Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
so it was a metaphorical ear that was cut off?
Vincent van Gogh could give a very interesting answer to this question.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
so it was a metaphorical ear that was cut off?
So, you believe Jesus actually healed a "cut-off" ear?
john18:36 Jesus said, My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.
but then we have...
luke 22:36 He said to them, But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you dont have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: And he was numbered with the transgressors; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.
38 The disciples said, See, Lord, here are two swords.
Thats enough! he replied.
...49 When Jesus followers saw what was going to happen, they said, Lord, should we strike with our swords? 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
so then why did he ask his servants to get swords and why did his servants fight if his kingdom was not of this world?
By having a weapon handy and Not using it would show Jesus way was Not of violence but peace.
Peace can be seen by Jesus healing the cut off ear.
Talk about a bad shot. If Jesus way was violence, then don't you think sword fighting practice would have enabled the apostle to be a better aim then just hitting the person's ear ?
-Matthew 26v52; Revelation 13v10
no i don't.
i think this is a fable. it's a legend a myth sort of like king arthur and camelot. about a charismatic person who wanted to lead a revolution against the romans...
each gospel was written for a specific audience at different times each time tailor made for what ever propaganda the jesus movement was selling...
If it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.
it is symbolic
Peter's aim was off."
John18:4-11, states that Jesus was aware of all that "should come upon HIM". In these verses upon saying "I am he" those who came for Jesus fell backward to the ground. (In an upright position, it would have been hard to cut off just the ear.) John goes on the discribe the three denials by Peter---- in which, one envolved the incident. Therefore, the incident of the "cut off ear" helped convert/humble Peter to the person of strength in aiding others.
so why was peter with jesus on the mount of olives?That same preposition--"IF"-- in "if it were"(HIS Kingdom---of this world) then HIS servants, of that world, would fight. Peter, while a desciple at this time(and of this world) still was unconverted----therefore, wasn't following directives, but acting on impulse. Sure the record is clear, Peter did cut off the ear the fact has been shown, but not your reasoning.
Jesus had on several ocassions stated this end events. And What has been prophesied will not be altered by man.
so why was peter with jesus on the mount of olives?
and why would peter say:
33 But he replied, Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.
if he was not converted?
and in luke 22:50 doesn't single out peter either
50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
one of whom?
vs 49 tells you:
49 When Jesus followers saw what was going to happen...
wow...really? he was willing to kill for his master and he wasn't converted?The mouth speaks adverse things than are believed in the Heart/Mind. Peter acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah and Son Of GOD. But, his actions that very night proved tha he wasn't converted. Peter denied HIS LORD and MASTER Three times as he was told he would do. As well as Jesus told Peter face to face---"when you are converted". Luke22:32
Waitasec, two swords were found, but only one was taken from it's sheath. And to finish that verse(49)---"they said unto HIM, Lord, shall we smite with the sword.?" Again, Jesus gave no order to use the sword(s) And restoring/healing the ear isn't a hostile or defiant act OR an act of resistance.
wow...really? he was willing to kill for his master and he wasn't converted?
they were told to arm themselves with swords in luke...
so if your argument was that it was for protection then whatever jesus was saying about god providing was what....a joke?
there was a resistance though.
Waitasec, NOT by Jesus nor at HIS command. The "confusion" is still by you because they will never fit into your twisted spinning of them. The Gospels are clear.
That's correct. Peter at this time wasn't converted, But in his impetuousness, Peter was willing to defend what he hadn't come fully to understand. That "understanding was opened" to Peter and the other disciples. (see Luke 24:44-46)
In the last post it was shown that the disciples at best had found only two swords at this time and there was no time to buy swords even had they wanted to---in the middle of the night. And if they had the second sword, it never left it's sheath. Jesus Gave no order to use the sword at this time. There was no resistence but Jesus. The trial and crucifixion was why Jesus came and as HE said must be fulfilled/completed as prophesied.
No! What Jesus said wasn't a joke. The Time for the fulfillment of the scriptural prophecies had arrived and Jesus was doing just that. Sorry you are unable to see the truth of the scriptures.(BTW, I've never said Jesus wanted any "protection". But, had HE needed the 20 legions of Angels---be assured that they would have appeared.)
we are not talking about jesus actions or commands. we are talking about the actions of his servants...the action jesus said would occur had his kingdom were not a heavenly kingdom...the prevention of his arrest.
Weren't ALL of Jesus' 12 apostles baptized followers of Jesus which meant Peter was a converted follower of Christ.
In the gospel, Peter was impetuous, but that did not make him unconverted.
Luke [22v49] they ask Jesus shall we smite with the sword?
[Then Peter impetuously acts]
Verse 51 is where Jesus answers to stop or let it go as far as this.
[Matt 26vs47-56; Mark 14vs43-52; Luke 22vs47-53; John 17v12; 18vs3-12]
Waitasec, What kind of "double-talk" is your statement above the high-lighted red then the blue?????
there is no double talk...
jesus said if his kingdom was of this world there would be an attempt to prevent his arrest... and that is what happened.
they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?”
51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!”
more means there was an attempt by his servants to prevent his arrest...
it happened. there was a fight.Wasn't Jesus conversing with Pilate concerning Jesus being a king on this earth ? :yes: Didn't Jesus say, “My kingdom is not of this world (There are no servants in this world from THAT KINGDOM). If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”:yes:
And we saw in Matt.26:53-54 that the "servants" Jesus would obtain to prevent an arrest """"IF that "kingdom was of this world the "servants"would be Angels.:yes: notice: "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? "
With the healing of the ear, the disciples scattered.(as prophesied.) So much for your "prevention".
