Mythological-character Jesus would not have owned a gun, though he’d likely have tolerated his disciples owning them. (Peter had a sword, as I recall.) Myth-Jesus was very occasionally inclined to non-lethal violence, but since he tolerated his own torture and murder rather than calling Mike & Gabe down to kick Roman ass, I don’t think he was willing to kill people.
That, and if I’m reading this right he’s not telling them to get swords in case they need them or to actually use them - he’s saying that the prophecies say that him and his bunch are supposed to get arrested for concealed carry (or somesuch) and so they should make sure they have swords on their persons just so they could get nabbed over them. He’s just crossing items off his prophecy checklist.
Which is sort of cheating, if you ask me.
IIRC, when the Romans came to arrest Jesus, Peter got pissed and tried to cut off the one guy’s ear with his sword. Jesus healed the soldier, and then gave Peter the smack down. (Verbally of course)
I never thought of that before. I’d supposed that Jesus was getting militant at that point.
Jesus himself, probably would not carry. However, Peter would. Oh, yes. No question Peter would. (And Jesus might borrow it to brandish now and again.)
Jesus depended on the father’s protection until removed. there was no need for any weapon. This applies to swords, to ICBM’s and beyond.
If Jesus and the Father were one( as he was quoted as saying), he wouldn’t need the father’s protection, but could have struck them dead with just a word!
Does it apply to whips?
Given the Sermon on the Mount, I guess he wasn’t opposed to weapons of Mass instruction.
…
That’s coming Rev 19:15,21, He had to follow the Father’s plan and the Father’s timing, if He didn’t He would no longer be one with the Father.
This is about clearing the temple? IMHO Jesus, still spiritually ‘young’, baptism by the Holy Spirit just one chapter back, needed to learn how to handle things, He knew what was going on was wrong and needed to be destroyed, and (again IMHO) lost His temper, one of the few moments where we see Jesus’ flesh nature in the gospels. So perhaps He needed a weapon to learn that He didn’t need them at all.
Such things like impulsiveness for God is common in spiritually young’ new Christians. It’s a learning process that the Father allows so we can see that it really doesn’t work well. Scriptures state that there are things Jesus didn’t know as man, and that He learned along the way.
You can also look at the infancy gospel about Jesus’ childhood ‘antics’
He was using the whip offensively, and he wasn’t trying to kill anyone.
The swords in this case were symbolic. Jesus made a reference to Isaiah. The swords were a symbolic way to make him look like a “transgressor.” He was fulfilling the prophecy in a superficial way, not actually intending to fight. Two swords against the Roman military presence in Jersualem was, of course, a joke. The fact that he said two swords were “enough” is clear indication that they were not actually intended to be used, and in fact he instructed his disciples NOT to use them during his arrest (and admonished them for trying).
In John he tells Pilate that “my kingdom is not of this world” and points to the fact that his followers arenot fighting as evidence of this.
The entire message and vision of Jesus, as presented in the Gospels, was that of a non-violent revolution.
He never carried a sword, and never permitted one to be used in his own defense. This makes it rather unlikely that he would have carried a gun. He preached against using violence even in self-defense.
So he could use a gun offensively, so long as he isn’t trying to kill anyone?
If the gospel writers are correct, Revelations is contrary to what Jesus taught or said, He did not return with his angels in His Father’s glory as written, nor did the things He predicted happen in that generation, so Revelations is mute! If he was one with the Father, His and the Father’s plans would be the same, unless of course He was using the psalmist’s word,s “I say you are gods sons of the most high”. That would mean He considered all men to be gods!
There is no human that can say in truth that they know the Father’s intentions or words, it is all based on the beliefs, writings ,etc. of another human. If one chooses to believe a human that is their right, but then one can also say Muhammad 's teachings have validity! You have your beliefs and that is your right but they are just that…Beliefs in what a human said, thought or wrote!
The infancy gosples are not considered to be true, just myths!
I don’t know how you can say this and at the same time dismiss the infancy gospel in your next post.
Revelation is mainly of the heavens, not of the earth, But earth reflects what is going on in the heavens, we get that in a much lesser extent. For example Rev 6, 5-6 is happening in the heavens, what we get here on earth is black = color of oil, scales is a linking of the price of food to the price of fuel, wheat and barley = most basic foods, oil and wine = bio-diesel and ethanol (alcohol). Or basically what happens when a farmer can chose to plant either food or fuel, what happens to the price of food what the farmer can chose, it must equal the price of fuel he could plant, and that price will be dictated by the driving force (horse) of oil.
There is also a passage of Jesus (the male child) being born of ‘mother earth’, His birth in the heavens (Rev 12)
We are all gods, to become one with the Father, just as Jesus has.
[/quote]
There is no human that can say in truth that they know the Father’s intentions or words, it is all based on the beliefs, writings ,etc. of another human. If one chooses to believe a human that is their right, but then one can also say Muhammad 's teachings have validity! You have your beliefs and that is your right but they are just that…Beliefs in what a human said, thought or wrote!
[/QUOTE]
You don’t go into spiritual beings giving insight, to your loss IMHO.
In fact, Peter was armed, and attempted to defend Jesus, with the result that Jesus yelled at him. John 18.