Jesus & Jihaad

[glo]

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

Now, there's a surprise, brother!

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]

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]

Re: Jesus & peace

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

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

 

[Umar001]

Re: Jesus & peace

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'; 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.

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' 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

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

your aint missed much

jazakhala khair for the much shorter up to date version

AsalamuAlaykum bro

 

[duskiness]

Re: Jesus & peace

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

 

[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]

Re: .

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 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
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?