We Have Two Swords

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This coming from the person who doesn't even read the text.

Are you the All-seeing Eye?

HA fulfills "Proclaiming themselves to be wise, they became fools."

Which translates you do not agree with me.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Are you the All-seeing Eye?

Says the person who claims no one else looked up the word.

Hypocrisy has always been your strong suit though.

Which translates you do not agree with me.

No. It means just what I said.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Says the person who claims no one else looked up the word.

I made no such claim. Kindly do not be mendacious.

Hypocrisy has always been your strong suit though.

I recommend you deal with the above - namely your own dishonesty.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
Because none of us bothered to look up the word.
HA:
Evidently.

Of course, anyone who disagrees with HA is dishonest.

At which point, done arguing. It's a waste of time.

[rogue06]

Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
Because none of us bothered to look up the word.
HA:
Evidently.

Of course, anyone who disagrees with HA is dishonest.

At which point, done arguing. It's a waste of time.

It is one thing to forget what you wrote a week ago. Hard to excuse it when there's only a difference of exactly 3 hours.

[Apologiaphoenix]

It is one thing to forget what you wrote a week ago. Hard to excuse it when there's only a difference of exactly 3 hours.

Well, evidently you're just being dishonest now!

[Diogenes]

What specific prophecy in Luke?

The prophecy generally cited is Isaiah 53:12.

However, the question remains that if Jesus knew in advance what was going to occur why did he or his disciples need any swords?

Given that Judas had already left the Last Supper, not the penultimate one with kangaroos, Jesus would, in the very least, strongly suspect He was going to be betrayed shortly, He would want to in His words, fulfill the prophecy,

[tabibito]

We only have that text. No other Synoptic author mentions swords.

All the gospel authors make mention of a disciple using his sword during Jesus' arrest.

If it holds a kernel of truth we are left to surmise why this figure required weapons.

A supposition - e.g. Jesus was fomenting an armed revolt - flying in the face of available evidence is not a surmise.

I would also remark that given so many here believe him to have been god incarnate and therefore fully cognizant of what was going to happen.

People have been asking and answering all sorts of pointless dreamt up questions - e.g. "why did Jesus even bother to eat?" - since the founding of Christianity.

one might enquire why he wanted any weapons?

It is reasonable, when questions demand answers based on pure surmise, to not answer the questions.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

All the gospel authors make mention of a disciple using his sword during Jesus' arrest.

Only the author of Luke refers to the buying of swords/daggers.

A supposition - e.g. Jesus was fomenting an armed revolt - flying in the face of available evidence is not a surmise.

As I have repeatedly noted we have no idea what the real personage intended. Furthermore, divine intervention to bring about liberation, military success, or protection was hardly unknown in the Hebrew texts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The prophecy generally cited is Isaiah 53:12.

Early Christians ransacked the LXX to find verses they could interpret.

Given that Judas had already left the Last Supper, not the penultimate one with kangaroos

Only one kangaroo but several jellies which added some colour, not to mention the three Christs and twenty-eight disciples.

, Jesus would, in the very least, strongly suspect He was going to be betrayed shortly, He would want to in His words, fulfill the prophecy,

So why [according to the author of Luke] did he require swords/daggers?

[Apologiaphoenix]

The thread is so much more sensible with HA on block.

[tabibito]

Only the author of Luke refers to the buying of swords/daggers.

Only you find the fact at all significant.

As I have repeatedly noted we have no idea what the real personage intended.

The comment that two swords were enough at least gives a clue that nothing resembling an armed revolt was intended.

Furthermore, divine intervention to bring about liberation, military success, or protection was hardly unknown in the Hebrew texts.

The records at least give a hint that Jesus did not expect divine intervention on this occasion.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Only you find the fact at all significant.

My comments pertain to the title of the thread.

The comment that two swords were enough at least gives a clue that nothing resembling an armed revolt was intended.

You keep missing the point that we have no idea what the real person intended. I do not know and nor do you. All we have is this much later Christian text that refers to Jesus telling his disciples "and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one".

The records at least give a hint that Jesus did not expect divine intervention on this occasion.

Once again we do not know what the real man expected. This text, as are the other canonical gospels, is a later tendentious narrative. None of them are dispassionate historical accounts.

[tabibito]

You keep missing the point that we have no idea what the real person intended. I do not know and nor do you."

The point being missed is that none of the gospel authors give even a hint that Jesus intended armed revolt. They do give a fair indication that his actions were independent of ordinary worldly affairs.
"I do not know and nor do you." Nonetheless, you claim to know that I can't possibly be right.

All we have is this much later Christian text

There are many who want their fanciful speculations to make Luke's record a much later text, but the evidence provided by the text of Acts itself points to somewhen during Paul's lifetime or shortly thereafter.

that refers to Jesus telling his disciples "and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one

That is by no means all we have. We have, among other passages by the authors, statements that Jesus expressly asserted a complete disinterest in an earthly kingdom.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The point being missed is that none of the gospel authors give even a hint that Jesus intended armed revolt. They do give a fair indication that his actions were independent of ordinary worldly affairs.
"I do not know and nor do you." Nonetheless, you claim to know that I can't possibly be right.

Nowhere have I stated that you "can't possibly be right".

So once again, I request a little more honesty from yet another contributor.

We have to put these later texts into their socio-historical context. Likewise your remark pertaining to Jesus' assertions regarding his disinterest in an earthly kingdom.