[CynicalBear]

>>The passage you cite certainly is not about armed defense. <<

Oh really? What was Peter doing carrying a sword?

John 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

Why does the Vatican have guards?

[freedomlover]

Uh, I’m not Catholic but the high priest in this case was Jewish.

[Mrs. Don-o]

As I said I am not arguing for pacifism. If Jesus thought the two swords were "enough" (really? for the defense of 12 men?) it's clearly not for the defense of 12 men!! They were needed, as He explained, for symbolic purposes, for prophecy to be fulfilled:

Luke 22:36-38

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. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

And if it was for defense, why did Jesus within minutes disarm Peter, when he tried using the sword for defense?

Like I said, I'm not a pacifist and I'm not defending pacifism. I'm just telling you what's there. The NT record and the historic record do not show one instance of a Christian community arming itself for defense despite 300 years of violent persecution directed against their homes, their families and their congregations.