Former general: Forget the sword; Jesus will return with an AR-15

He was referring to purchasing a sword so that gave the romans an excuse to ARREST HIM asshat..

Jesus' wish to fulfill a prophecy (Isaiah 53:9-12).[1] As Ellul explains:

The further comment of Jesus explains in part the surprising statement, for he says: "It is necessary that the prophecy be fulfilled according to which I would be put in the ranks of criminals" (Luke 22:36-37). The idea of fighting with just two swords is ridiculous. The swords are enough, however, to justify the accusation that Jesus is the head of a band of brigands. We have to note here that Jesus is consciously fulfilling prophecy. If he were not the saying would make no sense.[2]

This is why it is known by people that matter that the Pen is mightier than the sword.
It means words make swords make warriors.
It means your dick is the most powerful weapon you own.

Feinstein says the goy must be disarmed.

Why don't you listen to your superiors? They know what is best for you.

Nope. Otherwise he would have kept preaching that same saying to the poor. Or made the 5000 that he gave food....have a sword instead. Or he himself would have carried a sword to lead by example before his death.

Good grief.............
Jesus was NOT arrested because of a sword.
Somebody has been watching too much "Cops".

This..."The idea of fighting with just two swords is ridiculous" is what is ridiculous. Read the verses again

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.

I will put it in terms that you might understand.

"OK guys, I need some money for gas, if we are going to get down the road. Check your pockets. See if you can sell your watch to the gas station attendant."

Luke 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

12 apostles. 1 left to go betray Jesus.

11 apostles left.

Jesus says "and he that hath no sword and buy one."

Jesus did NOT say "Hey.... we ALL need to get swords" He said "those of you who don't already have a sword, get one now".

You have ASSUMED far too much.

Have you wasted your entire life watching the Idiot Box?

It's called an Idiot Box for a reason.
.

I have no idea what you just said, but that's OK.

Is this one of those brain teasers? Jesus said "those of you who don't already have a sword, get one now". Then suppose that everybody who didn't have a sword goes and gets one. The end result is that we ALL have swords. Isn't it?

Did you read the comment by Anonymous Coward 7843669, that I was responding to? It does not seem so.

Anonymous Coward 7843669 said "The idea of fighting with just two swords is ridiculous"

How many people had swords? You decide.
.

the fundamntalist christian middle eastern crime gangs here wear tattoos of jesus wielding either twin uzis or an ak47.

interesting to note the cast of characters who come out of the woodwork when Jesus is mentioned...

Well then to put it blunt. Show a statement or testimony of Jesus having or carring with him a sword. No one can since that is not what he meant.

Lame

You sound like a total retard.

Example #1 what would a gunsmith need to fix on an AR that you would be able to do on your own with the AK?

200 other examples possible that show your paint ball skills don't cross over into the real world.

lol

while it does hold true He won't be coming in "peacefully and prosperously" as will the rider on the first white horse to arrive, which will be the antichrist

He will come in like a LION, and with good reason in truth

He won't however require an actual "weapon" at that point

rest assured

as all will be changed back into spiritual bodies at the moment of His arrival, instantly

as in Poof!

the power He will be wielding will be self evident in and of itself

in a Word...

and/or a mere motion of His hand

In my world, Jesus carries an M1A and a 1911.

To the asshat that confusedly attributes quotes to those that post them:

Violent self-defence (i.e. the use of weapons in self-defense) can only be used as a last resort. There is no record of Jesus or the apostles ever resorting to it, despite extreme persecution.

If we are fighting attackers off, we must still continue to love them. To me, that means taking all possible means to minimise harm to all parties - as if the attacker was a member of our own family.

Violence must never be against a ruling authority, however much we dislike or disagree with it, because in such a situation peaceful resistance is always possible. It can only be used in the chaos of a simple violent attack on ourselves.

In light of Romans 13, which says that all authorities (even the enemy) are ordained by God, we may add two further principles if we allow war in self defence:

If the defence is won, there is no justification for then proceeding to attack the other country, because their government was instituted by God also.

If the defence is lost, then the new government must be accepted. While it may be opposed peacefully, there is no justification for a continued guerilla war against it. This goes against both Romans 13 (the accepting of governing authorities) and the principle of loving our enemy.

So yes, Luke 22:35-38 may provide some justification for fighting in self-defence. But, in light of other teaching of Jesus, it can only be used in strict self-defence, and must not be divorced from his command to love our enemies.

much of what you say has merit.

And I agree, at all times, it is spiritually healthy to see your enemy as someone provided by God to test you and make you stronger in spirit, regardless of whether your enemy is spiritually conscious or not, and thus respect them deeply.

One who sees this way will not attack an unarmed, unprepared, or unwilling opponent. Will not subject their enemy to excessive harm or abuse, and will be clean and quick with a kill.

If you read accounts of the Great war of India (MahaBharata) from 5000 years ago, the armies came from thousands of miles and fought for 18 days. At night, they would gather in one another's camps. Many knew each other from extended family relations and travels. They extended one another every comfort and camaraderie. And during the day, they killed each other.

disagreements: IMO and that of others, Jesus stopped Peter from continuing his assault because they were outnumbered and his words attest to that. There was no indication he felt Peter's actions unrighteous. Jesus also assaulted the money changers with a whip.

If you see anyone being subject to abuse of any kind, you have the right to attack the abuser. Depending on the type and degree of abuse, you may also be obligated to assist the victim for some time if you win.

By extension, it is righteous to challenge any ruling authority if that person(s) does not have the best interests of those they rule at heart, and you believe you can do better. You challenge them to a fight to the death. You win, you rule unless someone unseats you.

Here is why a .223 is needed..

They had learnt from people like us.

But the funny things is ... they had already been guiles.

Given the region from which he came probably an ak-47.

obongo supporters, no doubt. Is there a better word to describe these individuals than sub human?

Last Edited by s. d. butler on 02/25/2014 04:40 PM