Official Berkeley Communist Riot thread

[Swordsmyth]

You really ought to read what you quoted. Luke 23:3 has Pilate clearly asking Christ about if He is the "King of the Jews" a charge, which if true, would place Jesus as a revolutionary in rebellion against Rome. This, by the way, is what the reference to "perverting the people" means, the claim that Jesus is leading the people to insurrection and perverting them against the rule of Rome. A claim made only stronger by the fact that Jesus and His Apostles have a total of three swords.

No then the charge would have been SEDITION:

18 And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:
19 (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)

Being a king was not automatically rebellion against Rome, Herod was a king, and having a sword did not automatically make one a rebel, and Pilate did not charge him with anything so the swords were irrelevant anyway.

Verse 38 clearly strikes down the idea that this was about armed self-defense though. The Apostles were not told to change how they traveled, which was two by two without purse or script. When Christ says for them to get swords, they produce three swords which He says are enough. Yet three swords are not enough for twelve men to defend themselves with. Especially when those three men split into groups of two and travel apart form each other. It is impossible for three swords to be enough to defend them. Yet Christ says those three swords are enough to accomplish what His point was.

"It is enough" was his way of saying that they did not have to rush to fulfill his command that any of them who did not have one were to obtain one, they had enough for now while they were all together and in no particular danger

As a Mormon I know that you've failed to once again quote the fullness of the scriptures you reference. In fact you once again demonstrate your willingness to misquote a text and read your beliefs and biases into the scripture, wresting them from what they say and twisting their meaning. For example, Christ here says that violent self-defense is NOT immediately justified. You must be violently attacked on three separate occasions before being authorized to use violence in self-defense. Each time you must bear it patiently and not attack back. In fact, Christ says that if you immediately attack back then He will count the original attack as being justified against you by your enemies! And then, it isn't enough for you to be attacked three times and have borne it patiently in order to be justified in violent self-defense. Once those things have taken place it is only justifiable after you bring evidences of these attacks before God and He gives explicit command allowing violent self-defense.

Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people. -D&C 98:36


Unless He commands it you have no justification for engaging in violence. Even when attacked one, two, three, or three hundred times.

And even when God allows His people to engage in violence He explicitly makes it clear that the holier path, the Christian one, the one that will get you and your posterity until the fourth generation after you blessed by God, is to still refuse to engage in retaliatory violence in self-defense

Retaliation after the fact is different from self defense in the moment, but here we have even retaliation condoned under the proper circumstances.

[PierzStyx]

Responses in bold.

No then the charge would have been SEDITION:

18 And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:
19 (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)

Sedition is one thing you could be killed for, certainly. But Christ isn't being accused of sedition, that is inciting the people to not follow Rome. He is being accused of crowning Himself an oppositional king and telling people to not obey Roman law (pay their taxes). That is no longer sedition. That is treason.

Being a king was not automatically rebellion against Rome, Herod was a king, and having a sword did not automatically make one a rebel, and Pilate did not charge him with anything so the swords were irrelevant anyway.

Herod was a client king appointed to his position by the Emperor of Rome whose job it was to enforce the authority of Rome within his "kingdom." Herod had to literally ask permission from Augustus to call himself king and Herod's children weren't even allowed that right. Herod isn't a true king, he is a puppet of Rome who obeys Rome.

Notice this is different from Christ who is accused of proclaiming Himself the King of the Jews, an act which places Him directly at odds with Caesar who has claimed to anoint the King of the Jews as he did with Herod. Further Christ is accused of leading a popular revolt against the authority of Rome by refusing to pay taxes. It is clear what the accusation is, treason.

"It is enough" was his way of saying that they did not have to rush to fulfill his command that any of them who did not have one were to obtain one, they had enough for now while they were all together and in no particular danger.

Not what the scripture says,s something easily seen by looking at multiple translations, which render it "enough," "sufficient," and "They are enough." http://biblehub.com/luke/22-38.htm

The language is clear. Christ tells them to buy swords. The Apostles respond, "Hey, we have two." And Jesus says, "That is a sufficient amount," or enough.

It is telling also that in some translations He responds quite abruptly against how literally they are taking His words with, "Enough of that!" as if he is upset over how literal and dense they are being, almost as if they are intentionally misunderstanding His words. I know how He feels.

In any case there is no hint of your argument in the text. You are reading your biases into Christ's words. Nothing more.


Retaliation after the fact is different from self defense in the moment, but here we have even retaliation condoned under the proper circumstances.

No, we have retaliation justified. Not condoned. And the greater point is made that if you are truly following Christ then you would never strike back. D&C 98 still doesn't condone violent self-defense as it orders you to not defend yourself with violence against violence.

[anaconda]

When is Ben Shapiro supposed to start?

The more I hear Ben the less I like him.

[angelatc]

The more I hear Ben the less I like him.

Conservatives always do that to me.

[anaconda]

Conservatives always do that to me.

Would love to see Molyneux or Tom Woods debate him. Actually it would probably be painful to watch.