All Preachers Should Have A Conceal Weapon Permit

[John81]

Over here each State and many cities have their own laws and regulations regarding edged blades. Thankfully, in Christ I have no need for a gun, knife or sword as a weapon so I don't have to keep up with the hundreds of different laws across the country regarding these things.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

Even if not used or maintained as a weapon, a pocketknife can get you in trouble if it runs counter to the statutes of a given area. A pocketknife is used to cut open a box in NYC, an officer sees it and demands to see the knife. It has a 3" blade. I don't know about 2015, but in 1990 that knife would land you in jail for a state felony due to a weapons charge. The legal limit was 2 1/2 inches. It doesn't matter that you were from RI and didn't know NYC had such an absurd limit.

Some states have tried to outlaw knives that can be opened with one hand claiming that the only use for such an "offensive weapon" is to maim and kill. Hogwash, my father-in-law had to have a single hand operable knife for 20 years of his life due to a stroke. I can't count the # of times I've needed to open one with one hand due to the other hand being too occupied to be helpful

[heartstrings]

16 hours ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

I haven't checked lately, but in 2007 the legal limit (in FL) for a concealed blade was 5 inches and no open carrying of swords.

Maybe they've changed the laws because, according to this video, "Bowie Knives" and "cane knives" are legal to "open carry" and some of these are bordering on being "short swords". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB8HZkIfGus

I personally carry a Gerber "multi-tool''. but the only practical thing I could use it for, in a quick, self defense emergency, is to pinch with the pliers.  

Edited November 9, 2015 by heartstrings

[Invicta]

On 07/11/2015, 22:03:21, Colin Stolzer said:

Luke 22:36 "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."

That is a direct command of Jesus to purchase a weapon...if you want to be literal then christians should have a sword...I think most people though would agree that the roman short sword was the personal defence weapon of it's day and today a personal defence weapon in the U.S. equivelant to the roman short sword is a gun.

You do own a sword, since that is a direct command of Jesus Christ?

Luke 22:38  And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2015 by Invicta

[heartstrings]

28 minutes ago, Invicta said:

Luke 22:38  And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

 

 

Interesting. Depending on how these were carried, it appears that the Romans allowed either open or concealed weapons to be carried, If it had not been legal, I doubt the Lord would have sanctioned it in this instance.

[John81]

Farmers around here used to carry switchblades for use in working on the farm because they could easily be used with one hand. Then they outlawed switchblades. When they came up with they came out with the quick opening thumb flick knives farmers started using them for the same reason. Those are still currently legal here but because of problems in the cities with these knives there have been attempts to outlaw them too.

[Colin Stolzer]

On 11/8/2015, 4:25:21, Invicta said:

If I went out with a sword I would soon be in gaol..

 

On 11/9/2015, 10:54:04, Invicta said:

Any blade in our country, however short can be considered to be an offensive weapon and if discovered and it was thought that it was to be used as such.  It doesn't even have to be a gun or blade, any instrument such as a hammer could render you liable if it was thought to be offensive.  The Yorksire Ripper was caught when he was discovered with a hammer in his car which he had used in his murders.  .  

 

On 11/9/2015, 12:14:38, John81 said:

Over here each State and many cities have their own laws and regulations regarding edged blades. Thankfully, in Christ I have no need for a gun, knife or sword as a weapon so I don't have to keep up with the hundreds of different laws across the country regarding these things.

Luke 22:36 "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."

This is an actual commandment of Jesus, shouldn't it carry the same wieight as any other commandment that God has given?

Or is buffet theology, I'll follow this comand but not that one...God said put my faith in him so I'll do that because it doesn't require me to challenge any one or any authority but when he said buy a sword, well... that might get me in trouble so I won't follow that command. Buffet theology - picking and chosing which comandment to follow.

Luke 22:38  And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

So what this verse proves it that the disciples were already armed and Jesus approved of the swords they had in their possesion. Read in context of the verses around it, this is after the last supper, so by that we can reasonable deduce that 12 disciples were present and they had two swords with them, so for every 12 that gather in Jesus name at least 2 of them should be armed. When you gather with fellow believers does your group provide an armed ratio of 2 to 12?

