|
Post by emy on Mar 30, 2015 15:28:23 GMT -5
Blacksheep wrote:
Is this a valid interpretation of the verse? If so, could it be this is what Jesus was saying? If taking a sword means selling your garment (go naked), you may as well take your scrip and purse, too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 22:43:09 GMT -5
Where would he hook the sword? .
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 30, 2015 23:10:15 GMT -5
Where would he hook the sword????. Hmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 1, 2015 5:16:12 GMT -5
The commentaries I have read on this verse are along the following lines: "The disciples take Jesus' remarks literally and incorrectly. They note that they have two swords, but Jesus cuts off the discussion. Something is not right, but it is too late to discuss it. As the arrest will show, they have misunderstood. They draw swords then, but Jesus stops their defense in its tracks. He is not telling them to buy swords to wield in physical battle. They will have to provide for themselves and fend for themselves, but not through the shedding of blood. They are being drawn into a great cosmic struggle, and they must fight with spiritual swords and resources. The purchase of swords serves only to picture this coming battle. This fight requires special weapons (Eph 6:10-18)." When we were leaving meetings we asked the local Head Worker to explain this verse in the context of Matthew 10. He said that Jesus wanted Matthew 10 to always apply but he changed his mind in Luke 22 and gave into the disciples because they had sinful hearts and wanted earthly things..... We scratched our heads and said "really, you think that..." and moved onto the next topic. I agree about the sword, he didn't mean earthly weapons at all! He meant the word of God! He was talking spiritually. Hebrews 4:12 The word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Revelation 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth It all has a deeper meaning!
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Apr 1, 2015 7:14:14 GMT -5
Its good to learn that words can mean whatever we decide they mean, and not what they say when reading the Scriptures! I now know that if I don't like what it says, I can say it means something else entirely!
For example, I think the word "sword" actually means "55 inch flatscreen color TV HD". Since there were no TVs when the scriptures were written, they decided to just use the word "sword" instead. So, sell whatever it takes, even if you have to go naked, just buy the TV. Clear?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 1, 2015 17:53:59 GMT -5
If it had been a physical battle between Jesus and Rome's legion, God the Father would have sent12 legions of angels to help Jesus and he wouldn't need the help from the disciples at all. One angel of God slaughter 186,000 thousand of the Assyrians in one night! Can you image what 12 legions= 64,000 to 72,000 angels at Jesus disposal do to the Roman's army. Unless they had chariots of iron. The lord had a problem defeating those. The explanation regarding the sword doesn't make much sense other than in a literal sense. Selling their cloak to buy a sword? How does that transaction refer to anything but material goods? Owning a sword and using a sword are different. Cutting off the ear of the Roman could have meant that Peter and not Jesus would have been arrested and that certainly would have resulted in a different religion.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 2, 2015 1:25:50 GMT -5
If it had been a physical battle between Jesus and Rome's legion, God the Father would have sent12 legions of angels to help Jesus and he wouldn't need the help from the disciples at all. One angel of God slaughter 186,000 thousand of the Assyrians in one night! Can you image what 12 legions= 64,000 to 72,000 angels at Jesus disposal do to the Roman's army. Unless they had chariots of iron. The lord had a problem defeating those. The explanation regarding the sword doesn't make much sense other than in a literal sense. Selling their cloak to buy a sword? How does that transaction refer to anything but material goods? Owning a sword and using a sword are different. Cutting off the ear of the Roman could have meant that Peter and not Jesus would have been arrested and that certainly would have resulted in a different religion. No rational, the Bible has deeper meanings, you won't understand them with an earthly mind! The sword is the word of God and the garments have a deeper meanings too, it means God's covering! Isaiah 61 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels. It says in the Bible, those who have ears to here, listen to what the spirit says to the churches! You won't understand God with man's mind, and looking at blacksheep's post above shows that clearly!
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 2, 2015 8:49:49 GMT -5
I read it that Jesus retracts some Matthew 10 instructions in Luke 22:35
"And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse and script, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one...And they said, Lord behold here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."
With these words, "when I sent you without purse, script and shoes" Jesus' refers to his former instructions to the disciples given in Matt. 10:5-14. Jesus gave the disciples these instructions AFTER they returned from those first missions. His instructions ALTERED the method in which they would go preach after His crucifixion.
Paraphrased, isn't He saying: "Before I sent you (with THESE certain instructions found in Matt. 10); BUT NOW (in the future) go out... (with THESE altered/different instructions).
IMO, this verse shows that Jesus' commands in Matt 10. that were addressed to the disciples were not intended for all ministers of the future? That the Matt 10 instructions were not universal for all time.
