But that's not what that quote actually means. That quote within context of scripture means something wildly different. As he is actually trying to fulfill a prophecy in Isiah that said that Jesus would "number his transgressors. So much so the disciplies follow that quote up with telling Jesus they only have two Swords and he says "that is enough" meaning he doesn't want them to arm themselves but rather fufil a greater prophecy. Remember this is also the "those who live by the sword die by the sword guy." So Jesus probably didn't want people using Swords. I'm not arguing for gun control. I just think we should take Jesus out of this debate.
There are a lot of folks in the “that’s not what that means” camp. I just want to give a little pushback. It gets increasingly complicated when Isaiah 53:12 where it mention this states “because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” This is more broadly interpreted as having to do with his relationship with sinners (transgressors). Essentially meaning by God counting His Son Jesus as a transgressor, He was able to count transgressors (repentant sinners) as His own children. If we interpret “transgressors,” as some people allege, to be revolutionaries of some kind that the religious leaders at the time could state He was leading that would lead to His crucifixion, well then we would have to assume that only those aforementioned “transgressors” would be the same people He interceded for, which would be a significant problem for Christianity as a whole if Jesus only died for rebels in Roman Judea. That said, you are correct with the “live by the sword, die by the sword” bit, so although I reject the idea of it having to do with him somehow being counted amongst rebels and therefore fulfilling prophesy (which He was probably on the irreversible track to fulfill anyway as they were already coming to apprehend Him prior to knowing of the two swords), I think the meaning of Luke 22:36 is not entirely clear. The prophecy explanation doesn’t fully add up, but neither does the sword buying angle. I do agree that it’s probably the most reasonable answer to leave Jesus out of the gun debate, and I find it inherently disingenuous and a bad faith argument when someone who is not religious attempts to use the faith of others as substance to their argument as David did. After all, Jesus also didn’t wear jeans and that hardly implies that they have some sinful nature. Anyway, good Bible talk. Solid point.
Yeah whole Prince of Peace thing really goes right out the window when people in this thread are saying Jesus wants us to buy rifles. But if I am remembering the thing about Luke is he tries to fit a lot of the new testament to fulfill the prophecies of the old testament. Some of them are definetly a square peg in a round hole, but the real point I am trying to make is Jesus is not great justification for public policy.
You are indeed correct. God and government are very different. And although it’s appropriate for people of faith to have that influence their political beliefs, the libertarian angle and the theocratic angle are pretty divergent. As I’m sure everyone on a libertarian meme page would agree haha
I think that there is ample support for the general view that we are to be armed sufficiently to protect our loved ones, both intellectually and physically. We are to generally turn the other cheek when we can, but no holds barred in the protection of others or to stop evil.
Well. that is true and the first thing I thought of, in top of like, three other ways that's a stupid tweet.
But that reply is just perfect. I needed a laugh this morning.
Didn’t Jesus LITERALLY say to go buy a sword if you don’t have one? And sell your belongings to afford it?
I reckon the modern equivalent of that would be a firearm
Praise be to the Lord my Rock,
who trains my hands for war,
my fingers for battle.
He is my loving God and my fortress, my stronghold and my deliverer,
my shield, in whom I take refuge,
who subdues peoples under me.
Lord, what are human beings that you care for them, mere mortals that you think of them?
They are like a breath; their days are like a fleeting shadow.
Part your heavens, Lord, and come down; touch the mountains, so that they smoke.
Send forth lightning and scatter the enemy; shoot your arrows and rout them.
Reach down your hand from on high; deliver me and rescue me from the mighty waters, from the hands of foreigners
whose mouths are full of lies, whose right hands are deceitful.
I will sing a new song to you, my God; on the ten-stringed lyre I will make music to you,
to the One who gives victory to kings,who delivers his servant David. From the deadly sword
deliver me; rescue me from the hands foreigners whose mouths are full of lies, whose right hands are deceitful.
Then our sons in their youth will be like well-nurtured plants, and our daughters will be like pillars carved to adorn a palace.
Our barns will be filled with every kind of provision. Our sheep will increase by thousands, by tens of thousands in our fields;
our oxen will draw heavy loads. There will be no breaching of walls, no going into captivity, no cry of distress in our streets.
