Why was Simon Peter armed with a sword and other followers of Jesus?

by jam 84 Replies latest members private

• 

  AGuest

  Your antiseministism is on display, yet again. Jews are not inferior people. They never seek to convert Christians yet what Christians have done to me is ungodly.

  You are entitled to your opinion(s). I refer to dear mP's (peace to you!) comment as to any anti-semitism...

  I will discuss whether Jews had swords with a tenured professor.

  You do that. What, though, can we expect from you once such professor enlightens YOU to the reality of Jews possessing... and certainly knowing how to use...swords? Seriously, they were a people who knew how to engage in WAR. They entire history prior to exile in Babylon speaks to that! David was their most-beloved king! DAVID!

  There is never any discussion with you.

  When you start the "discussion" with "bull"... no. Because you pretty much let everyone know you're not discussing, but simply refuting. Usually with little or no basis, I might add. Indeed, I often marvel, given how much bragging you do about your academic prowess, studies, knowledge, degrees, and occupation... just how little you actually know about the Jews, the Bible, Christ, God... the law (both modern civil AND OT)...

  The OP was a humorous reflection on a troubling scenario.

  Perhaps. Even so, it was a worthy topic, as can be seen by the fact YOU came and commented. Or... did you come... and comment... because I did? Take your time, now. Don't want you to harm yourself thinking about THAT one.

  Jesus commanded his followers to turn the other cheek.

  He did. Did they all DO that? Did they all do ANYTHING he commanded... right away? Heck, Peter still engaged in hypocrisy even after receiving holy spirit! What is your POINT? That my Lord's commandments were kept... and perfectly... by all he gave them to? Seriously?? The same book that tells you that he said to turn the other cheek... also tells you that he told his disciples to take swords with them. Here is where TRULY critical thinking comes in, luv - why would he do the SECOND, after telling them the FIRST? Because... the SECOND provided an opportunity for him to DEMONSTRATE the first, rather than just TELL them. Of course, that's probably too much for you to fathom right now. So, go, now... and ask your tenured professor about it. OR... you COULD just simply go to HIM... and ask HIM. Oh, but doing that might result in your receiving the TRUTH. But how can THAT happen, lest it comes from... a tenured professor...

  To coin YOUR word: please.

  I doubt Romans would encourage an occupied nation to stockpile swords.

  Encourage? Who said anything about encourage? But surely you don't believe Rome, who was not yet at war WITH Jerusalem but allowed them to exist as a relatively sovereign state... would do so and leave them completely unprotected from any OTHER enemies (and both the Jews AND Rome had them!)? Why would they do that?

  Roman occupation was brutal. It does not matter whether the Temple police grabbed him in this discussion. The Romans controlled the Temple police.

  You're really aren't in the know, are you? If the Roman police controlled the temple police... in the manner you suggest... Pilate would have never agreed to turn my Lord over to the Jews. He would have told the Jews to sod off. They arrested him, took him before Caiphas... and then before EVER bringing him before the Roman representation... took him before HEROD... who also found no crime done by him. They WOULD have killed him theirselves... but then THEY would have been guilty of murder (because they OWN ruler, HEROD) found no crime done. So, they had to get Rome to pronounce him a criminal... which they did by accusing him of sedition against Caesar. Pilate knew nothing of the sort had occurred, but HE FEARED THE REBELLION OF THE JEWS. Why? What harm could a city of UNARMED people cause?

  Seriously? And your accusation of anti-semitism is just stupid. This is history, silly rabbit, not bigotry.

  Roman occupation had its benefits. The Pax Romana was one. Having a universal language for a vast region was another.

  No one is denying that. No one is even discussing that. Apparently, though, the Pax didn't keep the Jews from uprising against the Romans... and ultimately almost being slaughtered, down to the man. How did all of THAT occur... given there was so much "pax" going on?

  A city is not the wilderness. Peter carrying the sword is in direction obedience of Jesus' very words. Using the sword is much worse.

  Exactly! No wild animals. A directive because, knowing the impetuousness of dear Peter, my Lord knew he would be provided the opportunity to DEMONSTRATE what he meant. Rather than COMMEND Peter ("What, just his ear?! They're coming to kill me, man! Take off his head!")... he undid Peter's very skillful "warning". Goodness, LOOK! SEE! Or at least ask for eyesalve so you CAN... rather than shoddily throwing out refutations such as "bull"... then telling us you actually have no clue and so need to go back and consult on it with your "tenured professor." I mean, seriously...

