Jesus & Jihaad

[Andaraawus]

ISSUE ONE: JESUS عليهالسلام AND JIHAAD

The Biblical Test:

"And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." - Tanakh, Deuteronomy 18:21-22.

We often here the claim that Islaam was spread by the sword, so i would like to take this oppurtunity to put the following saying of Jesus عليهالسلام under the spotlight of investigation:

"...they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." -Jesus, New Testament, Matthew, 26:52.

It is well known that Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم used the sword in battle, however did he perish by the sword??? The saying of Jesus is either a factual error in the Bible or can be explained by admitting that Jesus عليهالسلام prepared a few of his diciples for an armed Jihaad.

Feel free to explain away...

[Keltoi]

This statement by Jesus was in the context of his followers attempting to defend him. Jesus would not allow them to use violence in his defense saying "They that take the sword shall perish by the sword", or the paraphrase.."Live by the sword and die by the sword." Has every person who used violence perished by violence? Of course not. The point is more a statement of moral clarity. By defending Jesus against violence by the use of violence, his followers would have become exactly what they were attempting to defend him from.

[Andaraawus]

Correct answer!

Thank you for your reply, did you know that Jesus commanded his disciples to get some swords and why?

[Joe98]

.....his followers attempting to defend him. Jesus would not allow them to use violence in his defense saying "They that take the sword shall perish by the sword",

The Christian belief is that Mathew was a witness to this event and wrote it in his gospel.

As I understand it, the Muslim belief is that this event never happened. Instead, correct me if I am wrong, Muslims believe Jesus wrote these words in his own gospbel, which became corrupted and then became the bible.

Which is the most believable?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Andaraawus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avicenna
I dont get what's so special about this man. How did he even get divine status? Would you believe me if a magician claimed he was God? Jesus walked on water, so what?? Criss Angel can do the same too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rsA8GY-9ds

Does God have a grandson now?

This thread isn't for attacking religious figures. You will find that when you ask a "question" in the context of actually learning or discussing a subject you will get a better response.

i guess that post was deleted. in answer to the brother about the Bible. I personally believe that Matthew did not write Matthew and Matthew chapter 9 verse 9 will give hint of why. The injeel which was bestowed upon Jesus is not the New Testament, however that does not mean that there are not teachings of the Injeel (Gospel) contained therein. The Injeel which Jesus had was given to him since birth. I can not argue if that scripture was put into writing or not. About the incident at Gethsemane, its hard to tell from Islamic tradtion whether that happened, there are different scholarly opnions in regards to Jesus esacping death. The incident at Gethsamane plays an important role in the sequence of the alleged crucifixtion. Bottom line Muslims believe that "they did not kill him nor did they crucify him but it was made to appear to them so." We dont have to speculate on matters such as who was crucified in place of Jesus.

[Joe98]

I personally believe that Matthew did not write Matthew and Matthew chapter 9 verse 9 will give hint of why.

No it doesn't

[Andaraawus]

here we go, a pantomine debate!

yes it does

[Andaraawus]

BEeEeEeEHhHhOIiIiIiNnnNnNDdDdDd yOoOuUu!!1

[Umar001]

The Christian belief is that Mathew was a witness to this event and wrote it in his gospel.

As I understand it, the Muslim belief is that this event never happened. Instead, correct me if I am wrong, Muslims believe Jesus wrote these words in his own gospbel, which became corrupted and then became the bible.

Which is the most believable?

I will ask you to ask who ever hold that 'Muslim' belief to show you why they hold that belief and if they provide you sources from Islam which show that then say it is a Muslim belief, it could be an individual belief, shared by Muslims, but that would not make it an article of Islam, if there is no evidence from Islamic sources.

Secondly, if a person believes in something, which might make more sense than another, do you think personally that it renders their belief right?

Anyhow, you say 'Muslims believe that Jesus wrote these words in his own gospel, which became corrupted....' If the Gospel became curropted then, how do you know those exact words are Jesus'??

[Joe98]

If the Gospel became curropted then, how do you know those exact words are Jesus'??

When Mathew or one of Mathew's followers wrote Mathews gospel, it was written by Mathew or one of Mathew's followers.

Why do Mulsims say it was written by Jesus???????

[Umar001]

When Mathew or one of Mathew's followers wrote Mathews gospel, it was written by Mathew or one of Mathew's followers.

Why do Mulsims say it was written by Jesus???????

Am confused as to what you mean, and I have yet to see one Muslim claim the Gospel of Matthew was written by Jesus. Maybe some Muslims say that, I'd like to see their proof for it.

Peace:)

[Andaraawus]

he didnt say it was written by Jesus my friend ....

read more closly , we never have claimed the injeel was even written.
Injeel has been said to be an oral scripture. Only spoken. What we have in the New Testament may contain parts of this oral tradition but a great number of it is in question, not to mention the many gospels that have been thrown out by the nician council...

[Umar001]

he didnt say it was written by Jesus my friend ....

read more closly , we never have claimed the injeel was even written.
Injeel has been said to be an oral scripture. Only spoken. What we have in the New Testament may contain parts of this oral tradition but a great number of it is in question, not to mention the many gospels that have been thrown out by the nician council...

So bro, you don't think the Injeel was ever written??

[Andaraawus]

i believe Jesus was born with the injeel and preached it orally. Remember Jesus only had twelve diciples.

Were they literate? what did they do for occupation? and when Jesus told them to preach the gospel (injeel) did they carry a book around with them? even i struggle to find answers to these questions. Moreover the gospels we have now were written long after Jesus and the diciples. They were most likely passed down through oral tradition.

[Umar001]

Assalamu Aleykum Wa Rhametulah

i believe Jesus was born with the injeel and preached it orally. Remember Jesus only had twelve diciples.

I don't know if their number was twelve according to Islam.

Were they literate?

I do not know.

what did they do for occupation?

I do not know.

when Jesus told them to preach the gospel (injeel) did they carry a book around with them?

I do not know.

Moreover the gospels we have now were written long after Jesus and the diciples. They were most likely passed down through oral tradition.

That does not indicate anything with regards to Jesus, peace and blessing be upon him's message being oral or not.

[Hijrah]

May Allah (SWT) Bless Isa the Mujahid

[Andaraawus]

I do not know.