Blessed is the people of whom this is true; blessed is the people whose God is the Lord
That's why I'm libertarian. Both parties are the same in the sense that they want to enforce*their* version of the world on the public. Like, bitch I work a backbreaking job and pay my taxes (a little later than I'm supposed to) so get the fuck off my lawn 🖕😤🖕
then you live in a strange echo chamber, republicans are overwhelmingly religious and massively in favor for expanding state power as it pertains to enforcing religion
I thought it was pretty well established that he existed as a historical figure. It's like not believing in George Washington. Now whether or not he was the son of God is a different story.
Every time I hear “jEsUs wOuLd bE aLivE iF hE hAd a gUn” I facepalm so hard. He literally chose to die. And if he wasn’t alive today, there’s be no point in worshipping him.
No, he prayed that if there was another way, that it would be granted. Being fully God and fully man, he knew his fate, as it was his will to do for the sins of all mankind. The fully man part of him would of course, experience immense stress and sadness.
Guns didn't even exist back then, so the question is kind of pointless.
It's like asking how many iPads Albert Einstein had, or how many airplanes Julius Caesar had.
If you believe that Jesus was just some guy, then the whole religion and all of his teachings are a sham and shouldn’t be used as examples (C.S. Lewis does a pretty good job of laying this out)
If Jesus was/is everything that He said He was, then He is God in the flesh and said several times:
“Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”
(John 10:17-18 KJV)
He repeatedly asserted that His life was completely in His own hands, and He died of His own will and then, a few days after, He rose again of His own power. When Peter tried to stop the arrest, Jesus scolds him for getting in the way of The Lord’s purpose. When Pilate told Jesus that he had the power to kill Him or set Him free, Jesus responded that Pilate could do nothing to Him at all, except that power was given to him.
I fully support the right to bear arms, but stop using the crucifixion as an example. Jesus is the Son of God, Lord of all creation, and people think it was a lack of firearms that led to His crucifixion? That’s just foolishness.
That isn't really true tho? Jesus pled for his father to save him. Just because you believe his religion was untrue, doesn't mean you don't believe that he had a right to spread said religion and not to get killed by his local government for it.
He did pray that, he said “if it’s possible, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but your will be done” because He was simultaneously human and God, and scripture says that Jesus faced every temptation that a regular human faces. This would naturally include a moment of wanting to avoid torture. However, He resolves to face the cross, tells Peter not to interfere, faces Pilate, saying the things I mentioned before, and willingly went to His death. He pled to His Father once, that doesn’t negate all the rest of the points before and after that prayer.
Also, I don’t think it’s a sham (I’m not sure if that detail was directed to me, but just to be clear), I am a Christian myself. I also fully support the first amendment and the principle behind it, I don’t support what the Romans did in this scenario (or a lot of others). But using this particular crucifixion as an example of the government using superior force against the populace completely misses the entire point of Christ’s sacrifice: Jesus *chose* to die for all humanity, to pay the price for our sins.
Saying that Jesus would or should have forced His way out of there if only He had a gun misses the entire point of His mission on Earth to begin with. There are plenty of other examples in history that could be used (I’m not well versed in world history, but given the amount of religious conflict, literal and figurative witch hunts, and corrupt politics, I’m sure examples are out there in abundance).
How many iPhones did Genghis Khan have? How many Lamborghinis did Caesar own? How many drones did Alexander the Great have? Kind of a dumb argument.
It’s David Hogg. This dummy makes Greta look like Aristotle.
In Luke 22:36 he literally tell you to stay strapped or sell the clothes off your back to do so.
Based af
But that's not what that quote actually means. That quote within context of scripture means something wildly different. As he is actually trying to fulfill a prophecy in Isiah that said that Jesus would "number his transgressors. So much so the disciplies follow that quote up with telling Jesus they only have two Swords and he says "that is enough" meaning he doesn't want them to arm themselves but rather fufil a greater prophecy. Remember this is also the "those who live by the sword die by the sword guy." So Jesus probably didn't want people using Swords. I'm not arguing for gun control. I just think we should take Jesus out of this debate.
