Gun Control

[momor]

There are at least three problems with your opinion:

1. 
   *]Scripture tells us that Jesus ALWAYS explained things to His Apostles when they misunderstood. He didn’t do so here. Either he didn’t need to explain it because they understood correctly and Jesus was referring to actual swords or the INFALLIBLE Word of God is WRONG and Jesus did not explain everything to them when they misunderstood. Which is it?
   
   *]Jesus was giving His message to the Apostles to carry to the four corners of the world. Seeing that they misunderstood, why would He not clarify what He meant? Wouldn’t that ensure that they would spread the message incorrectly to others? Is that something that you would expect from the Great Teacher?
   
   *]This Gospel account was written after the minds of the Apostles were opened by the Holy Spirit. Seeing that they misunderstood Christ’s meaning, why wouldn’t they clarify it when writing the Gospel as they did in other places where they misunderstood something?

1. 
   My good man, I used the commentary of your own Biblical scholar that you offered in support of your position to show you how it actually stated the opposite of what you thought it did. Now you want to throw your own scholar under the bus and go back to your personal interpretation?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Answer the three questions that I asked. They pose major problems if your position is true. None of them exist, if your position is incorrect.

 

[momor]

Answer the three questions that I asked. They pose major problems if your position is true. None of them exist, if your position is incorrect.

I reject your 3 premises.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I reject your 3 premises.

Meaning, I have not one, but THREE reasons why your position is incorrect and you are unable to address them.

 

[ddarko]

Sorry, too late to add this to one post:

From the UCCB website, Luke 22:38 and footnote:

38 Then they said, “Lord, look, there are two swords here.” But he replied, “It is enough!”

13 [38] It is enough!: the farewell discourse ends abruptly with these words of Jesus spoken to the disciples when they take literally what was intended as figurative language about being prepared to face the world’s hostility.

Just one example of how an authoritive scholar would disagree on Sir Knight’s interpretation. There are many others.

All I’m saying is that I don’t think Sir Knight has anything to back up his interpretation besides his own opinion about what “enough” means. Show me some scholarly work that says otherwise, if you can find it.

He doesn’t. Maybe perhaps his pastor who carries around a gun but no proper theologian would be able to agree with him.

Usage of Scripture improperly can be very dangerous. All of the Heresies and the biggest one, the reformation it self was a result of incorrect theology.

What we are seeing here is the same thing. People who are already starting with the premise that “WE NEED GUNS” are just combing the Bible to gather evidence for it. Everything else is just ignored automatically by their brains. It’s a classic case of Confirmation bias and they helplessly see what they want to see.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

First off, I never said that our faith tells us that we are required to be armed. I said that we have a duty to defend ourselves with the BEST means POSSIBLE. That is going to differ from person to person for numerous reasons.

Yes, how it differs is in that people with authority, get to have guns. So military, police etc.

People like you and me who are civilians don’t get that right.

Good to see you are realizing these things.

God Bless

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Luke 11:21 (ESV) – “… When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe …”

Jesus praised armed defense of home & property. Aren’t we more important than our home and material things? If we can arm ourselves to defend the latter, doesn’t it stand to reason that we can do the same to defend the former?

you do realize that was a parable right? Parable of the Strong Man I believe. Matthew 12:29, Mark 3:27, and Luke 11:21-22. God Bless!

 

[momor]

you do realize that was a parable right? Parable of the Strong Man I believe. Matthew 12:29, Mark 3:27, and Luke 11:21-22. God Bless!

ESV Matthew 12;29
Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.

So if we use Sir Knight’s criteria for Scripture interpretation we can state that Jesus is OK with us breaking and entering our neighbor’s house, tying him up, and stealing his possessions?

 

[Sir_Knight]

ESV Matthew 12;29
Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.

So if we use Sir Knight’s criteria for Scripture interpretation we can state that Jesus is OK with us breaking and entering our neighbor’s house, tying him up, and stealing his possessions?

Can’t rebuke my three questions which prove you wrong, so now you resort to strawman arguments.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Yes, how it differs is in that people with authority, get to have guns. So military, police etc.

People like you and me who are civilians don’t get that right.

Good to see you are realizing these things.