I have to give you reputation for honesty and humbleness.

[Umar001]

I have to give you reputation for honesty and humbleness.

Alhamdulilah, I remember an instance with Imam Malik I think it is or someone, who said 'I dont know'

Anyhow, bro all I was getting at is that, I do not know, from an Islamic position, we can guess, we can estimate, but Islamicly I have never seen a hadeeth or as such statement on these matters.

Thats why I kept asking.

EDIT: P.s do I get one rep for each 'I dont know' :p

[glo]

Correct answer!

Thank you for your reply, did you know that Jesus commanded his disciples to get some swords and why?

Hi there!

I have pondered this question all week, and finally decided to write my view in reply.

Jesus mentions the sword on two occasions in the gospel:

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22: 35-38)

This is taking place at the last supper, very shortly before Jesus' arrest and his death.
He is trying to prepare his disciples for what will come:
Previously, when he had send them out into the villages to preach, he had told them not to take anything with them, and to rely on offering from the people to live on.

What he is saying now is, that after his death things will be different. The disciples may meet with animosity and anger.
They will have to fend for themselves ('take a bag and a purse') and learn to defend themselves ('take a sword')

His desciples reply eagerly by saying that they have two swords ... and at this point it seems unclear how Jesus' reply 'That is enough' is meant: does he mean 'two swords are plenty' or 'enough of that!'??

Just a few hours later, at the time of his arrest, it becomes clearer:

When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.

Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns." (Luke 22:49-53)

Now it is clear that Jesus did not mean that his disciples should take up the sword! He was speaking figuratively!

Here is the other time Jesus is reported to mention the sword, this time in Matthew's gospel:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' (Matthew 10: 34-36

Again, Jesus is not advocating physical violence - he is talking about the divisions that will arise, when people put their faith in Him and the New Covenant. His followers will be persecuted, they will have to leave their communities, even their families.
People may be put in a situation where they will have to choose between their family and Jesus:

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10: 37-38)

Do you see that Jesus never advocates physical violence? Never, ever!

Ephisians 6 uses armory as a symbolic description for standing strong in one's faith. Read it and see, that it is not speaking of real swords, but the sword of the spirit.
Indeed it is saying that our human action is ineffective unless we walk and act in God's spirit!
It is speaking of spiritual battles against evil - not physcal battle against other human beings!

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints. (Ephesians 6: 10-18)

That's what you get when I ponder a question for a whole week: a very lengthy post!!! :rollseyes :giggling:
I hope any of this makes any sense.

Peace :)

[Umar001]

I have only thought about this briefly, here's my response, funny enough it is contrasting to Glo :p

Anyhow:

Why did Jesus, tell his disciples to purchase swords?

Well, we know swords, as Ahmed Deedat says are not for cutting apples.

We see that after the knowledge of two swords being with them, Jesus' placed his disciples near him to keep watch:
Mark:14:32-33

32They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, "Sit here while I pray." 33He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled.

Jesus was 'distressed' the wieght of the situation began to dawn on him, it would be rational that he sought some defensive strategy. But what changed his mind from being ready to pick up swords to giving violence up??

Here my theories differ, I have only come up with two, one I will write and another for a while yet.

1. Reminded of Mission, fear taken away

It is against the background of the above mental state, it was then, that 'An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.' And because of that he 'being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.'

How did this angel strenghten him? G-d would not have pressured Jesus more, it is unlikely that G-d would have just sent an angel to tell him 'shut up and stop asking for things to change' this wouldn't have strenghtend him, how would he be strenghtend?

If I or you, were to recieve a visit from an angel carrying G-d's word, of Glad Tidings, being reminded that we were not going to be alone, dying for nothing, that would make us more strong in the face of fear, we would be strenghtend, and fear would turn to joy, the defensive mindstate which posseses a man to purchase guns and swords would turn into the mindstate that, 'I will die, and I will die in a good cause'

From here, we can see or begin to understand Jesus' change of mind in a rational way.

I also believe the Gospel of Matthew, backs this theory, look:
Matthew 26:53-54

53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

Jesus after being strenghtend, does not feel 'left to die' by G-d, rather, he reminds his disciple, 'Do you think I cannot call on my Father..' He was reminded by the angel that he, Jesus, has a direct line, that G-d will be there, but that G-d's help would not be needed now, why? Because 'how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?' Jesus had been so "deeply distressed and troubled" by the prospects of humiliation, torture, pain that he wanted out, by any means neccesary, hence the swords, but once reminded by G-d through the angel who strenghtend him, Jesus, regained sight of the greater picture, that is G-d's plan.

The other theory I cannot write now since I need some old testament scripture, but I actually think this theory is much more convincing.

[glo]

I have only thought about this briefly, here's my response, funny enough it is contrasting to Glo :p

Now, there's a surprise, brother! :D

Anyhow:

Why did Jesus, tell his disciples to purchase swords?

Well, we know swords, as Ahmed Deedat says are not for cutting apples.

We see that after the knowledge of two swords being with them, Jesus' placed his disciples near him to keep watch:
Mark:14:32-33



Jesus was 'distressed' the wieght of the situation began to dawn on him, it would be rational that he sought some defensive strategy. But what changed his mind from being ready to pick up swords to giving violence up??

Here my theories differ, I have only come up with two, one I will write and another for a while yet.

1. Reminded of Mission, fear taken away

It is against the background of the above mental state, it was then, that 'An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.' And because of that he 'being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.'

How did this angel strenghten him? G-d would not have pressured Jesus more, it is unlikely that G-d would have just sent an angel to tell him 'shut up and stop asking for things to change' this wouldn't have strenghtend him, how would he be strenghtend?

If I or you, were to recieve a visit from an angel carrying G-d's word, of Glad Tidings, being reminded that we were not going to be alone, dying for nothing, that would make us more strong in the face of fear, we would be strenghtend, and fear would turn to joy, the defensive mindstate which posseses a man to purchase guns and swords would turn into the mindstate that, 'I will die, and I will die in a good cause'

From here, we can see or begin to understand Jesus' change of mind in a rational way.

