Because they were against overwhelming odds. Just like the passages we discussed.
Then why is it that Christian martyrs throughout history died rather than fighting off their attackers?
Just as you accused me of doing, you take Matthew 26:52 completely out of context. Jesus was not saying, "never defend yourself," Jesus was saying, "don't bother, if you defend yourself right now, they will slaughter you." And Jesus was against using violence to defend Him at that one particular time because He was on a mission. Whether He was defended or not, He would have died on the cross. The fact remains that He told his followers to sell something they own to buy the means to defend themselves. He told them that they were lacking if they didn't have that -- so much so that they would need to sell their clothes, if necessary, to buy a weapon for defense. Again, it's completely illogical to believe that the victim of a crime is somehow morally superior to somebody who defended from that crime with a show or use of force.
You are taking the scripture you posted in my visitor messages out of context. Luke 22:37-38 reads as follows: "'For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, "And he was counted among the lawless"; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.' They said, 'Lord, look, here are two swords.’ He replied, ‘It is enough.’" Jesus was not speaking to all believers across space and time. Jesus was talking to his disciples right then and there in regards to the fulfillment of prophecy. One of those swords, if you read on, was used against the high priest's slave (who Jesus healed on the spot). There is no Biblical justification for carrying a weapon, even for self-defense (Matthew 26:52).
Just wanted to point this out: Luke 22:35-36: Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." I am a Christian as well, and I consider it a moral obligation to defend myself and my loved ones. I don't see how the victim of a rape, mugging, or assault is in any way morally superior to an almost-victim that defended themselves with force instead. Like I said, that's just my take on it. That having been said, welcome to the forum.