God Bless

From the Vatican’s own website …

… the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS. This right can become a SERIOUS duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right ALONE can **justify the possession of arms **…

… Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144).​

Read what that says (and I’m para-phrasing here) … “Defense by arms exists and that right is a serious DUTY for those responsible for others” – INCLUDING family members. So, it doesn’t just refer to lawful authority as you keep trying to twist around.

 

[Sir_Knight]

He doesn’t. Maybe perhaps his pastor who carries around a gun but no proper theologian would be able to agree with him.

According to you. I believe the exact opposite.

Usage of Scripture improperly can be very dangerous. All of the Heresies and the biggest one, the reformation it self was a result of incorrect theology.

I’m glad that you are finally beginning to see that.

What we are seeing here is the same thing. People who are already starting with the premise that “WE NEED GUNS” are just combing the Bible to gather evidence for it. Everything else is just ignored automatically by their brains. It’s a classic case of Confirmation bias and they helplessly see what they want to see.

Talk about completely ignoring things with their brains, how about …

1. 
   *]Explaining what the reference to swords is suppose to mean if it doesn’t mean physical swords. If we don’t have “it”, we are suppose to sell our cloak and buy what?
   
   *]Scripture tells us that Jesus ALWAYS explained things to His Apostles when they misunderstood. He didn’t do so here. Either he didn’t need to explain it because they understood correctly and Jesus was referring to actual swords or the INFALLIBLE Word of God is WRONG and Jesus did not explain everything to them when they misunderstood. Which is it?
   
   *]Jesus was giving His message to the Apostles to carry to the four corners of the world. Seeing that they misunderstood, why would He not clarify what He meant? Wouldn’t that ensure that they would spread the message incorrectly to others? Is that something that you would expect from the Great Teacher?
   
   *]This Gospel account was written after the minds of the Apostles were opened by the Holy Spirit. Seeing that they misunderstood Christ’s meaning, why wouldn’t they clarify it when writing the Gospel as they did in other places where they misunderstood something?

 

[momor]

Can’t rebuke my three questions which prove you wrong, so now you resort to strawman arguments.

Go back and look at posts 287 and 288. If it’s a strawman argument, it’s your strawman.

in 288 you say re: Luke 11:21
“Jesus is making a point and using a well-armed man as an example. If it was sinful for someone to be well-armed, Jesus wouldn’t have used it for his illustration.”

Applying your same rationale to Mt 12:29, a parallel verse, if it was sinful for someone to tie up and rob his neighbor, Jesus wouldn’t have used it for his illustration.

Hence, the problem of literal interpretation and taking verses out of context.

BTW, I do rebuke your 3 questions

 

[Sir_Knight]

Go back and look at posts 287 and 288. If it’s a strawman argument, it’s your strawman.

in 288 you say re: Luke 11:21
“Jesus is making a point and using a well-armed man as an example. If it was sinful for someone to be well-armed, Jesus wouldn’t have used it for his illustration.”

Applying your same rationale to Mt 12:29, a parallel verse, if it was sinful for someone to tie up and rob his neighbor, Jesus wouldn’t have used it for his illustration.

Hence, the problem of literal interpretation and taking verses out of context.

BTW, I do rebuke your 3 questions

Where is your rebuttal? I failed to see it. Answer those three challenges to your faulty logic and then we’ll deal with your strawman argument.

 

[Newbie2]

First off, I never said that our faith tells us that we are required to be armed. I said that we have a duty to defend ourselves with the BEST means POSSIBLE. That is going to differ from person to person for numerous reasons.

Agreed.

Have any second thoughts on “enough” meaning “you have a sufficient number of swords”?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Agreed.

Have any second thoughts on “enough” meaning “you have a sufficient number of swords”?

Nope, for the four reasons at the end of this post. If somebody can address them, it’ll give me something to re-think. Until them, those four points stand as blocking posts. I am not willing to accept that the bible would say that Jesus clarified everything, if He didn’t; or, that depending on the Apostles to carry His message to others, the great teacher would not explain a misunderstood point; etc.

 

[momor]

Where is your rebuttal? I failed to see it. Answer those three challenges to your faulty logic and then we’ll deal with your strawman argument.

I have rebutted them - repeatedly. You just refuse to see (accept) it.

 

[ddarko]

*]Explaining what the reference to swords is suppose to mean if it doesn’t mean physical swords. If we don’t have “it”, we are suppose to sell our cloak and buy what?