I also believe the Gospel of Matthew, backs this theory, look:
Matthew 26:53-54

Jesus after being strenghtend, does not feel 'left to die' by G-d, rather, he reminds his disciple, 'Do you think I cannot call on my Father..' He was reminded by the angel that he, Jesus, has a direct line, that G-d will be there, but that G-d's help would not be needed now, why? Because 'how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?' Jesus had been so "deeply distressed and troubled" by the prospects of humiliation, torture, pain that he wanted out, by any means neccesary, hence the swords, but once reminded by G-d through the angel who strenghtend him, Jesus, regained sight of the greater picture, that is G-d's plan.

The other theory I cannot write now since I need some old testament scripture, but I actually think this theory is much more convincing.

It's a very interesting theory, Isa! A lot of it I would call assumption on your part (but then you may accuse me of the same ... ). I have highlighted a few bits in green, which I find particularly dubious.

For the reasons I gave before, I don't believe Jesus ever intended his disciples to pick up their swords and fight.
The idea that he even knew that they had brought a sword with them to the garden of Gethsemane, is an assumption ... but I am not saying that it is impossible. :)

Without any doubt Jesus was very troubled whilst praying before his arrest. imsad
But he remained firm to fulfill the purpose of his earthly life, and he resolved not to use his divine powers for his own benefit.

I am surprised that you are even considering the gospel to such a degree - given that most Muslims believe it to have been tampered with and to therefore be unreliable.
Why do you consider and ponder an unreliable source?

Can I also ask you at what point then - in your view as a Muslim - does the story change, and Jesus - instead of being tortured and crucified - is taken up to heaven and another man is taken in his place?
Presumably, the switch would have to be taken place very soon after the scene you describe ... because Jesus is about to be arrested!

I am not trying to be difficult, I would just like to understand your personal view.

(I am also aware, that we are going off-topic here ... :rollseyes )

Peace, bro :)

[moujahid]

:sl:

Rules of physical struggle (or Jihad) have been prescribed in every revelation. Jihaad is not an offensive struggle. It is human nature to defend. So the rules of Jihad are in the Qur'an and were in the original Bible and Torah. The whole idea is that true believers are willing to sacrifice so much of their time, wealth and health in obidence to the Merciful Creator that they are even allowed to give away their lives defending the truth. That is why the Shuhada (Martyrs) have a very high rank amongst the believers and they are closer to the Lord of the Heavens and the earth.
Its funny how Christians like to believe that their religion is all "love" and "peace"...they try to run away from the punishment of their Lord. How far can they run? If there was a hiding place from the Lord of the heavens and the earth, we all would like to go and hide their! Too bad there isnt any.
And just so the Christians know..Islam is more peaceful and full of love and mercy than Christianity can ever be. Infact I heard one of the scholars say that the rules of Jihad or physical struggle are more in the Biblical Scriptures than in the Glorious Qur'an.
It is out of human nature to try to act like someone you could never be. Human Beings are instilled with both -Love and Fear of their Lord.
I don't think those Buddhist are ever winning any battle if they stick to their preposterous idelogy of non-violence. They will soon give it up or get slaughtered by the Chinese.
If the kuffar slaughter you because you have stand for (Tauheed), let them face the soldiers of Allah. It doesnt matter how weak you might be militarily. To defend against the infedels is a human right and thus justified.

[Andaraawus]

Hi Glo and welcome to the discussion, your standpoint is entirly valid, however Jesus encouraged self defence as you have stated. Now why is it when the Qur'aan calls for self defence it is accused of encouraging Terrorism?

That may not be a question directed to you, as you seem very reasonable in standpoint and may not even view the Qur'aan as a handbook for suicide bombers etc. So i will clarify that before i fall into the trap of making the fallacy of assumption.

[glo]

Hi Glo and welcome to the discussion, your standpoint is entirly valid, however Jesus encouraged self defence as you have stated.

Hi Andaraawus

I know I mentioned that after Jesus' death the disciples would have to 'learn to defend themselves' ... but in my view that was never meant to be physical defence (see my previous post)

The early followers of Christ were known for their peaceful and placid behaviour, even in the face of persecution and torture ... (If you want evidence, I will have to search non-Biblical writings, rather than the Bible, so it will probably take me quite a while ...)

The defence of Jesus' followers was to come not from physical force and aggression, but from the guidance of the Holy Spirit:

Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit. (Mark 13:11)

From that point of view, I believe the Gospel message is quite different from the Qu'ran.
I think, if you are trying to create such parallels between the two, you may find it quite difficult.

Now why is it when the Qur'aan calls for self defence it is accused of encouraging Terrorism?

That may not be a question directed to you, as you seem very reasonable in standpoint and may not even view the Qur'aan as a handbook for suicide bombers etc. So i will clarify that before i fall into the trap of making the fallacy of assumption.

Well, if your whole reason for this thread is to demonstrate that Jesus' message with regards to physical self-defence is similar to Muhammed's, I think you are mistaken - in my mind the two are quite different (for reasons given earlier)

But that aside, I do not see the Qu'ran to be a handbook for suicide bombers!
Some people may manage to distort the Qu'ran to fit their own personal desires and motivations - but then, the same can be said about Christians distorting the Bible for their on means!
I believe the Qu'ran to contain much wisdom and positive teaching, and I do not think Islam intends to encourage terrorism.

Now I have expressed that clearly, perhaps there is nothing left to debate between us? :rollseyes

I would like to welcome you to this forum, too ... but I noticed you have been here longer than I have! :giggling:
Nice talking, anyway. :)

peace

[duskiness]

i'll hope you don't mind i'll jump into discussion :rollseyes
I agree with what Glo said (how come? :giggling: ).
It's simply strange for me that Jesus said it's enough to have 2 swords for 12 man against roman soldiers. It's illogical if we take it literally..but when we read the rest of the story, when Jesus openly forbids to defend Him and heals a roman soldier who came to capture him, it becomes quite clear for me the "sward" is a "sward of sprit"

The whole idea is that true believers are willing to sacrifice so much of their time, wealth and health in obidence to the Merciful Creator that they are even allowed to give away their lives defending the truth.

Giving you're life is "ok" (so to say....). Taking others life and hurting others is not ok.

