samuel 25:13). This also shows the Lord's approval for those in defense of evil to bear and keep arms.
Finally, consider Nehemiah and those who rebuilt the gates and walls of Jerusalem. They were both builders and defenders. Each man and each servant were armed with his own weapon.
"They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon. For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded. And he that sounded the trumpet was by me." (Nehemiah 4:17-18).
So by calling me a sinner just because I created a photo of Jesus holding a firearm, doesn't really constitute any sense on your behalf. Sure, Jesus did not need to ever use a firearm. Even when Peter tried defending Jesus with a sword when the high priest and his servants came for Jesus, Peter cut off the ear of the servant Malchus. When that happen, Jesus told Peter to put his sword away (not to get rid of it for good). Why did Jesus prevent Peter from defending him? Obviously because "for this purpose" He has come... If Jesus were defended, then He wouldn't have been able to fulfill his purpose on earth.
Though considering biblical background and His historic views on the right to bear and keep arms, I'm sure if Jesus was didn't have the purpose of dieing for our sins, He would have let Peter defend him with deadly force.... If not even do it him self. We already know that the Lord has already 2,301,417 confirmed kills (not including the unspecified number people he had killed in floods, Sodom and Gomorrah, slaughters, etc.) and the estimate of His grand total kill count would be around 34,000,000 people.
Having said that, I'm pretty sure He wouldn't hesitate to use deadly force to protect Himself, His family, or even the righteous. But considering His purpose here on earth, it would have been obtrusively fatuous to defend Himself.
As you can see, His history shows that He is Pro-2nd Amendment and would justify the means of deadly force if necessary to protect the lives of the innocent.
"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy." ---- Deuteronomy 32:42
Ok, so I saw a picture on the internet of Jesus holding an AR15... It was this crappy version
So I decided to photo edit a better version and this is the finished producted
....I showed some of my friends (who are both Pro-2A and Christian) and some were offended and called me a sinner.... So I wrote them a little letter explaining as to why I feel this picture NOT to be sack-religious (for those of you who are religious), and it went like this (just thought it would be interesting to share with all of you):
Who isn't a sinner on this earth? Besides, how does Jesus holding an AR15 insinuate that I'm a sinner? They didn't have guns back in those days... But the sword was the AR-15 of that era in time. The best in technology back then.
Jesus said to his apostles in Matt 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Jesus obviously knew that arming the righteous would bring forth the righteous (law abiding citizens).
He told us in Luke 22:36 that if we cant afford to arm ourselves, we should sell our belongings in order to arm our selves. Both in the Old Testament and the New Testament the scriptures state that we should not just sit around around watch our homes being broken into by thieves, but should defend our property and our own family.
In 1 Tim 5:8 it says "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. " It would be absurd to buy a house, furnish it with food and facilities for one's family, and then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family and the property.
In Exodus 22:2 and Matt 24:43 states that if a thief was caught breaking in and was killed, there should be no punishment to he who defended their home and their family. Because the "goodman" of the house shall not "suffer his house to be broken up" or else you have denied the faith and are worse than an infidel.
To better demonstrate the biblical heritage of individuals bearing and keeping arms, during David's time in the wilderness avoiding capture by Saul, "David said to his men, 'Every man gird on his sword.' So every man girded on his sword, and David also girded on his sword" (1 Samuel 25:13). This also shows the Lord's approval for those in defense of evil to bear and keep arms.
Finally, consider Nehemiah and those who rebuilt the gates and walls of Jerusalem. They were both builders and defenders. Each man and each servant were armed with his own weapon.
"They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon. For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded. And he that sounded the trumpet was by me." (Nehemiah 4:17-18).
So by calling me a sinner just because I created a photo of Jesus holding a firearm, doesn't really constitute any sense on your behalf. Sure, Jesus did not need to ever use a firearm. Even when Peter tried defending Jesus with a sword when the high priest and his servants came for Jesus, Peter cut off the ear of the servant Malchus. When that happen, Jesus told Peter to put his sword away (not to get rid of it for good). Why did Jesus prevent Peter from defending him? Obviously because "for this purpose" He has come... If Jesus were defended, then He wouldn't have been able to fulfill his purpose on earth.
Though considering biblical background and His historic views on the right to bear and keep arms, I'm sure if Jesus was didn't have the purpose of dieing for our sins, He would have let Peter defend him with deadly force.... If not even do it him self. We already know that the Lord has already 2,301,417 confirmed kills (not including the unspecified number people he had killed in floods, Sodom and Gomorrah, slaughters, etc.) and the estimate of His grand total kill count would be around 34,000,000 people.
Having said that, I'm pretty sure He wouldn't hesitate to use deadly force to protect Himself, His family, or even the righteous. But considering His purpose here on earth, it would have been obtrusively fatuous to defend Himself.
As you can see, His history shows that He is Pro-2nd Amendment and would justify the means of deadly force if necessary to protect the lives of the innocent.
"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy." ---- Deuteronomy 32:42
