Why was Simon Peter armed with a sword and other followers of Jesus?

by jam 84 Replies latest members private

• 

  AGuest

  Bull... (etc.)

  Hmmmm... so because of Roman Peace... Jews didn't have, let alone know how to use swords. Interesting. Wonder just how Zechariah, the son of Berechiah was murdered "between the temple and altar" WITH? With a whip, maybe? Somehow, I didn't get that he was beaten (or stoned) to death, but rather, that he was slain. How about Isaiah? Just what was he "sawn-asunder" with? Another whip, maybe. Oh, wait... mayhaps John the Baptizer was beheaded with... yep, another whip. James? Maybe a braided whip, that one. And why weren't those who beheaded them arrested (by the Romans)? How was Theudas"slain"... and who "slew" him? Why the prophecy that Israel would "beat their"... wait for it... SWORDS... "to plowshares"... if they didn't HAVE any swords?

  Wait, what were those things Matthew called "swords" that those who came to arrest Christ wielded? You know, those in that large crowd sent by the chief priests and older men? Which folks were... wait for it... Jews. My Lord was not arrested and taken into custody by the Romans...

  How would a people who not only had no swords, but wouldn't have known how to use them if they had... undertake to take on the frickin' Roman army... which they did? What had they planned to fight with? Whips? Maybe grass reeds. Know, wait, I know: scrolls...

  Israel... and particulary the Jews... often slew their enemies... and one another... with swords. Which an "elementary" review of their history, let alone the Bible, would show.

  Please.

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Band on the Run

  Your antiseministism is on display, yet again. Jews are not inferior people. They never seek to convert Christians yet what Christians have done to me is ungodly.

  I will discuss whether Jews had swords with a tenured professor. There is never any discussion with you.

  The OP was a humorous reflection on a troubling scenario. Jesus commanded his followers to turn the other cheek. I doubt Romans would encourage an occupied nation to stockpile swords. Roman occupation was brutal. It does not matter whether the Temple police grabbed him in this discussion. The Romans controlled the Temple police.

  Roman occupation had its benefits. The Pax Romana was one. Having a universal language for a vast region was another.

  A city is not the wilderness. Peter carrying the sword is in direction obedience of Jesus' very words. Using the sword is much worse. Also, I do believe the gun rule applies. You never use a gun unless your intent is to kill. Slicing an ear makes no sense. No one is incapacitated by loss of an ear. I imagine it hurts. When an Ivy League or comp prof. rebukes me, I will be rebuked.
• 

  tec

  How do you know ANY of this ?

  I know that Genesis was not written in real time because the book has only been around for what? A few thousand years? Who would have written it in real time anyway? Adam?

  This is just your intepretation of what can only be explained this way based on what we know in 2012.

  I don't think that is true. Symbolism was used as much if not more in the past and in ancient texts, and so I don't think we can state that it could only be seen that way according to what we know now. However, I do not know if that understanding could be reached without Christ and His teachings. For instance, I don't know how a rabbi would interpret the sword in the story at all. Probably differently than a biblical literalist, lol.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Band on the Run

  Jews follow the Bible. Those stories were written for Jews, not Christians.

  As much as possible, if a text interests me I try to find out what the present Jewish stance would be.

  Psalm 23, for instance, is not all what Christians take it to be.

  Jesus would have read these scriptures from a Jewish perspective.

  I believe it was Bart Ehrmann or perhaps N.T. Wright who wrote that Christians appropriate the Hebrew scriptures b/c new religions, just as in our day, had no status. Judaism was one of the oldest in the world. It was a marketing strategy.

  I'm curious as to how Gentile Christians first encountered the O.T. What would they think of the text without the gloss of tradition.
• 

  mP

  BAND:

  Perhaps the countryside was not well maintained by the authorities. Jerusalem was/is a major city under Roman occupation. I repeat, Pax Romana, Roman Peace, known throughout the world and repeated in Western civilian history books since Roman times. It was taught in elementary school. It was the major administrative of Roman occupation. Jerusalem was also a major financial center.

  MP:

  If it was so peaceful then why did Rome come and completely destroy Jerusalem in a war that went for years and years starting in the mid 60s. The jews rebelled many many times, they just didnt accept Rome was their boss. Rome tried to keep the peace but sometimes the locals dont cooperate.

