"Get a sword", Jesus?

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

oh yeah

I bought the Hopi survival kit book once, hearing that they have recorded 4 cleansings of civilization and predict another, that they are close to the Earth, and have uncanny wisdom. I was sure it would have all the cool stuff on defense, caching, nav, med, preparedness. To my surprise these keepers of ancient ways simply addressed spiritual sickness, espousing the belief the the Creator will aid and comfort those in His care. They recommended having a 'survival' kit simply of things not man made, being willing and able to drop the conveniences of life and live simply at any time. Sorry to get off topic of my original Q, thanks to all for sharing.
ST

 

[ArfinGreebly]

I have faith that he will help me shoot straighter

Hmmm.

Where have I seen that before?

Ahhh, yes, the sniper in Saving Private Ryan.

He recites a prayer as he's lining up his shots.

 

[dtalley]

From the "Message" version Bible it makes it a little clearer for me.
Luke 22;36-37

36-37He said, "This is different. Get ready for trouble. Look to what you'll need; there are difficult times ahead. Pawn your coat and get a sword. What was written in Scripture, 'He was lumped in with the criminals,' gets its final meaning in me. Everything written about me is now coming to a conclusion."

 

[CountGlockula]

How can you understand a paragraph if you just read two sentences?

 

[Steel Talon]

Hello SamTucker...

I'm a lifelong student of the martial arts and have kept this prayer close to me for a very very long time.

PSALM 144

Peace
Steel Talon

 

[baz]

Thou Shalt not kill.

That sums it all up doesnt it?

No, it doesn't. The Book also says:

"Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man." Gen 9.6.

This is the original Biblical source for capital punishment, and the same (later) law that said "Thou Shalt not kill" recognized capital punishment for several offenses, and excused from capital punishment the shedding of blood in certain instances of self defense.

So "Thou Shalt not kill" doesn't "sum it all up."

 

[Eleven Mike]

Also consider that the Ten Commandments were given just prior to other laws that excused killings done in self-defense. And not long after that, God commanded them to enter Canaan and slay every inhabitant.

 

[XD Fan]

Many fascinating posts. I just want to say that I appreciate the generally civil and polite discussion.

 

[Eleven Mike]

They may or may not belong in the Bible (remember, this was decided by the Holy Roman Church circa 400 AD, IIRC.)...and they may or may not be "true". My point was that in some cases they contradict some of the other Gospels, adding to the confusion. And who knows what other texts have long since vanished that are relevant to the teachings of the Bible (but may or may not belong IN the Bible).

I don't see much point in speculating about texts of which we have no evidence. I think you have the wrong idea of how the canon came to be. It didn't come about as one decision made in one place or time. As you may know, canon means standard or measuring rod. The Gnostics just didn't meet it. I'm not sure how the ancient Jews decided which books went in their Bible, but they had already divided the Old Testament from the Apocrypha. When the Christians recognized new books that they considered to be inspired, they added them to the list. I and SolaScriptura have outlined their criteria above, and they are quite sensible. The Gnostics came late to the party and taught a different religion. That shouldn't confuse anyone. Parenthetically, there was no Roman or Eastern Church in 400, they had not yet split.

I begrudge no one their opinions. But, realize they are JUST opinions, NOT facts. BUT, I guess I draw the line when it comes from a (fallible) human, who is CONVINCED he knows God's will. I would NEVER PRESUME to fully understand God's will. Does that make me a heathen in God's eyes? Ihope not, and have never seen anything that supports that.

Outside of a few cults, I don't think anyone has claimed to "fully understand God's will." I think you're making an arbitrary distinction or maybe two of them. We're both offering our opinions here, as if we believed we were correct. And you are making judgements about what people should and should not do. In this, you are not different from the religious people that disagree with. You are sure of a few things, and will treat them as fact. They are sure of more things, or just different things. The fact that you aren't convinced of them doesn't mean they have no right to be. Perhaps they have seen more evidence than you. Perhaps they understand things better than you or I do. In the same way, someone who has studied the gun issue more thoroughly than I is going to be more dogmatic about the issue than I. Not because he is narrow-minded, but because he has seen more evidence that proves he is right.

In short, the "free will" discussion doesn't obviate the fact that God could guide things more towards good. (Also, remember I made the distinction between "bad" and "evil"---free will may come into play with "bad" but "evil" is different.)

I submit you don't know whether God could guide things more toward the good. Perhaps this world is the best that could be produced, and still allow free will. We don't know.

I would like to know how you differentiate between bad and evil.

 

[Limeyfellow]

No, it doesn't. The Book also says:

"Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man." Gen 9.6.