  Also, I do believe the gun rule applies. You never use a gun unless your intent is to kill.

  Okay... wait... WHAT?? Nope, not even gonna touch that. 'Cept maybe to say, there were no guns then, luv. And to say that swordsmen OFTEN given a "glancing blow" as a warning to opponents. C'MON... USE some of that great smarts and intellect you want all of us to believe you have. 'Cause you're not being very convincing right now...

  Slicing an ear makes no sense. No one is incapacitated by loss of an ear. I imagine it hurts.

  Neither incapacitation or death was the purpose. It was meant to be a warning (by Peter)... and used as a teaching opportunity by Christ.

  When an Ivy League or comp prof. rebukes me, I will be rebuked.

  Well, girl, if that's what it takes. Personally, I don't care for rebukes, so I just went to the One who would know. I mean, after all... HE was there. Not sure your Ivy League or comp. prof. was. Although, some of them can be viewed as fossils...

  A slave of Christ,

  SA, who thought your accusation of anti-semitism was SO uncalled for and off-base... that, unfortunately for you... you got a lot of "ME" in this one...
• 

  AGuest

  Jews follow the Bible. Those stories were written for Jews, not Christians.

  The Jews follow parts of the Bible, that which is set forth in the part often referred to as the "OT"... as well as the Mishna and Gemara (Talmud)... and other writings.

  As much as possible, if a text interests me I try to find out what the present Jewish stance would be.

  Did you do that here? Or did you respond prematurely?

  Psalm 23, for instance, is not all what Christians take it to be.

  Some "christians," no. Can you truthfully say that about all christians, though? For example, those christians who are Jewish (Messianic)? What about those who follow Christ... versus, say, Paul?

  Jesus would have read these scriptures from a Jewish perspective.

  [Jesus] would have read them... from the perspective of the one who UTTERED them. Because they are HIS words... as set down writing/song by those he entrusted them to, including David. HIS spirit was upon David et al., ... and so he spoke/sang those words THROUGH such ones. Read your Psalms, girl, that perhaps you might see that truth... and get the point OF the Psalms...

  I believe it was Bart Ehrmann or perhaps N.T. Wright who wrote that Christians appropriate the Hebrew scriptures b/c new religions, just as in our day, had no status. Judaism was one of the oldest in the world. It was a marketing strategy.

  Well, I don't know Bart Ehrmann or N.T. Wright... and while I am sure they are formidable scholars, I don't think they know more than the one about whom the "scriptures" bear witness TO. Have you TRIED going to that One? Oh, wait... you need permission from one of your "Ivy League" or "comp"... or "tenured" profs. Well, good luck with that.

  I'm curious as to how Gentile Christians first encountered the O.T. What would they think of the text without the gloss of tradition.

  Are you asking... or just "wonderin'"? If you're asking', some (those of the 10-tribe kingdom of Israel... which you may know as the "Samaritans") knew of some/most of it. Yes, the Samaritans were "Israel" but not "Jews" and so they were "Gentiles" (the "nations")... which is anyone who is not a JEW (of the 2-tribe kingdom of "Judah", which included Benjamin). Because these were also present and given the Law at Sinai, they had virtually the same history. And then four (4) things occurred: (1) the division of the kingdom under Rehoboam ("Judah") and Jeroboam ("Israel"), followed by (2) then the exile and subequent occupation of Samaria of "Israel" by the Assyrians, following by (3) the later the exile of Judah into Chaldea by the Babylonians, concurrent with (4) the translation/transliteration of the Writings to Greek and resultant compilation of the Septuagint.

  Your distinguished professors should be able to corroborate that for you. If not, then again, consider going to the Source.

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  AGuest

  Sorry, Angh... I tried to stay calm, truly.

  Peace!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Band on the Run

  Shelby, You are not ready for the major leagues.
• 

  Glander

  Just a couple of footnotes in my annotated Bible concerning this passage.

  *1. Peter had a Concealed/Carry permit. This was revealed in 1963 when several Roman centurion archives were found in a filing cabinet.

