VA Tech Shooting: What can we possibly do?

[MikeWM]

Why? Because some anonymous PC character put in a whacky footnote?

Hardly whacky, when various scripture scholars think exactly that. I’m not aware of any official Catholic teaching that we have to interpret Jesus’ words literally at this point. Do you know of any?

While we’re at it, if we’re to take Jesus literally as opposed to inferring what he meant (because that’s apparently ‘Protestant’), shouldn’t you be arguing for wearing a sword rather than a gun? Jesus definitely said sword

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hardly whacky, when various scripture scholars think exactly that. I’m not aware of any official Catholic teaching that we have to interpret Jesus’ words literally at this point. Do you know of any?

I’m not aware of any official Catholic teaching that we have to attribute error to an inspired writer to make Jesus’ words conform to our PC ideas. Do you know of any?

While we’re at it, if we’re to take Jesus literally as opposed to inferring what he meant (because that’s apparently ‘Protestant’), shouldn’t you be arguing for wearing a sword rather than a gun? Jesus definitely said sword

Mike

Now we’re making progress. We agree that “sword” means “sword.”

Since Jesus taught some 2,000 years ago, and used terms and technological examples of his era, we have to apply His teaching to the modern world.

A sword is a big knife. And there is an old saying, “Dumb enough to take a knife to a gunfight.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not aware of any official Catholic teaching that we have to attribute error to an inspired writer to make Jesus’ words conform to our PC ideas. Do you know of any?

Now we’re making progress. We agree that “sword” means “sword.”

Since Jesus taught some 2,000 years ago, and used terms and technological examples of his era, we have to apply His teaching to the modern world.

A sword is a big knife. And there is an old saying, “Dumb enough to take a knife to a gunfight.”

 

[MikeWM]

I’m not aware of any official Catholic teaching that we have to attribute error to an inspired writer to make Jesus’ words conform to our PC ideas. Do you know of any?

What on earth is PC about that? And no-one is arguing it is ‘error’. None of the other analogies in the Gospels are considered ‘errors’.

Now we’re making progress. We agree that “sword” means “sword.”

Err… no. I said ‘if’. I agree Jesus said sword, I don’t necessarily agree he meant a literal sword - any more when he said ‘I come not to bring peace but to bring a sword’ that he meant a literal sword

Since Jesus taught some 2,000 years ago, and used terms and technological examples of his error, we have to apply His teaching to the modern world.

Ah! I agree, but that’s interesting.

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

What on earth is PC about that? And no-one is arguing it is ‘error’. None of the other analogies in the Gospels are considered ‘errors’.

The anonymous author of the footnote says the writer of the gospel, Luke, did not understand what Jesus meant – even though he wrote long after Pentecost.

Err… no. I said ‘if’. I agree Jesus said sword, I don’t necessarily agree he meant a literal sword - any more when he said ‘I come not to bring peace but to bring a sword’ that he meant a literal sword

Back to the old “black really means white” argument, are we?

When Jesus said ‘I come not to bring peace but to bring a sword’ he meant a literal sword – in the form of strife and fighting. He didn’t mean whatever else you said “sword” meant. (I forget.)

And let me point out, He did not tell the Apostles to get rid of the two swords they showed Him – even though it was illegal for them to have swords!!

And in the garden, He knew Pete was packin’ heat.

 

[seekerz]

Where are the theologians among us? I’d really like to know the official church interpretation of this whole sword issue. I don’t mind some things being left to personal opinion, but not this one…

 

[jmcrae]

Self-defense is certainly permitted.

If the teachers are armed, I would want them to be level-headed in an emergency. This sort of thing takes training. First of all, one needs to be trained in the use of a firearm, which doesn’t take very long. Second, one needs to be trained in how to respond in an emergency situation. A St. John’s Ambulance First Aid course would be the perfect place to do that, I think.