  Do yourself a favour and read some of the articles on wiki or your library and you will see that what you were taught is not true.

  emphassis in bold is mine..They destroyed all the food during a war w/ the Romans, hardly a peacefu lbunch.. Read the rest oftheir exploits, they make Osama look like a fairy angel.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarri

  At the beginning of the Jewish Revolt of 66 CE , the Sicarii, and (possibly) Zealot helpers (Josephus differentiated between the two but did not explain the main differences in depth), gained access to Jerusalem and committed a series of atrocities, in order to force the population to war. In one account, given in the Talmud , they destroyed the city's food supply so that the people would be forced to fight against the Roman siege instead of negotiating peace. Their leaders, including Menahem ben Jair, Eleazar ben Ya'ir , and Simon Bar Giora , were important figures in the war, and Eleazar ben Ya'ir eventually succeeded in escaping the Roman onslaught. Together with a small group of followers, he made his way to the abandoned fortress of Masada where he continued his resistance to the Romans until 73 CE, when the Romans took the fortress and, according to Josephus, found that most of its defenders had committed suicide rather than surrender. [5]

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Bar_Giora

  Acclaimed by the people as their savior and guardian, Simon was admitted. [5] With fifteen thousand soldiers at hand Simon soon controlled the whole upper city and some of the lower city. John held parts of the lower city and the temple's outer court with six thousand men and a third splinter group of twenty-four hundred men controlled the temple's inner court

  ANother rebel group with 15K, somehow i dont think the Romans would be happy ...
• 

  mP

  BAND:

  Post 6205 of 6208 Since 12/18/2010

  Your antiseministism is on display, yet again. Jews are not inferior people. They never seek to convert Christians yet what Christians have done to me is ungodly. I will discuss whether Jews had swords with a tenured professor. There is never any discussion with you. mP: Its not fair to call anyone who tries to reason or correct your point of veiw anti semitic.. Its not racist to simply recall history.
• 

  mP

  BAND:

  Its unfair to label or stereotype people based on a single attribute namely their race. Noone is violent because of their race, they are vioelnt for other reasons. Noone is born violent. THe fact is some jews back then were crazy and violent. THe same was true of many many peoples in the ancient world. The OT istelf is a good witness to this.
• 

  mP

  How exactly does one slice an ear without hittin g the head or shoulders ? Must be a very lucky slice.- To slice the ear you must slice the sword from above, because if you do it from the side you hit the head. Who is going to be dumb enuff to let someone raise a sword above their head and chop down towards them...Just doenst add up.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I see no posts from a tenured professor who specializes in this matter.

  Antisemitism.

  Compare Jesus saying "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemy" with Peter having a sword. Swords I can't see. Small daggers perahps, akin to a Swiss Army knife. Any occupied country fights back. The Romans allowed Jews to practice their religion more than most Roman occupied areas.

  Sorry. When someone has expertise, correct me. I will admit my view was incorrect. So far I see no scholarship. Only people with an agenda that has nothing to do with Peter, a sword, an ear, or a Temple gaurd.
• 

  TD

  A popular bladed weapon at the time was the Roman gladius. At about 20 inches it was long enough to qualify as a sword and still short enough to be concealed under one's outer garment/cloak. The fact that Jesus seems to be unaware that two of his followers are already carrying swords lends strength to the idea that they were concealed and therefore on the short end of what can be described as a sword

  But the passage is problematic in several ways. The idea that Jesus seriously expected his followers to go out on Passover night in Jerusalem; sell their outer garment and purchase a sword is ridiculous. Yet it is necessary for the idea promoted by JW's and kindred groups that swords were necessary that self-same night for the fulfullment Isaiah 53. In a similar vein, the inclusion of a food pouch and purse in the same sentence requires mental gymnastics in the form of a double interpretation of the instruction if possession of a sword constituted 'lawlessnes.' (i.e. A food pouch and purse are 'good' things that Jesus disciples would need in the future, but a sword was a 'bad' thing that they needed immediately. How one could understand that from a single sentence is beyond me, since the justification for all three is identical)

  Josephus describes a group of Jewish assasins called the Sicarii, who favored this genre of weapon, although is was not identical with the Roman gladius as he calls it, 'Persian' which suggests an Arabian style dagger with a bent or curved blade. Some scholars, including Robert Eisenman believe the Sicarii actually originated around 6 CE in response to the census and point out that the name Judas Iscariot means in garbled Greek, 'Judas the Sicarios.'

  He states:

  "Most of the consonents and vowels tally - in Josephus, Sicarioi/Sicarion, in the New Testament, Iscariot. All that has happened is that the first 'i' and 's' have been reversed, and the last 'i' has been replaced by a 't'. This does not differ in kind to the reversals one encounters in names like 'Cleophas', 'Alphaeus'...."

  If the Sicarri did exist in any numbers at the time and if at least one of Jesus' followers actually was one, then it is not a stretch to assume that this was a common method of arming oneself, especially given the fact that two of Jesus' followers besides Judas are carrying 'swords'