Matthew 10:34-36

a reply to: whereislogic

But that was my point entirely...... I thought it was obvious.

I was trying to show that the word sword might or might not be representative of violence through force, but of division through internal conflict but with a positive outcome, it might also be used to show that words can be used as weapons in a negative way, or it could reference and actual weapon......

My post was for the person asking the question, who is unsure why a messenger of peace would want to cause division, but I have found it much easier to get people to see things for themselves instead of try to get them to believe it, because I said so.

I posted a variety of meanings to display that scripture can have a variety of meanings.

Sorry, I am in the wrong thread.

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: Joshuabennone

Their level of technology has absolute zero to do with their religious ideas

It shows they were capable of changing words in books, so to make the point I am making it definitely does.

It is the point that it was mentioned that our mindset doesn't apply to theirs, as if making a book and making characters say things is soooo hard.

Compared to the running water, glorious buildings and civilization they built, I think it was a rather simple matter to put a saying in the mouth of Jesus.

Which definitely happened, either in the Canon or Apocryphal scriptures, IT HAPPENED.

Making it a first, second or third century mindset.

I had to use an example to show sophistication, you thinking I thought the two had to do with each other was due to you misunderstanding my point.

But thank you!

a reply to: fatkid

So you realize that they had technology that was sophisticated, doubt they would use their intellect to alter scripture to benefit them and think I was trying to say that because of their technology, scripture IS falsified?

While all I was trying to show you was that it was entirely possible, certain that they did, and 2000 years don't change certain things, like lying and corruption.

Hopefully you get it now, though you probably should have then.

a reply to: Joshuabennone

This post isn't about the validity of the scripture, it's about the meaning of the words, I just like to stay on topic

a reply to: Ectospasm

When I got saved my dad totally ignored me for the next ten years and then died do to complication from Pneumonia caused by his over use of Morphine. He only spoke to criticize me the day I told him I got saved, I never heard from him again even when he died he never spoke to me nor wanted to see his grand-children.

Truly a fulfillment of those very words Jesus spoke.

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: Joshuabennone

This post isn't about the validity of the scripture, it's about the meaning of the words, I just like to stay on topic

That is your opinion. But a question was asked, and I am not required to respond in Orthodox fashion to please you, I answered an asked question and the validity of scripture is always a topic when talking about scripture.

Like it or not.

I never left the topic. My first comment was on topic and ever since I have been explaining it to you so maybe the problem is not with me, as I am going to explain myself when challenged.

I think you are just avoiding the fact that I explained what you asked, you now understand what I meant, and would like to move on.

Fine with me. Had you not tried claiming my use of Roman engineering accomplishments was not related to the topic after saying that Romans didn't think like humans of today or weren't sophisticated enough mentally to pull off a simple matter of writing it would not have been necessary to explain. Or whatever you said word for word which I am not going to recite verbatim.

Secondly my original answer to the question of the OP was my answer. Any challenge brought to it will be met so don't derail me or try and invalidate my suggestions and I won't need to explain myself, you could always just ask for an explanation.

Third, it was stated that putting words in the mouth of Jesus was not a first few centuries mentality in response to my suggestion (which makes perfect sense) that the sword comment was interpolated by Rome.

But in response I pointed to the rejected books containing many words of Christ from Orthodox and Gnostic Christianity, so someone at some point and probably many, DID put words in Jesus mouth.

Off topic? Get real now.

Gospel of Thomas text is very similar...

Jesus said, "Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth: fire, sword, and war. For there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the son against the father. And they will stand solitary."

The text obviously means that Jesus sides with evil.

originally posted by: glend
Gospel of Thomas text is very similar...

Jesus said, "Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth: fire, sword, and war. For there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the son against the father. And they will stand solitary."

The text obviously means that Jesus sides with evil.

This is a parable, not a literal statement. If you are truly familiar with the Gospel of Thomas you know Jesus is not siding with evil but using parables, riddles to make you think, like Solomon used to do with Hiram.

Gnostic literature is clearly about the Saviour of the World being Christ, and that Jesus was, when possessed by the Christ and Sophia/Spirit. If before the crucifixion like the Gospel of Thomas quotes then they are from the Logos and Sophia/Wisdom and if after like Pistis Sophia from the redescended Christ in the image of Jesus who actually didn't get crucified, Simon of Cyrene did. Probably confused with Simon Magus but either way.

Jesus was not evil, didn't side with evil, exposed evil in Gnostic theology as they studied Yahweh they said clearly THIS GUY is evil and gave Christ a more powerful and good Father.
You got some reading to do if you think one parable makes Jesus evils friend in Gnostic or Orthodox literature. He is revered as the Saviour so really CAN'T be evil.

a reply to: glend

"And they will stand solitary."

A feud is not the end of the world, it appears that he means people will fight, then unite.

Probably after feuding for a while people realize the futility and end up being bonded by the feuding, diplomacy prevails, and the world gets to rest.

Something like that.

a reply to: Joshuabennone

It is clearly a statement not a parable. Another statement in Gospel of Thomas "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like." is of similar vein. If you look at the violent history of christianty it seems his mission was accomplished, no?

You say he is revered but when Jesus walked the earth, both the Jews and State wanted him crucified. So if the gospels paint a realistic picture of Jesus, why did the Jews reject Jesus as their messiah?

Perhaps the Mandaeans know the answer. They say Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist but turned his back on his teachings. Attacked the Jewish faith etc. (overturned more than one table it seems).

In Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is quoted as saying "Among those born of women, from Adam until John the Baptist, there is no one so superior to John the Baptist that his eyes should not be lowered (before him)".