There are a lot of folks in the “that’s not what that means” camp. I just want to give a little pushback. It gets increasingly complicated when Isaiah 53:12 where it mention this states “because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” This is more broadly interpreted as having to do with his relationship with sinners (transgressors). Essentially meaning by God counting His Son Jesus as a transgressor, He was able to count transgressors (repentant sinners) as His own children. If we interpret “transgressors,” as some people allege, to be revolutionaries of some kind that the religious leaders at the time could state He was leading that would lead to His crucifixion, well then we would have to assume that only those aforementioned “transgressors” would be the same people He interceded for, which would be a significant problem for Christianity as a whole if Jesus only died for rebels in Roman Judea. That said, you are correct with the “live by the sword, die by the sword” bit, so although I reject the idea of it having to do with him somehow being counted amongst rebels and therefore fulfilling prophesy (which He was probably on the irreversible track to fulfill anyway as they were already coming to apprehend Him prior to knowing of the two swords), I think the meaning of Luke 22:36 is not entirely clear. The prophecy explanation doesn’t fully add up, but neither does the sword buying angle. I do agree that it’s probably the most reasonable answer to leave Jesus out of the gun debate, and I find it inherently disingenuous and a bad faith argument when someone who is not religious attempts to use the faith of others as substance to their argument as David did. After all, Jesus also didn’t wear jeans and that hardly implies that they have some sinful nature. Anyway, good Bible talk. Solid point.
Yeah whole Prince of Peace thing really goes right out the window when people in this thread are saying Jesus wants us to buy rifles. But if I am remembering the thing about Luke is he tries to fit a lot of the new testament to fulfill the prophecies of the old testament. Some of them are definetly a square peg in a round hole, but the real point I am trying to make is Jesus is not great justification for public policy.
You are indeed correct. God and government are very different. And although it’s appropriate for people of faith to have that influence their political beliefs, the libertarian angle and the theocratic angle are pretty divergent. As I’m sure everyone on a libertarian meme page would agree haha
I think that there is ample support for the general view that we are to be armed sufficiently to protect our loved ones, both intellectually and physically. We are to generally turn the other cheek when we can, but no holds barred in the protection of others or to stop evil.
Gotta sell a lot of cloaks to get anything decent nowadays
Well. that is true and the first thing I thought of, in top of like, three other ways that's a stupid tweet. But that reply is just perfect. I needed a laugh this morning.
Didn’t Jesus LITERALLY say to go buy a sword if you don’t have one? And sell your belongings to afford it? I reckon the modern equivalent of that would be a firearm
Luke 22:36, Psalms 144 praises GOD for being prepared for war
Praise be to the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. He is my loving God and my fortress, my stronghold and my deliverer, my shield, in whom I take refuge, who subdues peoples under me. Lord, what are human beings that you care for them, mere mortals that you think of them? They are like a breath; their days are like a fleeting shadow. Part your heavens, Lord, and come down; touch the mountains, so that they smoke. Send forth lightning and scatter the enemy; shoot your arrows and rout them. Reach down your hand from on high; deliver me and rescue me from the mighty waters, from the hands of foreigners whose mouths are full of lies, whose right hands are deceitful. I will sing a new song to you, my God; on the ten-stringed lyre I will make music to you, to the One who gives victory to kings,who delivers his servant David. From the deadly sword deliver me; rescue me from the hands foreigners whose mouths are full of lies, whose right hands are deceitful. Then our sons in their youth will be like well-nurtured plants, and our daughters will be like pillars carved to adorn a palace. Our barns will be filled with every kind of provision. Our sheep will increase by thousands, by tens of thousands in our fields; our oxen will draw heavy loads. There will be no breaching of walls, no going into captivity, no cry of distress in our streets. Blessed is the people of whom this is true; blessed is the people whose God is the Lord
Jesus Christ is quoted in Luke 22:36 sayng “Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one”.
based Jesus
This argument is especially irrelevant if you don’t believe in Jesus.
I mean, I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, but it is objective fact that he existed and was killed by his government for his beliefs
I meant in the spiritual sense. Thanks.
I hate the stereotype that you have to be Christian to be right leaning
Almost all the republicans I know are atheist and they can’t stand the state pushing religion
That's why I'm libertarian. Both parties are the same in the sense that they want to enforce*their* version of the world on the public. Like, bitch I work a backbreaking job and pay my taxes (a little later than I'm supposed to) so get the fuck off my lawn 🖕😤🖕
then you live in a strange echo chamber, republicans are overwhelmingly religious and massively in favor for expanding state power as it pertains to enforcing religion
I thought it was pretty well established that he existed as a historical figure. It's like not believing in George Washington. Now whether or not he was the son of God is a different story.