Can both the Luke 22:35 instructions and the Matt. 10:5-14 instructions be obeyed simultaneously? One of these instructions supersedes the other, and the one last in effect was Luke 22:35. They can't both be obeyed, because one verse instructs the disciples to do some things that the other verse says they are not to do any longer.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 2, 2015 12:03:40 GMT -5
Unless they had chariots of iron. The lord had a problem defeating those. The explanation regarding the sword doesn't make much sense other than in a literal sense. Selling their cloak to buy a sword? How does that transaction refer to anything but material goods? Owning a sword and using a sword are different. Cutting off the ear of the Roman could have meant that Peter and not Jesus would have been arrested and that certainly would have resulted in a different religion. No rational, the Bible has deeper meanings, you won't understand them with an earthly mind! The sword is the word of God and the garments have a deeper meanings too, it means God's covering! NathanB, The disciples at one point stated they had 2 swords. Two words of god? If someone tells you to sell your lawnmower and purchase a skateboard it is clear that they are talking about material goods. When Jesus said to sell their cloaks and purchase a sword it was regarding material things. Is the word of god for sale? Why would Jesus want them to trade god's covering for the word of god? What kind of a price would they get from the sale of the covering of god? Who would purchase it? Are you sure you are not just inserting the 'deeper meanings' as a way to avoid the stated meaning?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 2, 2015 12:27:10 GMT -5
NathanB, The disciples at one point stated they had 2 swords. Two words of god? ~~ The disciples had two swords in Luke 22. Peter used one sword to cut an ear off the high priest's servant in the garden. Jesus told Peter to put away the sword and he healed him.If someone tells you to sell your lawnmower and purchase a skateboard it is clear that they are talking about material goods. When Jesus said to sell their cloaks and purchase a sword it was regarding material things. Is the word of god for sale? Why would Jesus want them to trade god's covering for the word of god? What kind of a price would they get from the sale of the covering of god? Who would purchase it? Are you sure you are not just inserting the 'deeper meanings' as a way to avoid the stated meaning? ~~ I wouldn't compare two swords in Luke 22 as spiritual the words of God. I see. So you apply the 'deeper meaning' selectively. You still have not addressed the concept of selling 'god's covering' or buying 'god's word'.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 2, 2015 13:28:07 GMT -5
Unless they had chariots of iron. The lord had a problem defeating those. The explanation regarding the sword doesn't make much sense other than in a literal sense. Selling their cloak to buy a sword? How does that transaction refer to anything but material goods? Owning a sword and using a sword are different. Cutting off the ear of the Roman could have meant that Peter and not Jesus would have been arrested and that certainly would have resulted in a different religion. What kind of chariots of fire are you talking about that God/the Lord has a problem of defeating? Not 'fire', Nathan. 'Iron'. Chariots of. Iron
I Judges: 19
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
King James Bible
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 2, 2015 14:54:21 GMT -5
Not 'fire', Nathan. 'Iron'. Chariots of. Iron
I Judges: 19
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
King James Bible
God drowned 600 iron chariots of Pharaoh in the Red Sea when they were trying to defeat/overcome the Children of Israel with his army of iron chariots.Does it state anywhere that they were chariots of iron or did you just make that up to support your point of view? Maybe the bible is wrong on that point.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 2, 2015 14:54:59 GMT -5
Not 'fire', Nathan. 'Iron'. Chariots of. Iron
I Judges: 19
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
King James Bible
. So, the little chariots of iron is a piece of cake for God to destroy... Judge 1:19 It Was Judah/the tribe,who could NOT drive out the people, who lived in the valley because they had chariots of iron
I don't believe it was the LORD God who couldn't drive those who lived in the Valley out.
Never-the-less, -God did not destroy those "little chariots of iron.," did he?
You "don't believe it was the LORD God who couldn't drive out those who lived in the Valley?" Why not?
You would give credit to the LORD for being with Judah the reason that Judah was able to drive out the inhabitants of the mountain.
Within the very same verse it tells two different outcomes, one for the mountains, one for the valley and you want to attribute the one to God but not the other?
Come now!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 2, 2015 14:57:14 GMT -5
I see. So you apply the 'deeper meaning' selectively. You still have not addressed the concept of selling 'god's covering' or buying 'god's word'. That wasn't me who wrote deeper meaning about selling god's covering to buying gods word.Come on NathanB, you said that there was a deeper meaning and that "sword" was the word of god and 'cloaks' was "god's covering". Since Jesus said to sell the cloak, which you claimed was god's covering, and buy a sword, which you said was god's word, I was wondering what the exchange rate was at that time. And who would you pay for god's word?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 2, 2015 16:14:57 GMT -5
That wasn't me who wrote deeper meaning about selling god's covering to buying gods word. Come on NathanB, you said that there was a deeper meaning and that "sword" was the word of god and 'cloaks' was "god's covering". Since Jesus said to sell the cloak, which you claimed was god's covering, and buy a sword, which you said was god's word, I was wondering what the exchange rate was at that time. And who would you pay for god's word? It was me not Nathan
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 2, 2015 16:37:55 GMT -5
1) Rational wrote: Does it state anywhere that they were chariots of iron or did you just make that up to support your point of view? ~~ Read about Pharaoh chased after the children of Israel with his 600 chariots of iron in Exdodus 14:7. NathanB, here is the KJV version of that verse: And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them.There is no mention of iron. Not in any translation I looked at. You really can't just make things up to support your point of view. NathanB - the title of the piece you quoted was: Pharaoh's chariots found in Red Sea?A quick search of the entire page and the word 'iron' is not found. You can't just keep making things up that are not supported. In fact, the article sheds a lot of doubt. Since artifacts cannot be removed how does anyone know with 99.9% certainty what it was? And I see Ron Wyatt in involved again. Claims he brought one of the wheels to the surface. Think about the value of such an artifact to a lot of people yet the artifact has been misplaced. Roy Wyatt... The same Ron that claims to have found Noah's ark. And has photos of the Arc of the Covenant. And found the blood of Jesus that has only 24 chromosomes - 23 from Mom and just an Y-chromosome from Dad. Makes the birth and development of the fetus even more of a miracle. NathanB, NathanB, NathanB - time to face reality. Here is some text cut from the article you referenced: But despite all of Elmer’s excitement, others who have been to the same location are not so sure what is being viewed underwater are the remnants of the great chase and urge extreme caution regarding the unsubstantiated claims.