Perhaps John the Baptist was the true Messiah.

a reply to: glend

No... Jesus was well known for his parables and not for being an advocate for evil, so I would have to say you clearly don't get parables because that clearly is one.

Practically all of the 114 sayings in Thomas are parables, if not all.

You clearly don't get the Gnostics. Or parables as that is originally not a specifically Gnostic text anyway, but I guarantee you that nobody interpreted it as "Jesus endorses evil."

Then or now.

Because Jesus is not evil. Dur.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Ectospasm

When I got saved

What were you doing you needed to be saved, mountain climbing?

my dad totally ignored me for the next ten years and then died do to complication from Pneumonia caused by his over use of Morphine. He only spoke to criticize me the day I told him I got saved, I never heard from him again even when he died he never spoke to me nor wanted to see his grand-children.

Truly a fulfillment of those very words Jesus spoke.

That is not a nice way to remember your father, or honor him. Let go of the past, I don't know anybody who ever got ignored by a parent for being a Christian, it's not uncommon or taboo, so it's sad it got to that point.

Usually it's the one joining the perceived as cult who disconnects from family because they aren't members.

Something is off about that story, may your father rip, but becoming a Christian is not a common reason for parents to stop talking to children. You just don't talk about it, but you don't cease communication over something like that.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Joshuabennone

It is clearly a statement not a parable. Another statement in Gospel of Thomas "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like." is of similar vein. If you look at the violent history of christianty it seems his mission was accomplished, no?

You say he is revered but when Jesus walked the earth, both the Jews and State wanted him crucified. So if the gospels paint a realistic picture of Jesus, why did the Jews reject Jesus as their messiah?

Perhaps the Mandaeans know the answer. They say Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist but turned his back on his teachings. Attacked the Jewish faith etc. (overturned more than one table it seems).

In Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is quoted as saying "Among those born of women, from Adam until John the Baptist, there is no one so superior to John the Baptist that his eyes should not be lowered (before him)".

Perhaps John the Baptist was the true Messiah.

Even the Mandaeans don't think John was the Messiah, so you are talking about things you apparently know only a little about.

They do or did believe, as their Holy books say, that Jeshu was Nebu or false Messiah, but they do not actively hate Jesus today, it's a very old book but has NOTHING to do with the G. of Thomas, which is older and from a completely different religion.

a reply to: glend


And how could you say a religion of Jews started by Jews and extirminated by Rome "rejected their Messiah?"

It lacks common sense to say that. Just because the Jewish branch of Messianics were killed by Rome doesn't mean that the Jews rejected their Messiah. If he ever even lived.

Either way, until the 5th century there were Ebionites, Nazarenes, Elchasaites and many other Jewish disciples of the Messiah.

Persecuted for keeping the law of Moses, rejecting Paul and the godhood of Jesus.

You need a history class.

a reply to: Joshuabennone

It lacks common sense to say that. Just because the Jewish branch of Messianics were killed by Rome doesn't mean that the Jews rejected their Messiah.

From Mandaic Book of John (the baptist):

...
John (the baptist) spoke to Jesus Christ in Jerusalem and said, “You lied to the Jews and you have deceived the men, the priests. You cut the seed from men and childbirth and pregnancy from women. You loosed the Sabbath that Moses ordained. In Jerusalem you lied to them with horns and sounded tooting with a trumpet.”
...

From Matthew 11:21-24:

Then he began to reproach the cities in which most of his deeds of power had been done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for you.”

From John 7:1–2

After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were looking for an opportunity to kill him.

Obviously not all Jews but even many of his own desciples turn their back on his teachings

From John 6:65-66:

And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.” Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

a reply to: glend

I already told you that I know what the Manadaen scripture said about Jesus.

It has no relevance to the ancient Gnostics because is from about 1000 years newer, based on oral tradition and of no historical value whatsoever.

It's strictly religious and the Manadaen people number in the thousands, total worldwide, their religion is not about "evil Jesus" he is a character in a non historical setting.

The Nazarenes of the Baptizer did exist in the first century, if you want, read Ephanius 'Panarion if you want to learn more about them then.

As I previously showed awareness of the contents I am somewhat baffled at what exactly you thought showing me something I just said says something, as if I didn't, accomplished or why you think this book you are no expert of somehow supports the ridiculous argument you have been trying to make about Jesus in Thomas.

Apples and Oranges.

The Nag Hammadi texts have some books containing negative sentiments towards John the Baptist.

But not Jesus. So using a book that didn't exist yet to make a pount that is ridiculous, is as ridiculous as the point itself.

a reply to: glend

And it's also obvious you had no previous knowledge of the non Roman affiliated Jewish disciples of Jesus being killed off as heretics by the fifth century so I won't even continue the discussion about Jews rejecting their Messiah.

If I were you I would find a better method of learning about the history of religion, whatever you are doing is not working. You have no idea what you are talking about at all, not to be rude, just real.

a reply to: ZIPMATT

What I want to add is that God or not , this is life , and that clear admonishment and exhortation to moral restraint and good conduct with clear conscience , on pain of certain types of living hell , including that before death , is a theme concurrent on all religions of lasting value , because that it is true .

You think that's true?? Well, I know many a "Christian" who suffer horribly...even when they are doing their best to live "exemplary" lives. They still get diseases, struggle with addictions, have family issues that aren't much different from those "in the world". So, your premise of God blesses those who do good is false.
Those who serve "him" still suffer...sometimes much more than those who defy him and live only for themselves.
I guess the belief that once one dies, it all gets better, keeps them going.
I have to ask the question though....where is the "loving god" in all of that?