³⁵ And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

³⁶ 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.

³⁷ For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

³⁸ And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

³⁹ And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.

When he sent them without any thing, everything was provided for them(this probably included their protection) but Jesus then goes on to say sell your stuff if need be and arm yourself because his time with them was coming to an end. Jesus doesn't promise that everything will be provided for us, as a matter of fact it is laid out in other parts of scripture that we will suffer in his name but he gave a command to buy a sword, that implies a God given right to self defense.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Colin Stolzer

[wretched]

1 hour ago, Colin Stolzer said:

 

 

Luke 22:36 "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."

This is an actual commandment of Jesus, shouldn't it carry the same wieight as any other commandment that God has given?

Or is buffet theology, I'll follow this comand but not that one...God said put my faith in him so I'll do that because it doesn't require me to challenge any one or any authority but when he said buy a sword, well... that might get me in trouble so I won't follow that command. Buffet theology - picking and chosing which comandment to follow.

Luke 22:38  And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

So what this verse proves it that the disciples were already armed and Jesus approved of the swords they had in their possesion. Read in context of the verses around it, this is after the last supper, so by that we can reasonable deduce that 12 disciples were present and they had two swords with them, so for every 12 that gather in Jesus name at least 2 of them should be armed. When you gather with fellow believers does your group provide an armed ratio of 2 to 12?

³⁵ And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

³⁶ 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.

³⁷ For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

³⁸ And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

³⁹ And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.

When he sent them without any thing, everything was provided for them(this probably included their protection) but Jesus then goes on to say sell your stuff if need be and arm yourself because his time with them was coming to an end. Jesus doesn't promise that everything will be provided for us, as a matter of fact it is laid out in other parts of scripture that we will suffer in his name but he gave a command to buy a sword, that implies a God given right to self defense.

Or perhaps we should take this passage in the historical context it was most likely meant based on the context surrounding judas' betrayal and the subsequent arrest and chopping off of the guards ear? Christ then rebuked Peter for using one of the swords.

Please demonstrate any other passage in the NT where defending yourself even personally and unrelated to living for the Lord is mentioned. Much less any passage where defending yourself from suffering persecution in the name of the Lord is mentioned.

I think this idea isolates one verse, taking it completely out of its context to form some gun-toting (weapon toting) christian doctrine that exists nowhere in Scripture. This whole gun loving, gun toting idea is of the world.  I could be wrong though so keep going if you think I am. BTW, I do believe that our flesh will want to defend ourselves in every situation so don't bother going there again. I know I do, and will and will continue to whether Scriptural or not just cause I likey my flesh.

And for the record (is anyone recording this?) I will stop and probably put to death anyone trying to rape my daughters and slap any man within range trying to play that idiotic card again (hows that for sword play?)

What bugs me is when people try to make it Scriptural with this one verse completely out of historical and Spiritual context. It is our flesh and our flesh alone that wants to dwell on this nonsense and propagate it.
.

[No Nicolaitans]

How do we answer this?

John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

If Christ's kingdom had been of the world at that time, his servants would fight to defend him. There's obviously the allowance of weapons in that verse...or at least...fighting. Christ didn't say that his servants would have "wanted" to fight...he said they would. He also didn't say that he would stop them from fighting...he said they would.

And yes, I realize that this situation is different than what has been discussed...just showing that it appears that Christ would allow the use of force.

8 minutes ago, wretched said:

just cause I likey my flesh.

Likey...

[John81]

9 hours ago, wretched said:

Or perhaps we should take this passage in the historical context it was most likely meant based on the context surrounding judas' betrayal and the subsequent arrest and chopping off of the guards ear? Christ then rebuked Peter for using one of the swords.

Please demonstrate any other passage in the NT where defending yourself even personally and unrelated to living for the Lord is mentioned. Much less any passage where defending yourself from suffering persecution in the name of the Lord is mentioned.

I think this idea isolates one verse, taking it completely out of its context to form some gun-toting (weapon toting) christian doctrine that exists nowhere in Scripture. This whole gun loving, gun toting idea is of the world.  I could be wrong though so keep going if you think I am. BTW, I do believe that our flesh will want to defend ourselves in every situation so don't bother going there again. I know I do, and will and will continue to whether Scriptural or not just cause I likey my flesh.

