We continue, from part 1 and part 2, considering arguments which a personage whom we will call the counter-arguer made in attempts to prove that Jesus was violent.
Ultimately, what the counter-arguer succeeded in doing was that he found reference to a sword—period. He then baselessly and uncontextually claimed that it was a physical sword. Yet, he provided no place where this physical sword of Jesus was used. Thus, you can see that he is desperate: he finds a words, he pour his preferred meaning into it and still he fails to prove his point.
On the other hand, the apologist can find that word in that text, read the text for context and conclusively conclude that the sword is symbolic of division.
Note that in Luke 12:49 Jesus stated, “I came to send fire on the earth.” Thus, you see how we can now blame the past 2,000 of fires on Jesus. Indeed, it may have been a symbolic fire but it is also a physical fire—why not?
Considering that the counter-arguer’s focus is so heavily on Jesus’ sword, the he followed up by stating:
In some places JC is commanding peace, in others he is violent and commands all his followers to have swords,…What I am attempting to show you is that the NT is deceitful [ellipses in original]
Here is one of his examples as to the New Testament being deceitful:
Should we carry swords or not? –
Matthew 26:52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
Luke 22:36 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.
The context is clear, this is no parable. Look it up yourself. This is what his followers did for 2000 years.
You focus on the peaceful parts, I focus on the whole.
You are taking a part here and a part there, I look at the WHOLE NT and understand it – the books were chosen out of over 200 “Gospels” by the Catholic Church and the books have MANY inconsistencies – here are 2 more of hundreds-
There is much to note here such as 1) his inability to draw his arguments to his intended conclusion and 2) his constant side tracking.
Note that his purpose was to demonstrate the New Testament’s deceit. Now, how is the example exemplary of deceit? It may be a contradiction but it is not deceit. But is it a contradiction?
Matthew 26:52 pertains to when Jesus was being arrested and Peter sought to interfere. What the counter-arguer does not bother quoting is the context which is that Jesus specifically stated (including verses 53 and 54):
Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?
Thus, if Jesus wanted to be violent, He could have and would have either allowed Peter to continue hacking away or could have had God the Father send twelve legions of angels. Therefore, the context is that those who take up swords in order to interfere with God’s plans will die by the sword. The Romans and Temple guard would have surely made quick work of Peter had Jesus not interfered by bringing peace to a violent situation.
Thus, there is no contradiction with Luke 22:36 wherein Jesus tells them to by swords.
Furthermore, and more importantly, his purpose was to show that Jesus and His followers were violent. However, what the counter-arguer is missing is an instance—either within the New Testament or any historical document—of the Apostles taking up swords. Simply stated, we have no such info whatsoever. He desperately wants to read violence into the statement to by swords but he cannot specify any instant in which they used swords violently—with the exception above, when Jesus told Peter to cease. This is why he has to fall back on a statement that is generic enough to be utterly meaningless, “This is what his followers did for 2000 years.”
Now, to point 2) about “the books were chosen out of over 200 ‘Gospels’ by the Catholic Church and the books have MANY inconsistencies – here are 2 more of hundreds.” Apparently, he has been reading too much Dan Brown, Bart Ehrman and other modern day myth makers. We will not get side tracked by his very many attempts at side tracking. If you are interested in exploring this issue see: Canonization Controversy
Sadly, within this particular exchange the counter-arguer trailed off again and only succeeded in demonstrating his anachronistic manner of misunderstanding the Bible’s contents, concepts and context. This is an interesting yet, saddening view into his modis operandi. For example, he demonstrated his inability (or, is it unwillingness) to discern that Jesus could, at one time and pertaining to certain information, state that no one was to be told but, at a different time and pertaining to different information, Jesus could seek to reveal (or, Jesus could be referring to the same issue but at one time keep it untold but later told).
He is likewise confused about the John the Baptist / Elijah correlation. Malachi 4:5 affirms that Elijah will come, “before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.” Matthew 11:13 has Jesus saying that “John…is Elijah.” But since neither the Bible as a whole nor Jesus hold to reincarnation, what does it mean that John “is” Elijah? Well, Luke 1:13 explains is perfectly well, in stating, that “John…will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah.” Thus, John is in Elijah’s prophetic office but, as he himself admitted in John 1:19-21, he is not Elijah. Jesus stated of John,
This is [he] of whom it is written: “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You” (Luke) 7:27).
Thus, John is identified as fulfilling the function of Elijah.
It is all very clear to those who actually seek truth and not trouble only. In fact, Jesus said it all in Matthew 11:13-15:
For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.
And then He added:
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Which was a typical way for Him to say, understand this if you have understanding.
Simply stated the issue of John and Elijah is tantamount to that of Elisha and Elijah:
Elijah said to Elisha, “Ask what I shall do for you before I am taken from you.” And Elisha said, “Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me” (2 Kings 2:9).
You see, this is about office, station it is about spirit, in the spirit of, in the likeness of. And this is precisely that which the New Testament affirms about the Elijah, John correlation as it relates that John “will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17).
Overall this demonstrates the results of attempting to make nothing into something. One only ends up discrediting oneself by openly exhibiting lack of knowledge of literary genre as well as historical, grammatical and cultural context.
But you see how easy it is for the elephant hurlers to side track us. While claiming to focus on Jesus’ violence the counter-arguer brings up very many issues and if you allow yourself to get side tracked then you respond to them all, he counter argues to them all, you counter argue ad infinitum.
So, back to the issue, once again in the next segment.