At this time, Jesus didn't consider the Disciples as "servants". John 15:15,"Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
so why did they fight to prevent his arrest?Jesus was speaking to those who came out to arrest HIM. "allow"/"permit" Peter's impetuousness thus far. That His appointment will crucifixion would fulfill Scripture. And so it did.:yes: and the disciples scattered.
Yes, by John the Baptist, Jesus was the one who stated Peter was unconverted. See Luke 22:31-34, "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."
.
:
Originally Posted by sincerly
Wasn't Jesus conversing with Pilate concerning Jesus being a king on this earth ? Didn't Jesus say, My kingdom is not of this world (There are no servants in this world from THAT KINGDOM). If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.
And we saw in Matt.26:53-54 that the "servants" Jesus would obtain to prevent an arrest """"IF that "kingdom was of this world the "servants"would be Angels.:yes: notice: "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? "
With the healing of the ear, the disciples scattered.(as prophesied.) So much for your "prevention".
it happened. there was a fight.
52 Put your sword back in its place, Jesus said to him, ...There was an impetuous act of one uncommanded blow with a sword when those who came to arrest Jesus fell backwards to the ground when Jesus answered, "I AM he". There was no resistance by Jesus to Avoid that which HE came to do---Die for the sins of mankind upon the cross. Notice Matt.26:2, "Ye know that after two days is [the feast of] the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified."
Peter still had some hard lessons to learn before the night was over. That sword was an instrument in the learning process. The "Kingdom of heaven" was/is not of this world and (2)will not be propagated by the sword/weapons.
waitasec said:emphasis mine
i thought you said there were no servants in that world..
interesting number, why 12 legions...? strange. (i digress)
think about what you are saying for a second...
why would the servants of his unearthly kingdom fight for a earthly kingdom?
jesus is making a case that if his kingdom were an earthly kingdom his earthly servants would fight to prevent his earthly arrest...and that is what happened...unless you consider chopping someone's ear off a friendly gesture
Waitasec, that's right!! you "Thought", but that wasn't what I wrote/said. Look again at that statement above. Those disciples were so indoctrinated by the Jewish Leaders that the Jewish Nation would be restored from Roman Rule that it was again broached at the ascension of Jesus Christ.(Acts1:6) And one of eleven, hardly satisfies "his earthly servants".(50 days after the Resurrection, at pentacost, there were over 100 disciples/followers.) Not the first command has ever been given to "smite with the sword". But continue to believe that which you will.
waitasec said:and your argument of them greeting/waiting for the betrayer doesn't fly in light of the swords being drawn...there was tension in the air, a conflict...therefore when jesus himself says:
46 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!
mean's he's trying to avoid a conflict...avoid being arrested...
What doesn't fly is your concocted senario that Jesus was fleeing from that which HE Came into this world to accomplish...and it transpired on schedule as prophesised.:yes:
waitasec said:Quote:
At this time, Jesus didn't consider the Disciples as "servants". John 15:15,"Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
yet they don't know what is going on when he's being arrested...?
Any confusion was in the erroneous belief that Jesus would restore Israel from Roman oppression/rule.
waitasec said:Quote:
Jesus was speaking to those who came out to arrest HIM. "allow"/"permit" Peter's impetuousness thus far. That His appointment will crucifixion would fulfill Scripture. And so it did.:yes: and the disciples scattered.
so why did they fight to prevent his arrest?
luke 22
42 Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done. ....
...Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?
49 When Jesus followers saw what was going to happen, they said, Lord, should we strike with our swords? 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
51 But Jesus answered, No more of this! And he touched the mans ear and healed him.
Waitasec, that has been answered above and previously.
waitasec said:i'll point out 2 things in luke 22
1st, jesus considers himself to be betrayed, an interesting notion that deserves it's own thread...since the entire reason for jesus becoming god incarnate was to be sacrificed...instead of being the betrayer judas helped achieve the fruition of the edited hebrew prophesy...
so without judas there wouldn't be redemption.
2nd, did jesus want to be arrested? no. did his disciples want him to be arrested? no.
question is why?
Waitasec, There was a real Judas. That Judas betrayed/turned from even professing to love Jesus and believing the message of salvation to covenanting with the Jewish Leaders/Priests to betraying Jesus. A fact.:yes: The Redemption was never in peril.
In HIS human nature, Jesus knew the prophesied suffering that HE would have to endure, and HE did ask to be spared; But In HIS Divine Nature, Jesus never wavered to the mission which HE Came to fulfill and did.:yes:
What the disciples wanted then and any human now is inconsequential. It is still one's Obedience to the WILL OF THE FATHER that counts.
here,There was an impetuous act of one uncommanded blow with a sword when those who came to arrest Jesus fell backwards to the ground when Jesus answered, "I AM he". There was no resistance by Jesus to Avoid that which HE came to do---Die for the sins of mankind upon the cross. Notice Matt.26:2, "Ye know that after two days is [the feast of] the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified."
Peter still had some hard lessons to learn before the night was over. That sword was an instrument in the learning process. The "Kingdom of heaven" was/is not of this world and (2)will not be propagated by the sword/weapons.