Jesus hates Guns???

[1hogfan83]

Yes sir, the point of the two swords. Also a correlation with the two thieves on the cross. Everything falls into place when put into context. The only place that Gods armies are used in violent terms is the old testament and revelations. The new testament is love and teaching. Its your decision ultimately. It is frustrating though when people use that verse to promote violence. Another quote in the bible haunts me but it's not relevant now.

 

[Ringo]

Jesus is a spirit..

Where do you find that in scripture?

 

[fuhr52]

Where do you find that in scripture?

I don't read scripture with a literal mind set. Your right, when Jesus walked the planet he was flesh and blood. Guns had not yet been manufactured so he wouldn't have an opinion on them. My mistake. leasantry:

 

[santa]

The whole point of this discussion (thread)is to refute the false teaching that Jesus was a pacifist AND those that would use that false teaching to advocate banning some or all guns. A persons religion is their own personal business, but when they falsely use it to promote gun control I draw the line.

 

[Stan45]

"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe."
- Luke 11:21
"Jesus said, 'But now whoever has a purse or a bag, must take it and whoever does not have a sword must sell his cloak and buy one.'"
- Luke 22:36

The sword was the modern weapon of the day, today that would be a firearm.

 

[wizrd]

I dreamed last night that Jesus came to me and said, " Buy more ammo." On my way to the local shop in a few minutes.
Shopping list: .22 LR, .38 Spec., .357 Mag., .44 Mag., .45 ACP, .223 & .308 Win.

 

[ares338]

I don't even read garbage like that. Nuff said.

 

[ezkl2230]

I'm afraid you won't like this but Jesus was anti violence. He rebuked Peter for cutting off the guards ear. He did not want thousands of swords for all of his apostles. Two swords would be enough, for the two disciples, no more. God gives us all we need. The swords were made to look like Jesus was a criminal, if he was pro violence he would have fought the gaurds. He told Pilate he could have 12 legions of angles save him if he wished. That doesn't sound like pro violence or revolt to me.

And once again, someone is taking this completely out of context. What Jesus took issue with that night was Peter's nationalistic ambitions. Peter and the other disciples still didn't understand that Jesus came specifically to die, not to rule a physical kingdom. As late as the first chapter of the Book of Acts (after the resurrection of Jesus), the Apostles were still asking, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). They were waiting for Him to become their king of Israel. Peter was trying to begin a revolution to overthrow the Romans that night in the garden of Gethsemane, and Jesus had to bring him up short.

In Luke 22, Jesus specifically told them that they needed to provide for their personal defense by purchasing swords. This is the same Jesus, BTW, who fashioned a cat of nine tails and violently drove the money changers out of the temple. This is the same Jesus who, the Book of the Revelation tells us, is going to come back on a white horse to DESTROY His enemies in a battle during which the blood will run as deep as a horse's bridle (Revelation 14). Look at the WHOLE context, and stop cherry picking verses that seem to say what you want them to say. The same Jesus who taught that there are circumstances under which turning the other cheek is appropriate is the same Jesus who tells us to provide for our own self defense.

And for the record, I am an ordained minister.