Everyone over the age of 16 should have their First Aid certificate; it’s a necessary life skill nowadays.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Where are the theologians among us? I’d really like to know the official church interpretation of this whole sword issue. I don’t mind some things being left to personal opinion, but not this one…

Let’s look at what the gospel says. Luke 22, 35-36

35 He said to them, “When I sent you forth without a **money bag **or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?” “No, nothing,” they replied.
36 He said to them, "But now one who has a **money bag **should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.

(My emphasis)

Notice the parallelism in the two verses. In verse 35, He talks about three physical objects – a money bag, a sack and sandals. He clearly means a money bag, a sack and sandals in this verse.

In verse 36, he repeats the pattern of three: a money bag, a sack and a sword. It doesn’t make sense to assume that the sword is not as real and concrete as the money bag and sandals.

And note that just a short time later, in the garden, Peter produces a real, concrete sword – and Jesus had to know he was carrying it (illegaly, too).

 

[Sir_Knight]

Think about this for yourself logically because the bible is a very logical work – everything within it’s pages fits logically together.

As pointed out in the previous post, Jesus is giving His apostles a list of things that they should have. It doesn’t make sense for all of them to be taken literally except for one of them.

It would be inconsistent with scripture for Jesus not to correct their misunderstanding and explain what He really meant when ALL other times in scripture He DID correct their misunderstandings and explain what He meant to them.

Further more, Jesus was preparing the Apostles to spread His teaching to the four corners of the earth. If they misunderstood and if Jesus didn’t correct their misunderstandings and explain what He meant to them, then they would be spreading His teachings incorrectly.

Is this something that “the Great Teacher” would allow to happen? I think not. The only thing that makes sense is that Jesus actually instructed them to buy physical swords.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Think about this for yourself logically because the bible is a very logical work – everything within it’s pages fits logically together.

As pointed out in the previous post, Jesus is giving His apostles a list of things that they should have. It doesn’t make sense for all of them to be taken literally except for one of them.

It would be inconsistent with scripture for Jesus not to correct their misunderstanding and explain what He really meant when ALL other times in scripture He DID correct their misunderstandings and explain what He meant to them.

Further more, Jesus was preparing the Apostles to spread His teaching to the four corners of the earth. If they misunderstood and if Jesus didn’t correct their misunderstandings and explain what He meant to them, then they would be spreading His teachings incorrectly.

Is this something that “the Great Teacher” would allow to happen? I think not. The only thing that makes sense is that Jesus actually instructed them to buy physical swords.

one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.

And if it isn’t a physical sword, the command to sell their cloaks to buy one doesn’t make sense.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Exactly. One does not need to sell their outer garments to obtain the Word of God … as some have implied what this “sword” to be.

Too many problems with this passage if “sword” is not to mean a real physical literal sword.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly. One does not need to sell their outer garments to obtain the Word of God … as some have implied what this “sword” to be.

Too many problems with this passage if “sword” is not to mean a real physical literal sword.

If we accept that the “sword” is the “Word of God” we have Jesus endorsing Simony, which is a sin!

 

[MikeWM]

I’d really like to know the official church interpretation of this whole sword issue.

I would too - but I’m not convinced there is one. Every time the subject comes up we just hear personal opinions - often well-argued personal opinions, but still just personal opinions.

The only evidence I believe we have so far is that the translation of the Bible approved by the US bishops favours a figurative interpretation. I’d prefer to see some more concrete evidence too. I suspect there isn’t an ‘official’ interpretation either way, though. Let those who know differently speak now!

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

Further more, Jesus was preparing the Apostles to spread His teaching to the four corners of the earth. If they misunderstood and if Jesus didn’t correct their misunderstandings and explain what He meant to them, then they would be spreading His teachings incorrectly.

I’m afraid to say my knowledge of Acts isn’t as good as it ought to be, otherwise I could answer this question myself - but… Do they get the swords? Do they use them at any point in Acts? Should they have done?