That is why the Shuhada (Martyrs) have a very high rank

we also respect martyrs. But our martyrs are mainly people who gave life for faith or other people (not only Christians) and DIDN'T FIGHT BACK, KILL or HURT people who were persecuting them

Its funny how Christians like to believe that their religion is all "love" and "peace"

I don't find anything funny here? Maybe you could explain? :rollseyes

...they try to run away from the punishment of their Lord.

what punishment has to using violence??????? :?

And just so the Christians know..Islam is more peaceful and full of love and mercy than Christianity can ever be.

i think it's obvious that Christians disagree here :D

Infact I heard one of the scholars say that the rules of Jihad or physical struggle are more in the Biblical Scriptures than in the Glorious Qur'an.

The point that Glo was making (and i wholeheartedly agree...) is that in New Testament there NO concept of physical "jihad" (even in defense)

I don't think those Buddhist are ever winning any battle if they stick to their preposterous idelogy of non-violence. They will soon give it up or get slaughtered by the Chinese.

I think that Buddhists in Tibet are winning the biggest battle there is. They have saved themselves from anger and violence

To defend against the infedels is a human right and thus justified.

Defending oneself is perfectly human (as you may know, Christians consider this nature "sinful")! But our God is asking as to try to be batter than this! Most of as fail. But we know the direction in which we should be heading.
I would probably defend my self and -for sure- my loved ones. But i would have a feeling that for whatever reasons i have hurt someone it was wrong.

Hi Glo and welcome to the discussion, your standpoint is entirly valid, however Jesus encouraged self defence as you have stated

Glo stated something opposite!

Jesus Arrested
While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"
When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.
Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns."
Peter Disowns Jesus
Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest.

- that's once again chapter Glo quoted. Jesus DIDN'T allow to be defended with sword.
And I would never say that defense is terrorism!!! Whether it's in Quran or in law, or in other places...

Pax/Salaam :D

[Umar001]

Assalamu Aleykum Wa Rhametulah
Peace be upon those who follow guidance

I think what is important to do here, is to try and think logically and not to just blindly try to defend our own desires of what we wish Biblical Jesus to be.

I will just reply, and ask some things:

The idea that he even knew that they had brought a sword with them to the garden of Gethsemane, is an assumption

Luke 22

36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.
Jesus Prays on the Mount of Olives
39Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. 40On reaching the place, he said to them, "Pray that you will not fall into temptation."

The story goes on, with no break as such, Jesus' disciples said we have two, and he said thats enough, and Jesus went out as usual to the mount. It seem pretty clear that this is all in sequence. But again if we need the writing to tell us 'Jesus knew that they had the swords' then I don't mind its all good. :p

I think that's all I need to answer, if anything more please point it out.

This is the problems I have with Glo's theory:

What he is saying now is, that after his death things will be different. The disciples may meet with animosity and anger.
They will have to fend for themselves ('take a bag and a purse') and learn to defend themselves ('take a sword')

Then it is claimed this defense is not 'physical':

I know I mentioned that after Jesus' death the disciples would have to 'learn to defend themselves' ... but in my view that was never meant to be physical defence (see my previous post)

Now, this seems illogical, Jesus told them to get swords, yet not to defend themselves with them, but rather to show them that they will need to defend themselves after his going, but not defend themselves with swords, which he told them to get, but rather with non physical methods.

I don't think anyone can believe that, if it was meant with non-physical methods then surely, there wouldn't be a need for a sword, there would be no need to tell them to buy one, since that only implies one thing, we both know what.

Jesus had plenty of other teachings, which showed a non resistant self defense method:
Matthew 5:

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

So to tell us, that Jesus told them to buy swords, in order to remember that they dont need to use force, is against this, the whole method.

Hi, Duskiness

It's simply strange for me that Jesus said it's enough to have 2 swords for 12 man against roman soldiers. It's illogical if we take it literally..but when we read the rest of the story, when Jesus openly forbids to defend Him and heals a roman soldier who came to capture him, it becomes quite clear for me the "sward" is a "sward of sprit"

First i will ask, did Jesus know that Roman soldiers will arrest him? I haven't seen a single mention, I have read that he said that One will betray him, it is possible Jesus was not expecting a crowd. This is exactly part of my theory. By the way, just because Jesus told him to put the sword down it does not mean that he didnt ask him to buy a sword of still, because Jesus knew what type of swords they had when he said in reply to being told they had two, 'it is enough'.

You see, maybe Jesus did worry, while being in an anguish and distressed state, maybe he thought that he could take Judas on, he so badly wanted the cup to pass from him. But when he saw the crowd, he felt two swords were not gonna be enough and so submitted himself. I think he did want to figfht thus he told the disciples for the swords, but when he was strenghted then he reminded himself of his mission and thus submitted to G-d's will.

Anyhow, Jesus did seem startled:

52Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? 53Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns."

Jesus having being strenghtend and reminded that if it was neccesary he had an army of angels, not human swords, at his disposal, was also reminded that G-d was still there and that his mission was clear, thus he would happly submit himself, without the 'distress' and 'anguish' he had before, that would only seem to return while on the Cross.

Giving you're life is "ok" (so to say....). Taking others life and hurting others is not ok.

What if G-d says you should??

we also respect martyrs. But our martyrs are mainly people who gave life for faith or other people (not only Christians) and DIDN'T FIGHT BACK, KILL or HURT people who were persecuting them

Do you not hold that those that died in wars lead by Moses and other prophets of the old testament, are martyrs?? In that sense then those peple would constitute to alot of your martyrs and alot who Hurt, Killed and faught back.

Defending oneself is perfectly human (as you may know, Christians consider this nature "sinful")! But our God is asking as to try to be batter than this! Most of as fail. But we know the direction in which we should be heading.
I would probably defend my self and -for sure- my loved ones. But i would have a feeling that for whatever reasons i have hurt someone it was wrong.

I see, what about defending one's self when G-d had said it was allowed, such as the eye for an eye thing, and the wars of old, the execution of people. Was that G-d telling people to use their sinful nature?

I am very interested in answers, I think it is essential in these discussions to remain true to one's self and to make adjustments where the truth has been shown.

May Jesus peace be upon him be immune from any lies attributed to him, and may he be raised among the highest. Ameen.

And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

[glo]

Hi Isa

Thank you for your reply.
I think we are reading the Gospels differently - I believe Jesus often spoke figuratively (again and again he used parables as his teaching methods), whereas you read things literally.