“All kinds of people are finding coral and calling it chariot parts,” says Richard Rives, president of Wyatt Archaeological Research in Tennessee. “It’s most likely coral covered with coral. … Opportunists are combining false things with the true things that are found. These people are making it up as they go to be TV stars.”
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 2, 2015 16:43:42 GMT -5
Come on NathanB, you said that there was a deeper meaning and that "sword" was the word of god and 'cloaks' was "god's covering". Since Jesus said to sell the cloak, which you claimed was god's covering, and buy a sword, which you said was god's word, I was wondering what the exchange rate was at that time. And who would you pay for god's word? It was me not Nathan :) My mistake - sorry NathanB. So maryhig - given the deeper meaning how would one go about following that advice? Sell the covering of god and but the word of god? Does it really make sense to suggest that the advice was to sell your cloak if you have to and get yourself a sword wasn't what was meant?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 3, 2015 9:33:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Apr 3, 2015 12:46:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 3, 2015 18:20:42 GMT -5
Hope you enjoyed the scenery, Nathan. I'm going out for a long walk soon.
I believe Luke 22 means exactly what it says. The workers take Matthew 10 literally when Jesus told them not to take purse, scrip etc on their journey but when it comes to Luke 22 they do not believe the words of Jesus. I have only ever heard the workers say that Jesus was just trying to expose the apostles when Peter said I have 2 swords. To me Jesus was clear in giving the reason that they could now take sword, purse, scrip etc saying that going without them was only while he was with them, but now he was leaving them they were free to take them.
Carrying a sword seemed to be common those days especially when traveling on a long journey. If not then surely Peter would have been arrested for having and using it. Jesus was telling them they can take what they want on their journey when he leaves them.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Apr 3, 2015 19:01:39 GMT -5
Whatever it means, it's a good thing the workers don't interpret it to mean they should carry a literal sword now. They have enough power as is.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 3, 2015 19:47:49 GMT -5
Don't people in the USA still carry guns? It is not allowed in most countries.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Apr 3, 2015 20:18:52 GMT -5
Don't people in the USA still carry guns? It is not allowed in most countries. The rules vary by state. I haven't heard of a worker carrying a gun into the friends' homes though or if any of them own guns...can you imagine them showing up at the door with a sword? But I also never saw a brother worker with a purse or a cloak.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 3, 2015 20:23:32 GMT -5
Maybe they traded their sword for some clothes like the opening post talks about. They do have a purse, called wallet for men over here, and they are very well dressed most of them, be it often the women old fashioned.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 3, 2015 20:23:34 GMT -5
Well, that is your understanding, rational. So, I will let the readers decide what is the truth for themselves. No, it is not my understanding. It is what people who have been conned out of a lot of money have said. It is what even Answersingenesis.com has said. Ron's sons have revealed that he planted the chariot wheels. Most claims Ron made have been shown to be false by a variety of authorities.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Apr 3, 2015 20:33:17 GMT -5
Maybe they traded their sword for some clothes like the opening post talks about. They do have a purse, called wallet for men over here, and they are very well dressed most of them, be it often the women old fashioned. I was just joking around, Mary. If a man showed up at my door carrying a purse, sword and cloak I wouldn't open it. Or naked with a sword and purse. Although it'd make a great Facebook post.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 4, 2015 0:12:09 GMT -5
No, it is not my understanding. It is what people who have been conned out of a lot of money have said. It is what even Answersingenesis.com has said. Ron's sons have revealed that he planted the chariot wheels. Most claims Ron made have been shown to be false by a variety of authorities. I showed you the second Ytube wasn't from Ron at All.The photos presented are all from Wyatt. They are as phoney as he was. Now that Ron is dead Jonathan Gray, Ross Patterson, and Evan Sadler, among others, continue to promote his fraudulent stories and get the gullible to send them money.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 4, 2015 0:59:07 GMT -5
This is NOT from Ron..... 400 human skeletons, 100 weapons, vest armors, blades/swords, two war chariots intact, 5000 bodies/skeletons scattered nearby, are found at the bottom of Red Sea. "Egyptian Pharaoh's Army" Bones Found In The Red Sea Archaeologists Confirm www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8MQeasnItQNot from any source other than Paul Begley. Not really a man to be taken at his word.
|
|