Knowledge by Proxy (page 14)

tec

and admitted he came to bring the sword EVEN within the family unit.
No wonder men — yes MEN — followed-in with horrors like the Inquisition or the Crusades. This was NO misunderstanding.

It may help you to understand that the sword Christ spoke of... is truth.

Peace to you!

tammy

Personal interpretation my friend — he said that in the context that he was not there to bring peace, and gave a list of how deep that unrest would be (family).
*If the sword here was Truth, he would have said that he didn't come to bring LIES instead of using the word "peace"...

In context he states "(21) Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. (22) You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. (23) When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes."

He added that HE has come to turn “a man against his father, a daughter against her mother...etc...
Nowhere does he hint that the sword is a symbol of truth in THIS context.

Of course, I await your references to this. The cross references point to a destructive sword, as repeated in Revelation 6:4, "Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make people kill each other. To him was given a large sword." (Horsemen...)

HOWEVER, ALL of this said, the truth is that he DID bring a physical sword, in that people throughout history HAVE poured blood because of him. Hate and war has been the brand for and against christians accross the ages.

tec

No, love... not personal interpretation. That IS the truth. This I learned from my Lord.

The sword that Christ came to bring... is truth. The sword that comes out of his mouth by which to 'cut down' the nations (in revelation)... is truth. (that is the rider in Revelation who is CHRIST, and THAT is the sword that He brings... as He is identified as the Word of God)

The truth will not bring peace between those who hold to the truth, and those who hold to lies.

He came to bring TRUTH... and as men who love the dark will hate the light... men who love lies will hate the truth. That is why brother betrays brother to death (the brother who follows the lie does the betraying; not the other way around).

The truth WILL turn a man against his father, etc... if the man holds to a lie, while the father follows the truth. You already KNOW this, and have a direct example OF this from your own experiences in the wts... anyone who speaks against the lie (the wts) is killed, shunned, turned into the elders, df'd, turned against, hated.

It was no differen in the Jewish households of that time.

No one listening to Him is spilling the blood of innocents (or anyone) in any 'holy war'. They are listening to 'another father'.

Peace,

tammy

zound

So jesus clarified that scripture for you. Even though the context is clearly as braincleaned said. Why then did he not get it written correctly the first time.

braincleaned

Tec, in tune with what zound said above, you are saying that Christ does not know how to use words — for clarity, he should have used the word Truth — which would have been stronger and less confusing.

What you are asking everybody, is to trust that the Lord gave YOU a better understanding of his intent. Do you see the problem?

I will stick with what HE said rather what than one individual says he meant... I hope you understand.

He has the last word. And history proved him right about his choice of words.

braincleaned

Tammy, may I point out that you do have a very personal answer for every point.
I personally read them as rationalizations that you back up with the unprovable claim that Christ speaks directly to you.

You must understand that I cannot have a reasonable exchange with you if you are just stating things in perfect contradiction with scripture.
Fact is, you do not have this special insight form God. If you did, HE would gve you arguments that hold some weight.

I do understand that you believe you do — but nothing you have argrued is rooted in reason and logic.
What I mean is that I do not doubt you sincerity. You are a kind-hearted debater, and you do stick to your guns while staying polite.
For that, I admire you.
What I have a problem with is your brand of evidence; only confirmable by you.

This does not hold in the Court of Universal Reason.
* or any other court for that reason...

tec

So jesus clarified that scripture for you. Even though the context is clearly as braincleaned said. Why then did he not get it written correctly the first time.

As He can clarify for anyone. Though I am hardly the first or only person who understands that the sword = truth.

What else would THE Truth bring... but truth?

Even Paul said that the sword of the Spirit... is the Word of God. (ephesians 6:17, so you can look it up for yourselves)

And the Word of God... is the Truth.

As for context... Because of the truth... brother will deliver brother up to death. And just as Cain (who belonged to the evil one), killed his brother (who belonged to God)... it is the brother who follows a lie who delivers his brother up to death. The one who belongs to Christ (and so belongs to God) is the one being delivered up to death.

I am not sure how either of you can possibly think that Christ meant that his followers would deliever their own brothers up to death. That goes against everything that He taught.

I will stick with what HE said rather what than one individual says he meant... I hope you understand.

He has the last word.

I may remind you of your words here, at some point, lol.

Peace to you both,

tammy

cofty

I am hardly the first or only person who understands that the sword = truth.

Of course not, you get everything from your guru.

adamah

Braincleaned said-

You must understand that I cannot have a reasonable exchange with you if you are just stating things in perfect contradiction with scripture.
Fact is, you do not have this special insight form God. If you did, HE would give you arguments that hold some weight.

Like how God gave Paul arguments when preaching in the Athenian marketplace (in Acts 17), claiming how proof of God's existence was undeniable and self-evident, and could be seen just by looking around at the World, serving as proof of God's creation?

Of course, Paul also claimed the Athenians had haughtily closed their eyes and refused to see this "self-evident" proof of God's existence, so TEC is simply repeating the same-ol' lame uninspired argument used over 2,000 yrs ago by Paul, except using the metaphor of hearing, not vision (hearing was used elsewhere in the NT, so it's not original to TEC).

It may have been a plausible argument amongst the uneducated people of Paul's time (or not: as the Acts account says, some dismissed Paul as a "foolish babbler"), since most people didn't know how the World operated. But to use that argument in 2013? It's frankly silly, as it requires ignoring known evidence from the World of science which wasn't even imagined of in the first century.

Adam

Knowledge by Proxy

KiddingMe

tec

braincleaned

tec

zound

braincleaned

braincleaned

tec

cofty

adamah

Share this