Clearly this will lead to differences in interpretation and opinion.

It seems to me that perhaps you are trying to make Jesus' words fit into the Qu'ranic mould. I can understand that, as a Muslim who believes in the prophet Isa, you would like to do so.
As a Christian I have no need to match up the Bible and the Qu'ran - they are two entirely different holy books.

You know my reluctance to enter into long circular debates.
I have expressed my personal understanding of the scripture, and I have read yours.
I find that I have nothing else to add to what I have already written.

Peace, brother :)

[Keltoi]

Before the First Crusade in 1098 the belief of the Catholic Church was that violence was always against the will of God. Pope Urban II changed this decree to one of "just war", or violence ordained by God. This gave men-at-arms and knights a way to reach Heaven, since by their very nature it was assumed they were unable to reach paradise. Urban used this belief to gain support for his large military expedition to reclaim the Holy Sepulchre. This was a total departure from the traditional Christian pacifism. The First Crusade changed alot of things, both historically and religiously. However, before the First Crusade, practicing Christians were generally pacifist. That doesn't mean Christians didn't kill and fight, because the Byzantine Empire was killing and fighting for centuries, but that the Holy Catholic Church actually endorsed violence. This was a departure from tradition and belief.

[Umar001]

Hi there Glo

I think we are reading the Gospels differently - I believe Jesus often spoke figuratively (again and again he used parables as his teaching methods), whereas you read things literally.

Clearly this will lead to differences in interpretation and opinion.

It seems to me that perhaps you are trying to make Jesus' words fit into the Qu'ranic mould. I can understand that, as a Muslim who believes in the prophet Isa, you would like to do so.
As a Christian I have no need to match up the Bible and the Qu'ran - they are two entirely different holy books.

You know my reluctance to enter into long circular debates.
I have expressed my personal understanding of the scripture, and I have read yours.
I find that I have nothing else to add to what I have already written.

Peace, brother :)

I do not take everything in the Gospels that comes from Jesus' lips to be literal, rather I do also hold that he spoke figuratevly some times.
And again, your mistaken, I see the Gospel as written down oral accounts of what people understood happend after a period of time, I do not expect them to be realistic nor do I expect them to reflect every exact account of Jesus, so I do not have a need to make the Jesus described in those Gospels seem like a Qu'ranic Jesus, wether jesus in the Gospels was a mass murderer, rapist, homosexual, or if he was G-d, G-ds son, Prophet and so on.

That is why, I remind others and myself that when someone presents something we should not just dismiss it because of our own prejudice, rather we should ask, enquire and test what has been said and derive the good from it.

Whether the Bible teaches that Jesus is G-d, is not a problem to me, because as you know Muslims, not only them, believe the Bible has gone through some changes and so on. So as you mistakenly said 'I can understand that, as a Muslim who believes in the prophet Isa, you would like to do so.' I do not have the need nor do I have the want to make the Biblical account of Jesus match with the Islamic account.

Also, it would be very silly for anyone to think that a Christian would have to make the Qu'ran and Bible match up, since they don't believe in the Bible, rather what people do see is some 'Christians' trying to make their 'Church Jesus' fit into the Bible. What I mean is their idea of who Jesus was fit into the Biblical scripture which rather should be the other way round.

An example would be, Jesus is Peace, so as soon as someone views Jesus say someone should get swords, they say 'this is metaphorical'.

EDIT: With regards to circular debates, I don't intend to go into one, rather, I like to ask questions and be asked with regards to theories and understanding of the scripture put forward, that's all. So that when someone says something, you can ask, wht about this and that, through which one can aquire more knowledge of the theory and it compatability with scripture.

I don't mean to attack nor challange your faith, as you have conviniently wrote in italic 'my' :p I just ask to understand how your percieve it, how you feel it is compatible with other verses and so forth.

I am not trying to prove anyone wrong, as so to 'win' debates, just trying to understand the views and maybe accept why someone sees it like that and what makes them see it like that.

Anyhow, I hope I have cleared your misunderstandings with regards to my view on the Bible and Jesus, and the fact that I have no care of whether the Biblical and Qu'ranic Jesus are twins in character or opposites.

Peace be upon Jesus The Messiah, Son of Mary.

Thank you for your patience.

[Pk_#2]

May Allah (SWT) Bless Isa the Mujahid

AsalamuAlaykum, Ameen

^^ man u lots ryt alot, especially Glo and Andra... :giggling: < i meant Isa, oopsh!

Good for you!

[Umar001]

AsalamuAlaykum, Ameen

^^ man u lots ryt alot, especially Glo and Andra... :giggling:

Good for you!

Maybe you should read it, which definetly would be good for you lol

[Pk_#2]

Oh, I'll be here for centuries am a slow reader, most of the time i get someone else to read long posts for meh

heh :)

AsalamuAlaykum, peace!

[Umar001]

Oh, I'll be here for centuries am a slow reader, most of the time i get someone else to read long posts for meh

heh :)

AsalamuAlaykum, peace!

Wa aleykum salam wa rhametulah,

I see, well, all thats been said is that Jesus asked hsi disciples for swords, some say it was just to remind them when he dies they will have to defend themselvs and others said that it was other things, nothing decisive yet :p

your aint missed much

[Andaraawus]

Spiratual swords hmmm
that means that when they traded their garms for these swords they were spiratually naked? or does it???

Jesus was speaking a parable on the way to gethsemane... why?

Did Jesus know that he was going to be confronted by Romans or did he just fear that Judas was going to try and assainate him?

[snakelegs]

Before the First Crusade in 1098 the belief of the Catholic Church was that violence was always against the will of God. Pope Urban II changed this decree to one of "just war", or violence ordained by God. This gave men-at-arms and knights a way to reach Heaven, since by their very nature it was assumed they were unable to reach paradise. Urban used this belief to gain support for his large military expedition to reclaim the Holy Sepulchre. This was a total departure from the traditional Christian pacifism. The First Crusade changed alot of things, both historically and religiously. However, before the First Crusade, practicing Christians were generally pacifist. That doesn't mean Christians didn't kill and fight, because the Byzantine Empire was killing and fighting for centuries, but that the Holy Catholic Church actually endorsed violence. This was a departure from tradition and belief.

interesting - i never knew this before.