This is the original Biblical source for capital punishment, and the same (later) law that said "Thou Shalt not kill" recognized capital punishment for several offenses, and excused from capital punishment the shedding of blood in certain instances of self defense.

So "Thou Shalt not kill" doesn't "sum it all up."

Especially true. Also we have to take into account killing and murder only applied to certain things at certain times.

Throughout much of the bible it was considered a holy act that when you took a town you would kill every man, woman, child and animal and burn it to the ground as a sacrafice. There were numerous acts back then that were justifable. The killing is disobediant children for instance. We also saw a massive rate of sibling murder to put a certain brother in charge of the family. We see women put out to be raped by a whole town and then the holy act was hacking them to pieces for being defiled. We are talking about standards that haven't existed in moral cultures for milennia.

This is why I prefer the Songs Of Solomon. Everyone can agree that breasts are good.

 

[CountGlockula]

Limey...you're funny.

After Jesus came, you do know that he came up with two of the Greatest Commandments that supercede Moses' right?

Love the LORD your God with everything and love your neighbor as you would yourself.

 

[kungfuhippie]

Thou Shalt not kill.

That sums it all up doesnt it?

Yeah, it sums up that we don't speak old english and the translation was lazy.

The original hebrew reads as a direct translation"Do not put anyone to death without cause." The word used was nakah which means kill. Ratsach means murder. If God commanded men to never kill through Moses but then commanded the Hebrew nation, through Moses, to take the land of Israel by war, and killing, it would make God a hypocrit. He's not.

The problem here is something I learned about when I got my degree in Religious Studies. We are practicing exogesis where you take a few scriptures and use them to prove your point, rather than take the Bible as a whole to prove a point (though a few have taken the latter approach)

God does not condone murder, however often he has condoned a justified killing of someone. Goliath is a great example, God gave David power to kill the giant for a few good reasons, but later condemed David for basically murdering the husband of Bathsheba, Uriah the Hittite, because of his lust for Bathsheba. He ordered Uriah the Hittite to the front lines so he could be with Uriah's wife and he would end up dead.

So justified killing is okay, murder is not. I'm not about to draw a line of which is which. Just provide an example

 

[kungfuhippie]

And Jesus came to fulfill the law, not do away with it. Special care is made in the N.T. to emphasize that Jesus obeyed Judaic law (circumcision, sacrifice, sabath day observence, etc.). He added to the O.T. We still have the O.T. as part of the Bible because it teaches God's law. The O.T. is more a physical observance, the N.T. is more spiritual observance.

 

[Cosmoline]

Thou Shalt not kill.

That sums it all up doesnt it?

Nope, since the actual translation should be "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER" There is no prohibition in the OT against killing in self defense.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Throughout much of the bible it was considered a holy act that when you took a town you would kill every man, woman, child and animal and burn it to the ground as a sacrafice. There were numerous acts back then that were justifable. The killing is disobediant children for instance. We also saw a massive rate of sibling murder to put a certain brother in charge of the family. We see women put out to be raped by a whole town and then the holy act was hacking them to pieces for being defiled. We are talking about standards that haven't existed in moral cultures for milennia.

Woh! What Bible are you reading?

 

[Geronimo45]

"Throughout much of the bible it was considered a holy act that when you took a town you would kill every man, woman, child and animal and burn it to the ground as a sacrafice. There were numerous acts back then that were justifable. The killing is disobediant children for instance. We also saw a massive rate of sibling murder to put a certain brother in charge of the family. We see women put out to be raped by a whole town and then the holy act was hacking them to pieces for being defiled. We are talking about standards that haven't existed in moral cultures for milennia."
All events ain't holy. Cutting the woman to pieces wasn't, nor killing off all your relatives. Wiping out a disobedient kid was allowed, I think.

There was an incident in Judges, I think, where a southpaw CC'd a knife and stabbed a BG of the tonnage of Michael Moore, and it was sanctioned. So weapons for defense against government seem to be okay, too.

 

[kungfuhippie]

There was an incident in Judges, I think, where a southpaw CC'd a knife and stabbed a BG of the tonnage of Michael Moore, and it was sanctioned. So weapons for defense against government seem to be okay, too.

Ehud, a great left handed man. see the bible can be fun.

Judges Chapter 3 15-22 (KJV)
15 But when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised them up a deliverer, Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite, a man lefthanded: and by him the children of Israel sent a present unto Eglon the king of Moab.
16 But Ehud made him a dagger which had two edges, of a cubit length; and he did gird it under his raiment upon his right thigh.
17 And he brought the present unto Eglon king of Moab: and Eglon was a very fat man.
18 And when he had made an end to offer the present, he sent away the people that bare the present.
19 But he himself turned again from the quarries that were by Gilgal, and said, I have a secret aerrand unto thee, O king: who said, Keep silence. And all that stood by him went out from him.
20 And Ehud came unto him; and he was sitting in a summer parlour, which he had for himself alone. And Ehud said, I have a message from God unto thee. And he arose out of his seat.
21 And Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly:
22 And the ahaft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly; and the dirt came out.

