by JosephAlward 53 Replies latest jw friends
Where are the verses to counter Jesus' statement that he came to earth NOT to bring peace, but to set mother, father, son, and daughter against one another?
Well, they're there Joseph but there doesn't seem to be much point in getting into that. Christ comissioned Paul for things, and he explains more stuff for those who have a bit of difficulty with Jesus, so to speak. So t ry reading Paul - there's things about families and stuff.
paduan
SaintSatan said:
This is about jesus, his mother, and the disciple john. Jesus pushed the care of his own mother onto nonfamily member disciple john. One could ask, where were all of jesus' brothers. Logically, the responsibility for the care of their mother would fall to her children, not another. Jesus' request doesn't make sense. A short time earlier, mary and jesus brothers were all together looking for him. Jesus' brothers didn't just disappear.
The Apostle John was chosen to take care of Mary because he was strong in Faith for God.
Undis
Jesus' appointment of john to the exclusion of mary's own children, to the task of looking after jesus' mother supports josephalward's claim. In this case, jesus set the precedent for breaking up families, by placing an outsider between mary and her children. A lovely way to break up a family, for reasons of faith, as you stated.
SS
On "I have come to bring the sword." (Matt. 10:34-35)
"Peace!" was Jesus' first word to his disciples after the resurrection (John 20:19, 21). "My peace I give to you" was his legacy at the Last Super (24:27) Obviously, if peace is the gift of salvation, Jesus is using the word here in the world's sense, as denoting the absence of any discomfort of body or spirit. "The sword" does not call for a military uprising: Jesus' revolution is spiritual.
One might expect that following Jesus would be untroubled and peaceful. However, that is not always the case. It can result in painful conflicts and divisions even in the same family. Some will believe and some sometimes do not. The whole passage is expressing result, not purpose. Consider the following statement: "He raced to the store, only to find that it had closed." Evidently the racer's purpose was not to close the store. Yet it happened. In that vein, in the accomplishment of the Father's will, Jesus finds that people experience pain and division. Regrettable, but inevitable in the human family, Jesus might well be saying. I suggest there is a difference between purpose and result.
Fair enough. This shows that Jesus encouraged the son to take the mother into his home, and it satisfies my request. However, you are inadvertently damning Jesus with faint praise. If this verse is all you can offer in defense of my contention that Jesus generally did nothing to promote family togetherness, when compared to what he said and did against it, then Jesus comes out lookly pretty bad. Where are the verses to counter the ones which have Jesus refusing to speak to his mother outside the house, and telling the followers inside that his real mother is found among the women in the house? Where are the verses to counter Jesus' statement that he came to earth NOT to bring peace, but to set mother, father, son, and daughter against one another? Where are the verses which counter the ones which have Jesus stating that his followers must hate their mothers and fathers?
JosephAlward,
It was only necessary to show that your conclusions were false. And you had to admit that. No need to make the response lengthy. And Kenneson I noticed did a good job of filling in the details you ask for. You say that: Jesus refused to speak to his mother outside the house? How do you know? Does verse say that? No. It simply states that Jesus was accepting all believers before him as his mother and brothers. The comment provided an opportunity to include them all in His family.
Matthew 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! :50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Where does not say that He refused to see His mother or brothers or did not speak to them. After all they were believers and family as well. You see your comments were deceptive and such a conclusion did not come from scripture. Furthermore every detail of this event is not recorded just as every detail of Jesus life is not recorded. There was plenty of time to see them at that time and no reason to say that He refused.
Jesus' statement that he came to earth NOT to bring peace, but to set mother, father, son, and daughter against one another?
This is what happens to a Jewish family when one leaves and embraces Christianity. Kenneson already covered this. There was not even peace in the faith at that time with Jewish Christian against Gentile Christian. What is wrong with telling the truth? Truth does not need to be countered with a verse that refutes it does it? Joseph
Kenneson I noticed did a good job of filling in the details you ask for.
Actually Kenneson had the temerity to say this:
The whole passage is expressing result, not purpose.
If, in fact Kenneson is speaking of a passage wherein Jesus says "I came to.....", well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
I may be wrong, but I thought Jesus gave his life so that we ALL (including his family, friends,etc) may be saved. Pretty specific act of love if you ask me!
Spanner
SixofNine,
So what? I was speaking about the sum total of all his posts which were pretty good. Speak to him about it. I did not see the need to correct anything he said. It is my choice to make.
Joseph
Spanner,
Yes, and this All includes everyone not just believers. So we have.
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
What more can He do? The things written in scripture simply do not cover all the acts of love demanded here. This is not our Lord's problem nor should this reflect badyl on Him in any way. The verse shown here says it all.
Joseph
Edited by - JosephMalik on 15 October 2002 11:7:51
On balance, then, a stronger case can be made for the claim that Jesus' teaching worked against family togetherness than it did for it.
Despite three pages of refutation, Joseph Allward still posts nonsense like that. He is obviously not interested in a reasonable answer.
