Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword

>Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword

>“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

"Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels."

Context:

The first verse is after some follower of Jesus cuts the ear off a priest and is using violence for vanity. He thinks he can protect Jesus or do good for Christianity through violence, but by taking into his own hands, he underestimates and undervalues the power of Jesus to do as He wishes.

The second verse is Jesus saying he won't bring peace on Earth. And clearly he didn't. He provoked violence and rebellion but it was just violence, and it was necessary rebellion. He's saying that He won't bring peace on Earth this time around. He died, resurrected, transcended, and will return. When He returns, THAT'S when he'll bring peace on Earth, not the first time around.

and he died, didn't he

not by the sword though

he didn't bring a literal sword.

>Guys I know, I'm being a total dick right now
>but I will be a cool dude when I return, pinky promise!
>Believe me guys!
>Also, if you don't you go to hell

what an amazing faith to have

> But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
> love your enemies

1. What an utterly retarded statement.
2. So why doesn't God love Satan?

Ib4 some Christian arguing for God loving Satan (and all of us) in some unfathomable transcendental way that requires us to suffer intensely.

It's irrelevant as fictional characters can be reinterpreted on a whim.

Let's just assume for a second that God is real (I believe in "him"). Now, think about how all knowing and all powerful such a being would be. Do any of you really think that your cognitive abilities could even come close to understanding his plans? There's no fucking way any of you could really "get" God no matter how many edgy philosophers you read. I'm not arguing for the existence of a specific version of God (abrahamic or otherwise). I'm just saying that it's pretty fucking retarded to believe that you could have any sort of idea about what's going on beneath the surface of the universe.

>The second verse is Jesus saying...
the fuck outta here

He meant to put God's Word first, even if it means "fighting" with your own family and friends.

This is why plebs shouldn't have the Bible.

If you want to know about your faith, ask your priest. Don't read the Bible if you are not part of the clergy.

>don't attempt to pull back the curtain
why must you be so retarded?

>implying giving us free reign to do what we want is the same as god letting us suffer
>implying any amount of suffering wouldn't be completely forgiven and forgotten the moment you step into infinite paradise

Jesus is my friend.

It's not 'pulling back the curtain' if you have no idea how to interpret it.

For the correct interpretation you need Tradition. You are not educated in the Tradition.

Good. He'll walk with you where ever you go. There's nothing wrong with Buddha or Shiva or even Zeus. Just stay away from the Moslems.

>You are not educated in the Tradition.
did you just assume my education????? WTF??
Anyway, this is some next level ivory tower shit. Who's qualified to comment on your religion then? Only members of the clergy and people like Joyce? I'm sorry that your religion can't stand up to scrutiny from outside its circlejerk. Have fun posting a fedora.

Senpai, you can't comment something you don't understand the context of, obviously.
It'd be like commenting on Ulysses without being aware of The Odyssey

So what's enough context in your opinion? Does being raised in the tradition count? Or do you need to study Theology at university?

>did you just assume my education????? WTF??
I assume you are not part of the clergy.

>Anyway, this is some next level ivory tower shit. Who's qualified to comment on your religion then? Only members of the clergy and people like Joyce?
Not Joyce.

>I'm sorry that your religion can't stand up to scrutiny from outside its circlejerk. Have fun posting a fedora.
Just like it's not 'pulling back the curtain' to read the Bible without knowing about Tradition, it is not 'scrutiny' to criticise it without understanding it.

>Joyce not qualified to criticize the Bible and Christianity
luckily actual members of the clergy aren't as retarded as you are

>papist detected
Martin Luther died for my right for sola scriptura you catholic pig.

Damn son, can't get much more shielded than that.

>I have this book of myths that only I and other people that believe in the myths can interpret "properly", so all criticism from people who would actually criticize it is null and void.

New Testament was a mistake. At the very least, they should've waited longer to write the damn thing, when the stories had circulated enough for a "true" version to be established, like with most OT stories.

Reading the NT (and also reading how the NT was first spread) makes me realize that modern approach of "believe first; read the Bible later" isn't as absurd one might think.

they probably didn't think the world would be around long enough to wait. these guys believed they were living in end times.

No my friend, god does not simply "let" us suffer; he is the direct cause of suffering.

God designed you with the intent of sending you into the world to suffer; it is all right there in black and white.

Which is why it's nice that I know it's garbage nonsense for crazy retards from Alabammy.

Oh it's absurd alright.

It makes for more effective brainwashing; presenting you with the bullshit theory after you're already on board with the ideology and organization.

Showing people the crazy bullshit before they drink the koolaid tends to set off alarm bells in sane people.

You relict kook.

>you would agree with me if you were interpreting it properly
>how do you define interpreting it properly?
>when you interpret it the same way I do

god is satan. Satan is his other side.

And pretty much opened the door to a Godless world that way.

Uneducated oversimplified shitposting without context is not 'actually critisising'.

Not the same way I do, but rather the same way as Christ's Church, as it was passed down since St Peter.

this lol

>edgy

>I had only one enemy left; two if you counted God; or a trio in case you take into account that Satan is, in fact, not Gods other side but an entirely different entity in the christian tradition

>four, really, because of Steve

Satan is a part of God

God says himself that he is responsible for everything, good and evil in Isaiah

>Holy...