Ex-calice-burr - Excalibur

Rev dear Rev: If it is true that Jesus said, “I have come not to bring peace on earth but a sword,” then are we to understand that only Christ can wield a sword, a sword of power?

Indiana Jones might launch another Crusade if he were asked to answer this very astute and observant Question, since in the Indiana Series, there is some debate about the finding of the Lost Grail, and there is some discussion about the lost sword. Lost sword? Yes, it would appear from the gospels that Christ and his band of armed men apostles were indeed armed, and yet few have bothered in history to date to try and trace the sword of power that Christ sported in those troubled times when bands of warriors criss-crossed those provinces under Rome. But a sword he definitely owned, that seems to be borne out by the gospel accounts of the night of the arrest in a garden, the night before a trial, and yet none of the apostles ventured back to the garden we assume to retrieve the sacred sword of power of the Christ, which sword, fresh from the Last Supper, might well have given the holy name to the sword of the eventual Arthur, Excaliceburr - unless it is this tradition that we see rising in the Arthurian era. The sword of the Christos would have been a sword of power. He who wielded that sword, much like the Spear of Longinus in modern history right up to the opening of the Russian front, he who wielded that sword would probably claim the temporal power of the Christ, as king of kings. But who has it???