*]Scripture tells us that Jesus ALWAYS explained things to His Apostles when they misunderstood. He didn’t do so here. Either he didn’t need to explain it because they understood correctly and Jesus was referring to actual swords or the INFALLIBLE Word of God is WRONG and Jesus did not explain everything to them when they misunderstood. Which is it?

*]Jesus was giving His message to the Apostles to carry to the four corners of the world. Seeing that they misunderstood, why would He not clarify what He meant? Wouldn’t that ensure that they would spread the message incorrectly to others? Is that something that you would expect from the Great Teacher?

*]This Gospel account was written after the minds of the Apostles were opened by the Holy Spirit. Seeing that they misunderstood Christ’s meaning, why wouldn’t they clarify it when writing the Gospel as they did in other places where they misunderstood something?

This is theological murder right here.

How many times have people explained here what Jesus meant by Swords. ALSO, you seem to be missing a VERY KEY point even if we interpret it your way. You are ignoring ALL the rest of the teachings by Jesus INCLUDING the sermon of the mount. That is WRONG.

It clearly contradicts Jesus’s teaching in Gethsamane it self too

"Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52)

**
YOU CANNOT INTERPRET ONE PART OF SCRIPTURE IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT CONTRADICTS ANOTHER PART.**

Thats like Theology 101 which you seem to have thrown out of the window.

Do you know who else tried doing what you are doing here? The reformers and all the proponents of heresy.

Here’s an example:-

There are ample amount of passages in the Bible that can be quoted for Sola Fide doctrine. Does that mean the doctrine is correct? NO. Its WRONG because it contradicts all the passages in Scripture that speak about the importance of works AND FAITH being dead without works.

So honestly, at this point, it seems like you are not aware of how proper theology works. If you interpret things on their own, you can end up with heresy.

Jesus also didn’t always clarify what he meant. I don’t know which Bible you read but he never clarified what he meant when he spoke of his death and they had a misconceived view. He knew things will become clearer with time.

"Jesus, however, had been speaking about his death, but they thought that he was referring merely to sleep." (John 11:13)

So even that passage with the swords, he obviously knew it will be obvious with time when taken together with ALL his teachings in context, just as his words on his death and resurrection.

In conclusion, God’s infallible word is INFALLIBLE. There is NO contradiction. BUT, you seem to be doing a pretty fallible job at theology.

God Bless

 

[Newbie2]

Nope, for the four reasons at the end of this post. If somebody can address them, it’ll give me something to re-think. Until them, those four points stand as blocking posts. I am not willing to accept that the bible would say that Jesus clarified everything, if He didn’t; or, that depending on the Apostles to carry His message to others, the great teacher would not explain a misunderstood point; etc.

I’m not going to try to twist your arm, as we seem to agree on the magisterial application of self defense and arms, but consider this:

*]Jesus was giving His message to the Apostles to carry to the four corners of the world. Seeing that they misunderstood, why would He not clarify what He meant? Wouldn’t that ensure that they would spread the message incorrectly to others? Is that something that you would expect from the Great Teacher?

Two swords between 12 apostles who were split up to go evangelize to the ends of the earth? Sufficient number of swords for their self-defense? We don’t know for certain if they traveled in twos and threes or even fours, but we do know they didn’t travel all together in a group of 12. Let’s presume they traveled even in fours; one group would not have a sword. How does that square with Jesus meaning that two swords were enough (for their own protection)?

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Yes, how it differs is in that people with authority, get to have guns. So military, police etc.

People like you and me who are civilians don’t get that right.

That is your interpretation and it is clearly wrong.

 

[tommcguire]

This morning I read in Psalm 44

"I do not trust in my bow,
my sword does not bring me
victory;
but you give us victory over our
enemies,
you put our adversaries to shame.
In God we make our boast all day
long
and we will praise your name
forever.’

Guns are among us for the foreseeable future. Some will own them for self defense, and put their trust in this tool of killing. In my community, there are plenty of guns. You want one; you can get one legally or illegally. I know many who have died from gun shot wounds; having a gun would not have saved any of them. So for me, the challenge is how do we get beyond violence? What God wills is peace among us; what part of what God wills are we unwilling to will? We pray “Thy will be done on earth as in heaven.”