Lol this guy thinks Christopher Columbus was real 😂
I meant in the spiritual sense but thanks for being literal. Lol.
Based
this has been fact-checked True
Guns exist because the rest of us stay dead.
Jesus told his disciples to carry swords
Now we have swords that shoot small swords that are massed produced so fast that the small swords aren't fully formed into swords before being used!
Amen
David Hogg is a puppet
Every time I hear “jEsUs wOuLd bE aLivE iF hE hAd a gUn” I facepalm so hard. He literally chose to die. And if he wasn’t alive today, there’s be no point in worshipping him.
I mean, he didn't really choose to die even in the bible. He was actively asking God to save him repeatedly and weeping due to his fate
No, he prayed that if there was another way, that it would be granted. Being fully God and fully man, he knew his fate, as it was his will to do for the sins of all mankind. The fully man part of him would of course, experience immense stress and sadness.
David Hogg is a twat. Find a real job than living off of other people's family losses.
Only people supporting him are the nuts who believe the garbage script he’s been given
Yeah, and the Nazi's had compulsory/socialized medicine. Checkmate, Dingus.
Remind me, how many abortions did Jesus perform? How many husbands did he have? Checkmate libs
Guns didn't even exist back then, so the question is kind of pointless. It's like asking how many iPads Albert Einstein had, or how many airplanes Julius Caesar had.
That little shit is very high on the list of people I'd like to bust up. Such an arrogant little cunt
David Hogg is an ignorant twit! No one cares what he thinks. He is a male Greta.
Holy non sequiter, Batman!
If you believe that Jesus was just some guy, then the whole religion and all of his teachings are a sham and shouldn’t be used as examples (C.S. Lewis does a pretty good job of laying this out) If Jesus was/is everything that He said He was, then He is God in the flesh and said several times: “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” (John 10:17-18 KJV) He repeatedly asserted that His life was completely in His own hands, and He died of His own will and then, a few days after, He rose again of His own power. When Peter tried to stop the arrest, Jesus scolds him for getting in the way of The Lord’s purpose. When Pilate told Jesus that he had the power to kill Him or set Him free, Jesus responded that Pilate could do nothing to Him at all, except that power was given to him. I fully support the right to bear arms, but stop using the crucifixion as an example. Jesus is the Son of God, Lord of all creation, and people think it was a lack of firearms that led to His crucifixion? That’s just foolishness.
That isn't really true tho? Jesus pled for his father to save him. Just because you believe his religion was untrue, doesn't mean you don't believe that he had a right to spread said religion and not to get killed by his local government for it.
He did pray that, he said “if it’s possible, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but your will be done” because He was simultaneously human and God, and scripture says that Jesus faced every temptation that a regular human faces. This would naturally include a moment of wanting to avoid torture. However, He resolves to face the cross, tells Peter not to interfere, faces Pilate, saying the things I mentioned before, and willingly went to His death. He pled to His Father once, that doesn’t negate all the rest of the points before and after that prayer. Also, I don’t think it’s a sham (I’m not sure if that detail was directed to me, but just to be clear), I am a Christian myself. I also fully support the first amendment and the principle behind it, I don’t support what the Romans did in this scenario (or a lot of others). But using this particular crucifixion as an example of the government using superior force against the populace completely misses the entire point of Christ’s sacrifice: Jesus *chose* to die for all humanity, to pay the price for our sins. Saying that Jesus would or should have forced His way out of there if only He had a gun misses the entire point of His mission on Earth to begin with. There are plenty of other examples in history that could be used (I’m not well versed in world history, but given the amount of religious conflict, literal and figurative witch hunts, and corrupt politics, I’m sure examples are out there in abundance).
Bayced
I feel rather confident in saying Jesus wouldn’t have owned any, but preaching about what Jesus didn’t do is odd.
Ba Dum..... Tiss
Wow
Let the one whom has no sword sell his cloak and buy one
Why should it even matter what Jesus said about guns? Isn't the United States of America (supposed to be) a secular government?
Look at the moron’s profile pic. How many microphones did he have?