[Pk_#2]

Wa aleykum salam wa rhametulah,

I see, well, all thats been said is that Jesus asked hsi disciples for swords, some say it was just to remind them when he dies they will have to defend themselvs and others said that it was other things, nothing decisive yet :p

your aint missed much

jazakhala khair for the much shorter up to date version :)

AsalamuAlaykum bro

[duskiness]

Now, this seems illogical, Jesus told them to get swords, yet not to defend themselves with them,

exactly, that's the conclusion coming from our quotes,

but rather to show them that they will need to defend themselves after his going, but not defend themselves with swords, which he told them to get, but rather with non physical methods.

"Metaphor" Isa, "metaphor". "Sword" is a metaphor. All metaphors put into literal meaning make little sense.

I don't think anyone can believe that, if it was meant with non-physical methods then surely, there wouldn't be a need for a sword, there would be no need to tell them to buy one, since that only implies one thing, we both know what.

once again: He ask them to buy swords. They say they have already 2 (FOR 12 PEOPLE), He says that "enough". Than he doesn't allow to use them.
Whatever you think about "buying swords", the end of the story is that they are not allowed to use "physical" swords.

First i will ask, did Jesus know that Roman soldiers will arrest him?

ok, He just knew someone will come for him and that He will probably die.

By the way, just because Jesus told him to put the sword down it does not mean that he didn't ask him to buy a sword of still, because Jesus knew what type of swords they had when he said in reply to being told they had two, 'it is enough'.

so you are saying that He asked them to buy swords but not to use them?

But when he saw the crowd, he felt two swords were not gonna be enough and so submitted himself.

as you pointed it before --

The story goes on, with no break as such, Jesus' disciples said we have two, and he said thats enough, and Jesus went out as usual to the mount.

-- He said it before seeing the crowd,.

I think he did want to figfht thus he told the disciples for the swords, but when he was strenghted then he reminded himself of his mission and thus submitted to G-d's will.

once again, it was before. Additionally i think you have to take into account His teaching:

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?

and in the end:

for all who draw the sword will die by the sword..

was also reminded that G-d was still there and that his mission was clear, thus he would happly submit himself, without the 'distress' and 'anguish' he had before, that would only seem to return while on the Cross.

i don't think that "distress" or "anguish" abandoned Him for any of this moments

What if G-d says you should??

is that a serious question??? :heated: Then i think it would either mean that it isn't God who is asking, or I'm going crazy

Do you not hold that those that died in wars lead by Moses and other prophets of the old testament, are martyrs?? In that sense then those peple would constitute to alot of your martyrs and alot who Hurt, Killed and faught back.

I think that they were people who "simply" die because they took part it wars ("for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" once again! :giggling:) they were rather dieing for politic than for faith...

I see, what about defending one's self when G-d had said it was allowed, such as the eye for an eye thing, and the wars of old, the execution of people. Was that G-d telling people to use their sinful nature?

About "eye for an eye" see quote above. I can accept defense as "lesser evil" but still -as i see it- it's an evil to hurt anyone. And i think that's what my faith is teaching.

May Jesus peace be upon him be immune from any lies attributed to him, and may he be raised among the highest. Ameen.

Amen to that :D

[Umar001]

Assalamu Aleykum

I urge whomsoever replies to read my understanding of the Gospels with regards to Jesus' Arrest.

Now, this seems illogical, Jesus told them to get swords, yet not to defend themselves with them,

exactly, that's the conclusion coming from our quotes,

You have jumped the horse, if you had read onwards you would have realised that I was not claiming that it was illogical that Jesus told them to get swords but not defend themselves, rather, I was claiming that, as I said, that Jesu would tell them to purchase a weapon in order to show his disciples not to defend themselvs physically I plead you read the whole point being made before a comment is made with regards to the point.

"Metaphor" Isa, "metaphor". "Sword" is a metaphor. All metaphors put into literal meaning make little sense.

You seem to think that according to my understanding and theory of what the Gospels say, I think it is illogical, rather I am only proffesing my view on someone else's theory. According to my theory Jesus askin his disciples to get swords, to me, would not just 'make little sense' but a whole lot of sense.

once again: He ask them to buy swords. They say they have already 2 (FOR 12 PEOPLE), He says that "enough". Than he doesn't allow to use them.

2 things,

1st I can understand that you take 'That's enough' to mean 'he doesn't allow to use them'

2nd thing you seem to agree that noone knew there were gonna be 12 people, yet you put that in the above?

Whatever you think about "buying swords", the end of the story is that they are not allowed to use "physical" swords.

I'm glad we at least agree that in the end Jesus told him to put the sword away :)

so you are saying that He asked them to buy swords but not to use them?

I think if you read my understanding, which I have posted before, you'll see why I claim this was the case.

as you pointed it before -- -- He said it before seeing the crowd,.
once again, it was before.

Sorry, I'm totally confused at what your saying.

Additionally i think you have to take into account His teaching: and in the end:

Yes, that was part of my understanding too, I quoted a verse from those three. So, yes, I have taken into account his teachings.

is that a serious question??? :heated: Then i think it would either mean that it isn't God who is asking, or I'm going crazy

The wars that happend, and were ordained by G-d at the time of Moses, was that a different G-d? or was it another G-d asking Moses, or was Moses crazy? Authobillah.

I think that they were people who "simply" die because they took part it wars ("for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" once again! :giggling:) they were rather dieing for politic than for faith...

I find it so upsetting to see that, reason being, that people faught wars, lost their lives, to obey G-d, and you assume they died for political reasons.
Deuteronomy 7:

1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

It seems to me they might have heard this and participated in wars.

Thank you for your honest reply and hope all is well, Eesa :)

[duskiness]

Assalamu Aleykum
You have jumped the horse, if you had read onwards you would have realised that I was not claiming that it was illogical that Jesus told them to get swords but not defend themselves, rather, I was claiming that, as I said, that Jesu would tell them to purchase a weapon in order to show his disciples not to defend themselvs physically I plead you read the whole point being made before a comment is made with regards to the point.

