[FrustratedMonky]

Yep

The 'Right' is a mix of strange bed fellows.

The Right -> Support Business which desires immigrants, they need cheap workers and to keep wages down.

The Right -> The people displaced by immigrants that want to ban them.

The Right is a bit schizophrenic.

[fragmede]

It's almost as if collapsing personal beliefs into a two dimensional scale doesn't work!

[FrustratedMonky]

Well, there are only two parties.

It is just a curiosity how the 'business' side with money, has convinced the poor Christians that Jesus was for free-markets and guns. How do they do it? Is it all marketing and posturing? Why are US Christians so un-Christian and so easily fooled?

[peyton]

Not sure about free markets, but the Bible literally has Jesus telling poor people to sell their stuff until they can buy a sword for self-defense: https://www.bibleref.com/Luke/22/Luke-22-36.html

[FrustratedMonky]

Was not aware of that one.

Seems that even among Christians that passage is a little in debate. Was it a metaphor for spiritual sword? Was it just for show? or Real defense?

"the sword that Jesus commands His disciples to acquire is not an iron sword but the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God."

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-did-jesu...

"Maybe this explains why Jesus replied with “that is enough” in Luke 22:38 upon hearing that the disciples already possessed two swords: their purpose was for show, not for action. (Alternatively, He may have been frustrated with their resolute tendency to accept His teachings literally)."

However, instead of thanking Peter for protecting Him, Jesus gives His disciple His own earful — of chastisement! “‘Put your sword back in its place,’ Jesus said to him, ‘for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Additionally, He heals Malchus’ ear.

[FooBarBizBazz]

In general, when someone quotes a Bible verse, I read the whole chapter, to understand the context. This one seems to cry out for that, because it seems out of character as presented.

Here I attempt that. I think I arrive at a fairly convincing answer.

Luke 22 is the story of the Last Supper. It begins with Jesus' apostles planning the Passover feast. It includes the betrayal by Judas, and the handing over of Jesus to the Roman authorities. Here also are the famous words of the Eucharist.

When he tells his apostles to buy swords, it appears at one level that he is trying to muster a defense against the Romans who have come to capture him. Yet this does not completely make sense. Two swords seems inadequate, yet he says they are enough. And in the next line or two there is a mention of prophecy, so it is as though the purpose of the swords is not really to mount an effective defense, but to adhere to some earlier prophecy. But which prophecy?

(Some people have argued that the translation "sword" is wrong, but I think it is correct; it is a kind of short sword, a weapon.)

So what prophecy is this all done to fulfill? After some research, it appears to be Isaiah 53:12.

It is also worth reading Matthew 26, which is another account of the same events. In particular, Matthew 26:52 is relevant to this discussion: "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

So when we put all this together, what are we seeing? Jesus demands swords basically to be used as props, so that the events that transpire that night conform to the earlier prophecy of Isaiah.

Here we have a real man who is obsessed with living according to the written narrative. The Word made Flesh. In order to bring about good.

I think of left-activists who pay a lot of attention to the Image that they create at a protest. They themselves are probably thinking of someone like Tank Man. Often they bother me, seeming almost narcissistic. But there is an element of utilitarian consequentialism in this too. The Image does inspire others. Well, take this same thinking and put it into Judeo-Roman society around the turn of the millennium -- adapt it to the minds of these people with their religion -- and it makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

This is all about making real events conform to existing prophecy, so that they will take on powerful meaning.

It does raise another question for me, though: To what extent is the sword a deliberate provocation of the Roman authorities? Is this "suicide by cop"? Clearly he doesn't want his apostles to be killed (Matthew 26:52). But is the whole point to get himself killed, to satisfy the narrative? The whole framing is that these events have been prophecied and are inevitable. But are they? How much agency does Jesus have in this scene?