/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

self-defense, be able to hit weeds/brush, skin animals for food cuz there's no wal-mart, etc etc

>>567911

>self-defense

Except that time Jesus was going to be crucified, I suppose.

Now, I am assuming that it just means that you shouldn't fight if its pointless to fight(In his case, due to having attracted a riot and therefore having to kill a lot of people to be able to set yourself free, which they would undoubtedly fail).

>>567909

>why the disciples carried swords

To cut off jew's ears, of course.

>>567912

did you forget that time one of them cut off an ear?

see >>567913

>Except that time Jesus was going to be crucified, I suppose.

also, when peter (I think) suggested that they resist the crucifixion Christ said "Get behind me Satan!". Christ knew exactly what His Father required of Him.

>>567909

It has more to do with the purpose of it than the actual use of it. You can use a knife to cut bread or you can use it to kill someone. Intent is everything.

>>567913

Jesus healed that ear.

>>567914

>did you forget that time one of them cut off an ear?

Funny you mention that because Jesus delivered his "Shall die by the sword" quote then and there, implying that what Peter did was wrong. I think you're the one that needs to go and remember this scene.

Its in Matthew 26.

>>567909

The apostles, and Hebrews in general, had a different understanding of how the Messiah would rein over the nation. They were prepared for war.

I seem to recall the greek word used in the text denoted a small sword carried for self defense purposes, and not the kind suitable for offence

I believe it had to do with the fulfillment of prophecy, though I do not recall the specific one.

The disciples were meant to use the swords to defend themselves, not Jesus. The reason He gets so angry when Peter cuts that one guy's ear off is because Peter was trying to stop Him from being crucified, which was something that Jesus knew had to happen.

>>567916

What verse does it say that? I just see that he cut it off.

I really doubt they had full size swords, these guys were pretty poor. Dirk or dagger seems more likely - we know from the Good Samaritan parable that travel was dangerous at the time.

>>567909

>I don't really understand why the disciples carried swords

They were free. Only slaves are unarmed and if you're unarmed you're a slave. Debate me.

Live by the sword, die by the sword refers to the lifestyle of violence. There's a difference between having a sword as a utility, as a tool and self defense, and using the sword as the means to gather resources through others. Either conquest, robbery, or hired work.

They had but two swords for Church have but spiritual and material power, one used by clergy and one by faithful monarchs and states. Sadly, lesser sword some idiots gave up. But not for long.

>>568228

Probably not what op is looking for but there's this link which briefly analyzes possible alternate meanings of it.

http://aramaicnt.org/articles/he-who-lives-by-the-sword/

http://aramaicnt.org/2012/10/20/he-who-lives-by-the-sword-2/

>>568228

It makes me sad that anyone could misinterpret something as simple as this. Like how modern protestants refuse to reconcile that the only reasons that europe was christian was due to multiple, bloody wars fought to keep pagans and arabs from overrunning the continent.

Jesus said that because his passion wasnt to be stopped.

I don't know what Church teaching is on it but it is probably specific to people that live by the sword rather than those who just use weapons for tools.

I'm sure some Church father has a good homily on it.

>>567917

You're not getting it. A sword was a utilitarian necessity of the time. Christ never told them to disavow a sword for self-defense, if that's what you're getting at.

>>568194

Luke 22:51 KJV

51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.