 

[Cosmoline]

That'll learn him!

 

[Dan M.]

Hmm...well, David defended his flocks from lions and bears, and whatnot with a sling. I've no doubt that he would've (and most likely did) use it to defend himself from whatever was after his sheep. And his fight with Goliath, while not a matter of pure self-defense, was another fine example of using a weapon to overcome a disparity of force.

 

[CountGlockula]

Majority of David's lifespan was during an era of war...fighting with the Philistines; guess what Goliath was? A Philistine; born in Gath.

 

[kungfuhippie]

the gross part is that Ehad's dagger blade was a cubit in length (+/-18") and he shoved the whole dagger, not just the blade into Eglon's belly. That had to be one big guy to have a belly able to conceal nearly 2' of dagger (blade and tang)

 

[Eleven Mike]

It occurs to me that if "Thou shalt not kill," prohibited all killing of humans, it would also cover animals, if not plants as well. Unless the word translated as kill was limited in itself to human deaths.

 

[kungfuhippie]

I got the two backward.

I really need to proof my posts better:banghead: I got post #62 backwards:banghead:

The original hebrew reads as a direct translation"Do not put anyone to death without cause." The word used was not nakah which means kill but rather ratsach means murder.

so yeah mike11, you're right, the original word didn't mean kill, it meant murder. Moses is rolling over in his moabite grave at my errors.

 

[busy_squirrel]

I've studied most parts of the Bible, including more than a few different translations (But I'm certainly no "expert") Remember that not only have most current day versions been translated through at least a coupla different languages, much of what's contained therein was passed down VERBALLY for a long time, before it was ever written. Add that to the fact that only certain parts were originally "allowed" (check out the Gnostic Gospels) into the Bible

No, sorry, you misunderstood me. They may or may not belong in the Bible (remember, this was decided by the Holy Roman Church circa 400 AD, IIRC.)...and they may or may not be "true". My point was that in some cases they contradict some of the other Gospels, adding to the confusion. And who knows what other texts have long since vanished that are relevant to the teachings of the Bible (but may or may not belong IN the Bible).

It's my understanding that "the law" used to refer to the old testament, specifically the first 5 books.

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Luke 16:17
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Revel 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

So when the bible says the law will not be changed, that would mean (again, according to my understandiing) that God could prevent an incorrect translation. Say someone translates it wrong but God strikes them down before they can write the wrong translation down. I don't believe anyone was struck by lightning, that was an example.

But my point is that either you believe that God is all-powerful and can protect his Word, or he can't protect the Bible/won't keep his word. (And if he won't keep his word, then the Bible is wrong, which is why those two are on the same side of the OR statement.) If any part weren't from God, by definition, then the Bible wouldn't be from God right? Simply put: either the Bible is all correct and all there, (all right), or it's not all there and not all correct so it's not all right.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

"Throughout much of the bible it was considered a holy act that when you took a town you would kill every man, woman, child and animal and burn it to the ground as a sacrafice. There were numerous acts back then that were justifable. The killing is disobediant children for instance. We also saw a massive rate of sibling murder to put a certain brother in charge of the family. We see women put out to be raped by a whole town and then the holy act was hacking them to pieces for being defiled. We are talking about standards that haven't existed in moral cultures for milennia."

AND...

All events ain't holy. Cutting the woman to pieces wasn't, nor killing off all your relatives. Wiping out a disobedient kid was allowed, I think.

There was an incident in Judges, I think, where a southpaw CC'd a knife and stabbed a BG of the tonnage of Michael Moore, and it was sanctioned. So weapons for defense against government seem to be okay, too.

There is in large part a theological reason behind the parts (The Book of Joshua) where the Israelites would go in and wipe out a town (killing everything). The reason was because of God's judgment against the wickedness of those cities and to prevent their wickedness from infecting the Israelite people (which indeed did happen because the Israelites ended up disobeying for material gain). In a sense, it would be no different than God sending a tornado or causing an earthquake to destroy the town. God would not condone the Israelites going around an killing every non-Jew in site, it was an act of judgment, nothing more. Remember that in a sinful world (where all have sinned via Romans 3:23), a just and righteous God can punish us in the way He chooses because we have broken His law. So the act of wiping out these towns would be holy, because the Israelites were acting as the instrument of God's retribution.