  *2. When Jesus reattached the man's ear he put it on upside down and backward on a whim..
• 

  AGuest

  The major leagues, perhaps not. But you're another story entirely. If civil, I may or may not respond to your posts; beyond that, we should take it to PM, as has been requested.

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  AGuest

  Why, dear Glander (peace to you!)? Please ask yourself that... and share with us (if you have a mature answer).

  Again, peace.

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Band on the Run

  If all you do with a sword is slice off someone's ear, having a sword is against your security interests. It reminds me of a bully just taking a gun away from the owner and using it against the owner. The ear is what makes the story distinctive. Part of me believes it may have happened in real life b/c who would invent such a story. Jesus has violent statement in parts of the gospels. I am certain it is an allusion to one of those. When I read Bible stories, I come across some real "gems" that I laugh at so hard. Tears roll down my face. No one with a normal brain would invest some of these stories. Humans are wacky, though. These "wacko" stories give a realtiy to the gospels. I'm no theologian but for the life of me, I can't imagine what is the purpose of some stories.

  If you can't see the humor, you are warped. I disbelief so much but these stories are priceless. People discuss them, altho they generally lack any great insight, throughout countless generations.

  The Mary Magdalene "don't hug me" spooky body always scared me. Jesus as not God or human is nerve wracking to me. It is too much voodoo for my culture.
• 

  AGuest

  Re the "peaceful" Jews:

  According to Josephus, the violence, which began at Caesarea in 66, was provoked by Greeks sacrificing birds in front of a local synagogue. The Roman garrison did not intervene and the long-standing Hellenistic and Jewish religious tensions took a downward spiral. In reaction, one of the Jewish Temple clerks Eliezar ben Hanania ceased prayers and sacrifices for the Roman Emperor at the Temple. Protests over taxation joined the list of grievances and random attacks on Roman citizens and perceived 'traitors' occurred in Jerusalem. The Jewish Temple was then breached by Roman troops at the order of Roman governor Gessius Florus, having seventeen talents removed from the treasury of the Temple, claiming the money was for the Emperor. In response to this action, the city fell into unrest and some of the Jewish population began to openly mock Florus by passing a basket around to collect money as if Florus was poor. Florus reacted to the unrest by sending soldiers into Jerusalem the next day to raid the city and arrest a number of the city leaders, who were later whipped and crucified, despite many of them being Roman citizens. Shortly, outraged Judean nationalist factions took up arms and the Roman military garrison of Jerusalem was quickly overrun by rebels. Fearing the worst, the pro-Roman king Agrippa II and his sister Berenice fled Jerusalem to Galilee. Judean militias later moved upon Roman citizens of Judaea and pro-Roman officials, cleansing the country of any Roman symbols.

  Jews, who were driven out of Galilee rebuilt Joppa (Jaffa), which had been destroyed earlier by Cestius Gallus. Surrounded and cut off by the Romans, they rebuilt the city walls, and used a light flotilla to demoralize commerce and interrupt the grain supply to Rome from Alexandria. In his The Jewish War Josephus wrote: They also built themselves a great many piratical ships, and turned pirates upon the seas near to Syria, and Phoenicia, and Egypt, and made those seas unnavigable to all men.

  The leaders of the collapsed Northern revolt, John of Giscala and Simon Bar Giora, managed to escape to Jerusalem. Packed with militants of many factions and largely cut off by Roman forces, Jerusalem quickly descended into anarchy, with the radicals taking control of large parts of the fortified city. Brutal civil war then erupted, with the Zealots and the fanatical Sicarii executing anyone advocating surrender, and by 68 CE the entire leadership of the southern revolt was assassinated in the infighting, some at the notorius Zealot Temple Siege.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War#Chronology

  Yep, sounds like there was "pax" all over the place. If you need to, click on the links and research further. But know that I have nothing against Jews. My response wasn't an attempt at character assassination of Jews or anyone. It was an explanation of what occurred in relation to the event of the OP... and why.

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Glander

  and share with us (if you have a mature answer).

  Well, there's the rub. Myths are for children. Jack and the Beanstalk, the troll under the bridge, Jesus reattaching a severed ear or raising a dead man fron from the dead (but he died again later) etc.

  Come up with a mature subject.