> General Discussions

"So - Is there any difference?"

<< < (17/21) > >>

lareli:
I don't know what my point is in this but just some thoughts or observations I've had when contemplating this topic of violence/non-violence...

Leo Tolstoy was a Russian writer around the late 1800's who wrote a great deal on the subject of Jesus teachings of non violence and the hypocrisy of Christians regarding the teachings. He wrote a lot about how patriotism, nationalism, etc are in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus in regards to non violence. I've read only one of his books and in it he says that throughout history there has always been a very small number of folks who've  held to the teachings of Jesus when it comes to non violence.. I thought to myself "the elect?" 

I couldn't help but observe that many people who've advocated the principles of non violence have been murdered. Jesus said that if we be like Him we would suffer persecution. The world will hate us. Mlk jr.. Bullet to the head, Ghandi.. One in the gut, JFK.. Done, John Lennin, Bob Marley etc etc etc. I wonder if the early church during the height of its persecution was a bunch of people who might have looked like a hippy movement of folks refusing to be violent? If one Ghandi or one MLK advocating non violence presented such a problem to modern day rulers, I can only imagine what an entire movement of people all spreading the doctrines of non violence would've presented to their rulers.. What a nightmare for a world that relies on violence in order to maintain its authority to have the light of non violence expose it's weakness!

I was listening to a podcast about the early Christian Era and some of the problems it presented to the rulers of those days.. One of the problems being, how to reconcile Jesus' teachings on non violence with fighting wars for the rulers. I couldn't help but to observe that Constantine supposedly claimed to receive a vision in the sky before a significant battle.. The vision was a cross and accompanying the cross were the words 'in this sign you shall conquer' or something like that. Perhaps this was a way to reconcile the early Christian church with the need to have soldiers willing to kill and die for a worldly kingdom and worldly authority.

I don't know. Just thoughts I'd had.

lilitalienboi16:

--- Quote from: indianabob on December 08, 2015, 11:41:39 AM ---Well said and helpful Colin, still in the race at 78 years young.

I appreciate the friends who respect old age for the varied experiences it brings.
I have "adjusted" my views, understanding, opinions of several matters about life that folks who knew me when I was younger may not recognize in me today. Or better said, God has adjusted my understanding.

I mention this because I want to encourage the youth who share in the forum to patiently wait while God does a work in them.  8) the definition of youths is those who are not on Medicare yet.

Thanks again Colin and all those who contributed their loving thoughts.

I- Bob

--- End quote ---

Tehee.  ;D

Sometimes I feel like an old soul my self though the Lord has much work yet to be done in me. Truly, when we are weak, He is strong, my recent experiences have confirmed this to me. So I am grateful for the trials and boast in my infirmities.

I am grateful for all you old timers ;) , for all members who contribute, I benefit from these discussions.

octoberose:
JFK and the principles of nonviolence?  Really? He was probably killed because he was fooling around with the mobsters mistress  or because of the Bay of Pigs . He was also a war hero . And a sex addict. The man was a mess.
 Has anyone talked about Luke 22?
And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 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.”
    Of course I am aware that Jesus healed the soldier after Peter  cut off his ear with the sword ( have you considered Jesus let him do it in the first place?) . But that was so nothing would intervere with Christ accomplishing what he came here to do.  So in Luke 22 he tells them to sell their cloak to buy a sword! You have a sword for protection ! 
  The sum of thy word is truth. We can't leave out the uncomfortable bits. And we all have to do what their measure of faith allows, because if we think something is sinful then for him, it is.  The Bible tells us to take care of our household, so I will be defending my grandchildren by any means necessary. And believe me, my husband would not sit around while I was being attacked. I'm kind of flabbergasted that any of you think that is what is required fron you .  I'm glad my husband is
Willing to give his life for me - and grateful. This is also called laying your life down for someone else- something else that Jesus taught.

Kat:

Luke 22:36  He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

When you consider all of the places Christ advocates against violence, these words of Christ are not to be understood literally, that He would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate. Note that He also says down in the next verses that 2 were sufficient, which would not be enough for all of them... were some not to protect themselves? It was obvious that they did not yet understand by there reply, but He knew the Spirit would come and give them understanding. Also He forbid Peter from using one a very little time after this, and yes He did allow it to happen as a teaching lesson to the disciples that they were not to use violence under any circumstances.

Mat 26:52  But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

But His meaning in Luke 22 seems to have been that wherever they would go and preach the Gospel they would have many adversaries coming on them with great violence and persecution (most of them died a violent death), so that ordinarily they might seem to stand in need of swords to defend themselves, so this phrase "one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one" is used as an expression (used then, but obviously not a phrase heard today) of the terrible danger they would be exposed to and not that they should use one themselves. Consider that there are absolutely no Scripture of the Apostles ever using a sword for protection or anything as He seems to instruct here, ever. This one scripture certainly does not override all of the many other Scripture where Christ spoke of no violence, not if understood in it's correct meaning.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

Extol:
36 Yet He said to them, "But now, he who has a purse let him pick it up, likewise a beggar's bag also; and he who has none, let him sell his cloak and buy a sword.
37 For I am saying to you that this which is written must be accomplished in Me: And with the lawless is He reckoned. For that also which concerns Me is having its consummation."

Luke 22:36-37, Concordant Version

As Ray has explained, the word "for" is an important connecting word. It means "because" and it explains the preceding verse. Buy a sword, because I am to be reckoned with the lawless. He was not condoning violence; I think he was doing the opposite. He was saying that by having a sword they would be considered lawless (or "transgressors" as most versions have it.) This would explain why two swords were enough. As Kat point out, two swords would not be sufficient for 11 men. They weren't for fighting; they were just so the prophecy of Isaiah (53:12) could be fulfilled.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page