The true nature of jesus - Luke 12:51

[focused48]

I debate a theist friend of mine on occasion and I was looking for a good jesus passage to discuss and I found this little gem. Anyone care to share their thoughts on the below three verses? I would argue that Jesus has accomplished his mission beyond his wildest imagination.

Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

Luk 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

Luk 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

[Bernard Muller]

I think these sayings were created in order to justify apostles & presbyters (early Christian missionaries) making converts among family units and therefore creating conflicts, splits & expulsions. There are others like those in the gospels.
Other gospel sayings tell the new converts, to leave his family. And even if he/she looses his/her blood family ties, will be part of a new family of believers.

Nothing to do with a HJ. Just false prophecies put in the mouth of Jesus in order to indicate these "problems" have been anticipated and therefore should be accepted.

Best regards, Bernard

[Boomeister]

That's what cults often do...they divide families.
Christianity is a cult derived a little from Judaism and a lot from pagan religions.


Boomeister

[redzrx]

To put it even further in the eyes of the jews it is a cult that took their religionist text (to give christianity a base or make it seem old and established and make it legit) out of context to the point where they the christians literally removed the jews as the choosen people (OT) and established themselves as the rightfull heirs to heaven..



Kind of like lawyers and politicians!

The dividing I think is thier IQs.



Mario

[Mike(ATL)]

I'm sure if you've read the gospels you've noticed Jesus uses this kind of language quite often. He is talking here about how people will be divided over Him. If that's your point then you're correct and I don't see what's wrong with that. If you're saying he will literally accomplish the things listed there that's not correct. Another example of this kind of preaching here (Matt 10:33-39)

[Good_anger]

Yeah, I would have to agree with Mike. To think you've made some great theological discovery in this is out of ignorance. I don't adhere to a purple Jesus gospel. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus is not a pacifist, he is not a "soft loving man," he is God. I don't adhere to the idea that Jesus is a peacemaker. Jesus has never been shy in admitting that he has not come to bring peace. His goal was to come and present his message and it was up for the people to accept or reject it. I'm not sure what you're point is in posting this.

[Infidelettante]

It is always best to remind yourself that the gospels are political documents.

JT

[Good_anger]

Could you elaborate on the subject for me, a little bit.

[focused48]

Originally posted by Good_anger
Yeah, I would have to agree with Mike. To think you've made some great theological discovery in this is out of ignorance. I don't adhere to a purple Jesus gospel. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus is not a pacifist, he is not a "soft loving man," he is God. I don't adhere to the idea that Jesus is a peacemaker. Jesus has never been shy in admitting that he has not come to bring peace. His goal was to come and present his message and it was up for the people to accept or reject it. I'm not sure what you're point is in posting this.

I have to admit, when I finished reading your reply I had quite a smirk on my face. I agree with your comments except for the part about Jesus being god or even existing for that matter. I can't tell you the number of times that I've seen your co-religionists extolling the eternal love of god and the perfect morality of Jesus . The fact of the matter is that the Jesus presented in the bible is a walking contradiction. If you're okay living with that, fine; but most Christians are indoctrinated into christianity with the belief that Jesus was the paragon of morality, tolerance and family values. This simpy isn't the case and I think we agree on that. My point in posting is that I thought it was an interesting passage that presents a contrast to the traditional image of Jesus. I'm really just learning about the "teachings" of the new testament. Thanks for your opinion.

[Johann_Kaspar]

Originally posted by Infidelettante
It is always best to remind yourself that the gospels are political documents.

JT Quite right! Then - for Hebrew people - there was no difference between religion and politics. Sadduceans, Phariseans, Essenes, Galileans, Zelotes, etc. were not sects but parties. The Hebrew bible is at the same time a constitution, a civil code and a criminal code. It is still the case with muslims.
xianity is an exception founded on a misconception of the gospels.

[Infidelettante]

Originally posted by Good_anger
Could you elaborate on the subject for me, a little bit.

I take it this is addressed to me. Paul has introduced a belief system which is ostensibly a continuation and fulfillment of Judaism. In fact it is a wholly Hellenistic view of the divine and man’s relationship to it. The gospels were written, at least in part, to give Paul’s new religion the respectability and historical weight of Judaism and yet allow the flexibility and innovation of Greek thought.

So in some sense Jesus must be portrayed as a divisive figure whose ultimate concern is yet reconciliation. The gospels were intended to support the views of various factions of the early church regarding Paul, not Jesus. In this sense they are political not theological.

JT