OK...i'll make big quotes not to omit anything..
it this statement:

Now, this seems illogical, Jesus told them to get swords, yet not to defend themselves with them, but rather to show them that they will need to defend themselves after his going, but not defend themselves with swords, which he told them to get, but rather with non physical methods.

you are making out of Glo's post absurd. She said that "sword" should be take as a metaphor and pointed out other passage in Bible when this word is also use in this context.
What Glo wrote makes perfect sense, although you may disagree with not taking "sword" literally.

You seem to think that according to my understanding and theory of what the Gospels say, I think it is illogical, rather I am only proffesing my view on someone else's theory.

I know that it was Glo's theory that was "illogical" to you.

2 things,

1st I can understand that you take 'That's enough' to mean 'he doesn't allow to use them'

thats' quite simple - I made spelling mistake :D instead of "than" should be "then". Sorry :rollseyes

2nd thing you seem to agree that noone knew there were gonna be 12 people, yet you put that in the above?

I agree that they didn't know how many people were coming for Jesus. When I'm speaking about "12", i mean: 11 disciples (12 - Judas) + Jesus = 12. They had 2 swards for 12. Could we agree that those 2 swords for 12 people aren't "enough"?

I'm glad we at least agree that in the end Jesus told him to put the sword away :)

I'm glad :) So we agree that in the end Jesus didn't allow any "physical Jihad"???

I think if you read my understanding, which I have posted before, you'll see why I claim this was the case.

If i understood you point, you say that Jesus was scared and that's where thoughts about defense came. After being reminded of His mission He rejected violence.

Sorry, I'm totally confused at what your saying.

Sorry, I'll try to be more clear.
you wrote:

You see, maybe Jesus did worry, while being in an anguish and distressed state, maybe he thought that he could take Judas on, he so badly wanted the cup to pass from him. But when he saw the crowd, he felt two swords were not gonna be enough and so submitted himself. I think he did want to figfht thus he told the disciples for the swords, but when he was strenghted then he reminded himself of his mission and thus submitted to G-d's will.

I'm just saying, that He said "enough" before seeing this crowd. He had other reason to say it. He says "enough" also before His prayer (so before His "moment of weakness" as you say) and befor being comforted. So something different made Him say this

Yes, that was part of my understanding too, I quoted a verse from those three. So, yes, I have taken into account his teachings.

Ok..so just to see where we are standing: you say that overall Jesus preached non-violence but had one moment of weakness when He was thinking about using it to defend Himself, but thanks to God's comfort He finally came back to rejection of force?

The wars that happend, and were ordained by G-d at the time of Moses, was that a different G-d? or was it another G-d asking Moses, or was Moses crazy? Authobillah.

As you know, we believe that God reveal Himself gradually in History. Jesus was final and "full" revelation. He said "turn the other cheek". So thanks to Him (not only...) we know killing is bad, bad, bad. And as you know Moses was fighting for land. To be a martyr I think you should fight only for God without worldly goals. And yes, rather not fight but resist from fighting

I find it so upsetting to see that, reason being, that people faught wars, lost their lives, to obey G-d, and you assume they died for political reasons.

So you think that God is asking us to kill? Or maybe He only asked it in past and not today? i can add here that if you will answer "no " to second question I'll also find it "upsetting" :giggling:

Thank you for your honest reply and hope all is well, Eesa :)

LOL...no problem...I can always give you my a bit unclear replays :D
is Eesa your name? :?
take care!

[snakelegs]

isa,
since you are obviously not a christian, may i ask why you use the christian symbol in your new sig?

[Umar001]

isa,
since you are obviously not a christian, may i ask why you use the christian symbol in your new sig?

It's just there to be like a subject title and then quotes from the Qu'ran with regards to the main person in Christianity, Jesus.

And Dusk I see we've got confused about how I read things and how you read what I said, sorry and I'll reply in the morning.

[snakelegs]

It's just there to be like a subject title and then quotes from the Qu'ran with regards to the main person in Christianity, Jesus.

i asked because i think some christians would find this to be a quite offensive use of the symbol of their religion. you are not going to be successful in your dawah by offending people.

[Umar001]

i asked because i think some christians would find this to be a quite offensive use of the symbol of their religion. you are not going to be successful in your dawah by offending people.

You think so? I didnt think it was offensive, nehow thank you for your input :)

[snakelegs]

You think so? I didnt think it was offensive, nehow thank you for your input :)

thank you for your prompt response in removing it ....and reps.
we all need to try to be more aware of other people's feelings.

[Umar001]

thank you for your prompt response in removing it ....and reps.
we all need to try to be more aware of other people's feelings.

I believe the Qu'ran does say something with regards to restraining from insulting others lest they should out of ignorance insult G-d.

Anyhow, I didnt thing it wud be offending, but thanks for the look :)

[Umar001]

Assalamu Aleykum

Thank you for your patience and sorry for my long time to reply :)
I hope all is well.

OK...i'll make big quotes not to omit anything..

Well, I didn't mean just make big quotes, make the quotes the size of the point being made, thats all :) I will try to make each point I write clear in order to minimize any chance of people getting confused.

ou are making out of Glo's post absurd. She said that "sword" should be take as a metaphor and pointed out other passage in Bible when this word is also use in this context.
What Glo wrote makes perfect sense, although you may disagree with not taking "sword" literally.

I hope you realise, I'm not here to belittle or make fun of anyone, I don't intend to make anyone sound illogical, I just asked, because I find, personally, that through asking I get a better understanding, thats all. I hope sincerly that Glo did not feel I was making fun or rediculing her understanding of the scripture as tha was not my intention.

I know what Glo said, and I still was confused at how it made sense that is why I stated what I stated in the hope of further clarification. It may make 'perfect sense' to you but not to me, so I am trying to understand it still.

I know that it was Glo's theory that was "illogical" to you.

Ok.

thats' quite simple - I made spelling mistake :D instead of "than" should be "then". Sorry :rollseyes

Please don't apologise for making a spelling mistake, as I am not great speller myself :p

1st I can understand that you take 'That's enough' to mean 'he doesn't allow to use them'

That was not refering to any spelling mistake, I was just saying that I understand what you feel was meant by Jesus when he said 'That's Enough'

I agree that they didn't know how many people were coming for Jesus. When I'm speaking about "12", i mean: 11 disciples (12 - Judas) + Jesus = 12. They had 2 swards for 12. Could we agree that those 2 swords for 12 people aren't "enough"?

I misunderstood you, sorry.

