Not The Onion

21978 readers

1084 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

277

Plane passenger invoked Sharia law to avoid sitting next to a woman, then attacked flight attendant (townflex.com)

submitted 1 day ago by stermy4u@lemmy.world to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Luke 22:36. I was directly referencing the Bible. Later when Jesus chastises Simon it's for defying Jesus's will and trying to prevent his arrest. When was the last time you read the Bible?

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 1 points 14 hours ago

The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.

There are two interpretations here of this passage. We seem to have come down on opposite sides.

The first is that he was calling them to take up literal swords to defend themselves, and that two swords would be enough for the purpose. The later rebuke of Peter was then about him using the sword to defend Jesus instead of himself.

The second, which makes more sense in my view based on how the gospel of Luke is laid out, is that Jesus was speaking figuratively, and when the disciples responded by producing actual swords, he rebuked them with “that’s enough!” This lines up structurally with his interaction with Peter in the garden as far as the literature goes. However, if taken as a recorded literal event, ignoring the structure that Luke used to frame the story, it does raise the question of: why did Jesus allow Peter to take one of the swords with them to the garden?

In my view, that doesn’t overcome the context of the events in Luke’s narrative or align with the events in Matthew, Mark or John, but I can see why others could use it to defend their position — Constantine certainly did; the early church did not.