And for the record (is anyone recording this?) I will stop and probably put to death anyone trying to rape my daughters and slap any man within range trying to play that idiotic card again (hows that for sword play?)

What bugs me is when people try to make it Scriptural with this one verse completely out of historical and Spiritual context. It is our flesh and our flesh alone that wants to dwell on this nonsense and propagate it.
.

Indeed, in context the whole point of the swords (which according to those who know Greek say were actually more like large knives or daggers) was so Jesus could rebuke Peter and further illustrate such actions are not right. Otherwise two swords would not have been enough if such were needed for actual defense or taking the offense.

Throughout Acts and the Epistles we read of Christians willingly suffering being wronged, whether for their faith or simply at the hands of criminals, without fighting against such. The historical record of early Christians bears out the same as one of the hallmarks of Christians was their refusal to fight, refusal to engage in violent resistance.

To our natural minds these things seem difficult, harsh, even wrong, but as Christ called us to a radically different reality we should not be surprised by such. While we tend to think of our life and the lives of our loved ones here on earth of being a high priority, the spiritual reality can be very different.

Christ taught if someone robs from us, give them a little extra. If they kidnap us and force us to go a mile with them willingly go another mile, if they strike us don't strike back; pray for our enemies, give our enemies food and drink. These are direct teachings from Christ. While these are contrary to our natural thinking, we can rest assured that God will always use our obedience in such matters for His good purposes.

[Colin Stolzer]

So all you have to do now is explain away why Jesus told them to sell their stuff to buy a sword...if the whole point was to rebuke Peter he wouldn't have needed to tell them to go buy a sword, he clearly knew that at least a few of his disciples were already carrying swords.

If you take the bible as the literal word of God and you believe that Luke was quoting Jesus directly as it is written then why would you try to make it mean anything other than what it actually says? It is a direct command of Jesus you know those letters in red in some bibles "³ 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."

Again I say it is buffet theology to try and justify away a direct command of Jesus, either you believe he said it and he meant it or you don't.

BTW, He was still with his disciples when he rebuked Peter and healed the ear, his time with them had not yet come to an end. ³⁷ For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

One commandment is no less important than any other no matter how hard you try to reason it away.

[heartstrings]

He told them specifically to "sell your garment" and buy a sword. That is a strange command.  I mean, some individuals would actually have enough spare cash to buy a "sword" without needing to sell their "garment" wouldn't you think?. Is it just possible that the "command" had a much deeper, spiritual meaning sort of like "eat my flesh" did? Maybe the "sword" means "the Word of God? No?

I always had hunting rifles and shotguns and have put a lot of meat in the freezer with them, but I don't care much for hunting anymore. I was 53 years old before I bought my first hand gun.; I just never had any desire for it.  Even now, it wouldn't bother me one bit if EVERY gun on earth was gone. But I have sense enough to know that is never going to happen, so I carry every day and everywhere.

[Colin Stolzer]

10 hours ago, wretched said:

Please demonstrate any other passage in the NT where defending yourself even personally and unrelated to living for the Lord is mentioned. Much less any passage where defending yourself from suffering persecution in the name of the Lord is mentioned.

 

^{Luke 11:21} When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

I know you qualified your statement with the NT thinking that it would help your case but even in the NT there are passages to support self defense. There are a few others in the NT but I'll let you pick this one apart before I move on to the next.

If you'd like to open it up to the OT there are many more verses that allow for defense of your person, defense of your property, defense of others, defense of the city, defense of the country, well you get the idea.

I'm fine with sticking to the NT though if you think it will help you.

[Colin Stolzer]

4 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

He told them specifically to "sell your garment" and buy a sword. That is a strange command.  I mean, some individuals would actually have enough spare cash to buy a "sword" without needing to sell their "garment" wouldn't you think?. Is it just possible that the "command" had a much deeper, spiritual meaning sort of like "eat my flesh" did? Maybe the "sword" means "the Word of God? No?

³⁶ Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip...

He said use your money if you have it.

³⁸ And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords.

Can't be metaphorical since they had two real swords.

[heartstrings]

That's fine. I have no problem either way.