Mike

 

[whatevergirl]

Alot of people are asking “how " can we stop this or what can we do? Well, it seems that we should be showing " compassion " to those who are alone , scared , from a foreign country looking for the american dream and only being shunned, You might say quite quickly that it was a random act but what precipitated the attack? We should all take a real hard look and see what has been created as the american dream and why the immmigrants that come here aren’t always getting a fair share. I’m not in any way condoning what happened. It is a travesty and my heart goes out to all with great sympathy. I have no children and can’t even fathom what it would be like to send them off to a secure place for education and then for this to happen.
" You will have trouble in the world, but I have overcome the world”
The sooner we believe this a better world we will have. Again I say the answerr is " COMPASSION "
The lonliest people on the earth tonight must be the family of the assailant. Let’s say a prayer for them as well as those that lost their lives.
peace everyone
my love to all of you
God bless
patrick

I agree with what you say here.

 

[MikeWM]

Exactly. One does not need to sell their outer garments to obtain the Word of God … as some have implied what this “sword” to be.

No, indeed not - but it is possibly an effective allegorical way of stating that having the Word of God is more important even than the clothes on your back.

Too many problems with this passage if “sword” is not to mean a real physical literal sword.

I think there are too many problems either way. Given that difficulty, I choose the interpretation that I think fits in best with the rest of Jesus’ teachings, unless I see hard evidence that the official Catholic position is different.

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would too - but I’m not convinced there is one. Every time the subject comes up we just hear personal opinions - often well-argued personal opinions, but still just personal opinions.

The only evidence I believe we have so far is that the translation of the Bible approved by the US bishops favours a figurative interpretation. I’d prefer to see some more concrete evidence too. I suspect there isn’t an ‘official’ interpretation either way, though. Let those who know differently speak now!

Mike

Let’s see what the anonymous author of the footnote (not the US Catholic Bishops) says:

35 He said to them, “When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?” “No, nothing,” they replied.
36 He said to them, 12 “But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.
37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, namely, ‘He was counted among the wicked’; and indeed what is written about me is coming to fulfillment.”
38 Then they said, “Lord, look, there are two swords here.” But he replied, “It is enough!” 13

And here are those anonymous footnotes:

12 [36] In contrast to the ministry of the Twelve and of the seventy-two during the period of Jesus (Luke 9:3; 10:4), in the future period of the church the missionaries must be prepared for the opposition they will face in a world hostile to their preaching.

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.

Note that no evidence is offered that the language was intended to be figurative. As others have shown, the parallelism, the command to buy a sword, the actual presentation of swords to Christ, and the possession of a sword by Peter just a short time later all favor a literal interpretation.

He said “sword,” and He meant “sword.”

 

[MikeWM]

The anonymous author of the footnote says the writer of the gospel, Luke, did not understand what Jesus meant – even though he wrote long after Pentecost.

No he doesn’t. He says the apostles at the time didn’t understand what Jesus meant. It may have been a more coherent story if it had been rewritten so that the apostles appeared to always know what Jesus was talking about at the time he said it, but it would be less honest and less human.

When Jesus said ‘I come not to bring peace but to bring a sword’ he meant a literal sword – in the form of strife and fighting. He didn’t mean whatever else you said “sword” meant.

That’s a new and interesting definition of ‘literal’. He didn’t ‘bring’ a literal sword at all as an alternative to peace. He brought the Word of God, the Truth, which does indeed cause strife and fighting, maybe even sometimes involving swords, but Jesus himself wasn’t standing there with an actual sword he’d brought along with him!

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m afraid to say my knowledge of Acts isn’t as good as it ought to be, otherwise I could answer this question myself - but… Do they get the swords? Do they use them at any point in Acts? Should they have done?

Mike

Of course! They showed two swords to Christ, and Peter used one later on in the garden.

 

[MikeWM]

Of course! They showed two swords to Christ, and Peter used one later on in the garden.

Yes, of course, but I didn’t ask about then. I asked about in Acts, when they are doing the things they are supposed to need the ‘swords’ for. Do they have them then? Do they use them? (Quite possibly they do; as I said, my knowledge of Acts is patchier than it ought to be).

Mike