2 swords for 12 people can be enough, it al depends on who they believe they were going to be facing, you see:

If a gang of 10 people was going to kill 2 people or 3, it would mean that 2 knives would be enough for the job, just because there are 10 gang members does not mean they have to have a knive each, rather it would depend on their skill and how many enemies they think they will encounter.

I'm glad :) So we agree that in the end Jesus didn't allow any "physical Jihad"???

Yes, for sure, Jesus did not allowed physical fighting at the time of his Arrest.

If i understood you point, you say that Jesus was scared and that's where thoughts about defense came. After being reminded of His mission He rejected violence.

Something along those lines.

you wrote:

You see, maybe Jesus did worry, while being in an anguish and distressed state, maybe he thought that he could take Judas on, he so badly wanted the cup to pass from him. But when he saw the crowd, he felt two swords were not gonna be enough and so submitted himself. I think he did want to figfht thus he told the disciples for the swords, but when he was strenghted then he reminded himself of his mission and thus submitted to G-d's will.

I'm just saying, that He said "enough" before seeing this crowd. He had other reason to say it. He says "enough" also before His prayer (so before His "moment of weakness" as you say) and befor being comforted. So something different made Him say this

I don't understand still, I was saying that, once Jesus saw the crowd, that maybe he realised that he wasn't going to face just judas or a couple of people but more than that so he knew that it would be no point in trying to fight.

Like again if the gang above, thought they were going to go kill one person and they took one gun, and then when they got there they saw 20 people, they wouldnt try to kill them, they would change their mind and say 'Oh we just was walking this way' or something.

Ok..so just to see where we are standing: you say that overall Jesus preached non-violence but had one moment of weakness when He was thinking about using it to defend Himself, but thanks to God's comfort He finally came back to rejection of force?

I say, Jesus preached what was needed to be preached to the people, it would be abit illogical for Jesus to preach to the people about starting a war when they don't have an army, I think you need to look at the life of Jesus and his mission and see why he said what he said.

Jesus didn't come to start a goverment nor a kingdom, well earthly one, so he would have no need to preach about fighting nor wars, specially in a land which was ruled by other forces, if he went around preaching, eye for and eye, to the people they would end up in more trouble than before since 'the people' didnt have power. Thus for them, he taught what was best, i.e to suffer patiently.

But at other times, such as when a society was there, and people were needed to be delivered by G-d, G-d told them to pick up the sword, as in the Old Testament.

As you know, we believe that God reveal Himself gradually in History. Jesus was final and "full" revelation. He said "turn the other cheek". So thanks to Him (not only...) we know killing is bad, bad, bad. And as you know Moses was fighting for land. To be a martyr I think you should fight only for God without worldly goals. And yes, rather not fight but resist from fighting

SO would G-d ask you to do something bad? What about the stoning and so forth that G-d ordered??

What about when they were fighting for G-d?
I read:

Deuteronomy 20:

4 For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory."

Deuteronomy 20:

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Numbers 31:

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."

3 So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them.

So in some cases it wasn't just 'for land', rather it seems people felt commanded to go fight and give their life in a war, are you not going to honour those people? It's not an easy thing to just go into war, it can be scary yet those brave men done it. Don't you think it takes a whole lot of devotion to put your life on the line for G-d?

So you think that God is asking us to kill? Or maybe He only asked it in past and not today? i can add here that if you will answer "no " to second question I'll also find it "upsetting" :giggling:

I don't have a clue if He is asking you, only a true Christian would know.

LOL...no problem...I can always give you my a bit unclear replays :D
is Eesa your name? :?
take care!

Eesa is the name, yes, same as Isa just different spelling, I find people pronounce it better the other way, i.e Eesa, its how we refer to Jesus :) peace be upon him.

And you gotta keep patient with me too my replies are not very grammatically correct.

Peace

[duskiness]

This time it took me quite some time to replay. I went abroad for few days, so i feel excused. :D

Yes, for sure, Jesus did not allowed physical fighting at the time of his Arrest

Only then??? What about your summary on Jesus teaching on violence?

I don't understand still, I was saying that, once Jesus saw the crowd, that maybe he realised that he wasn't going to face just judas or a couple of people but more than that so he knew that it would be no point in trying to fight.

I'm saying that a the time he was saying "enough" he didn't see crowd. As you have it pointed out, writing about the sequence of events of that night

I say, Jesus preached what was needed to be preached to the people, it would be bit illogical for Jesus to preach to the people about starting a war when they don't have an army, I think you need to look at the life of Jesus and his mission and see why he said what he said.

So you don't see any universal truths in His rejection of violence? In "turn the other cheek", in "love your enemies"??? Just a particular meaning in time? You think it was just His conformism to say so????

Jesus didn't come to start a goverment nor a kingdom, well earthly one, so he would have no need to preach about fighting nor wars, specially in a land which was ruled by other forces, if he went around preaching, eye for and eye, to the people they would end up in more trouble than before since 'the people' didnt have power. Thus for them, he taught what was best, i.e to suffer patiently.

as i see it, what He was preaching, is what God is asking us to do. Not to harm other. And that's the sole reason for it. Jesus was killed for what he was saying, his disciple also. What He was saying wasn't "better" neither for Him nor for his followers.

But at other times, such as when a society was there, and people were needed to be delivered by G-d, G-d told them to pick up the sword, as in the Old Testament.

In OLD testament. But since God reveled Himself in Jesus the rule is "turn the other cheek". No killing in the name of God.

SO would G-d ask you to do something bad? What about the stoning and so forth that G-d ordered??

no, God don't ask us to sin. You can easly find quotes about killing and stoning in Old Testament. But then came Jesus and....oh..you know what he said ;) He didn't ask us to kill, torture, hurt.

What about when they were fighting for G-d?
So in some cases it wasn't just 'for land', rather it seems people felt commanded to go fight and give their life in a war, are you not going to honour those people? It's not an easy thing to just go into war, it can be scary yet those brave men done it. Don't you think it takes a whole lot of devotion to put your life on the line for G-d?

It takes even more, not to fight back. Like Jesus. Or even like first Christians.

I don't have a clue if He is asking you, only a true Christian would know.

I'm asking you! Do YOU think that God can ask us today to kill in His name?
take care
n.