English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Matt10:34-36

Can you distinguish between the purpose of Christ's coming to earth and the result of it?

Tell me your thoughts.

2006-08-12 11:13:05 · 20 answers · asked by SeeTheLight 7 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Mr Mister..the first time
If you have good info on the second, that would be nice too

2006-08-12 11:18:19 · update #1

I think that His design was to bring peace, peace with God for unbelievers ( Rom 5:1 ) and eventually, the peace of God for believers ( Phil 4:7 ).
However the immediate consequense of Christ's coming was to divide those who were for Him and those who were against Him, the children of this world from the childern of God.

2006-08-12 11:25:07 · update #2

Imagine..there is so much historical documentation, writings available about the life and death and resurrection of Jesus, that we do not have even our Bible for that.

2006-08-12 11:29:03 · update #3

20 answers

Christ himself said that he did not come to bring peace but a sword. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

This doesn't mean that he came to bring war. It meant that he came to save those who believed in him, and to cleave those who did not believe from those who did.

Christ doesn't care about the petty political disagreements among humans--even though these petty disagreements look gigantic because they provoke massive wars. Christ cares about the salvation of human souls, period.

2006-08-12 11:17:03 · answer #1 · answered by Gestalt 6 · 4 0

Jesus came to be the Savior of the world, but only for those who receive His free gift of salvation.

The peace He brought and continues to bring is the "peace of God"; peace b/t God and man (see above). It's not peace in the world, that won't happen until His return. He said that believing in Him will have son against father, mother against daughter, etc. It's evident in how those who believe are treated by those who don't. No, Christ did not come to bring peace as the world sees it.

2006-08-12 18:22:57 · answer #2 · answered by Saved 3 · 2 0

He came to bring division.He knew that this world will be a thing of the past. He wanted man to choose Jesus and nothing else.God purposely
blinded his own people to make away for Gentiles to be brought into
the Family of God through Jesus.When the Grace Age passes God
will save all Israel.
In Christ in Love.
TJ57.

2006-08-12 18:41:20 · answer #3 · answered by TJ 57 4 · 0 0

Many people, myself included, don't know if there was a real Jesus. He seems to be a composite figure with all those little snippets of stories and no coherent biography or way to pin down any validation of his existence.

That said, the stated purpose given by Christian religionists, that Jesus was born for the express purpose of dying for our sins, is a bunch of hokum. No one can preempt all of subsequent history and die in advance so that you are beholden to this person in some kind of retroactive guilt gift. If in fact he did live, he has died, just as everyone else of his time, before, and in fact, since. That dying can't have anything to do with any of the currently living, even as many of his followers have killed millions of people to force acceptance of this concept.

It is morally bankrupt to build a so-called morality system on an idea that someone pays for other people's wrongs. We are each individually responsible for what we do under civil law, and no religion helps us become better citizens to one another by usurping that responsibility and 'washing away' the right to be held accountable for our actions against each other or the environment.

After this first improper tenet of the faith, there is nothing left but war, as now you are guilted, and beholden, and no longer in control of your own destiny. It goes from bad to worse; you're supposed to give away all your worldly goods and follow him, turn the other cheek if unjustly attacked, and so on. Not that any of the current manifestations of Christian religions follow these tenets; it seems that they go as far as possible toward the opposite. But that's to be expected, because nothing, from beginning to end, is clear or makes sense about it.

It's just all wrong,imo.

2006-08-12 18:26:06 · answer #4 · answered by nora22000 7 · 0 0

He said that the world will hate us because of his name. Because of his name father would be against son, mother against daughter, brother against brother.

See how true it has become, read what people are saying about Christians in this area and ask for yourself just how his words have come so true. But still we are only seeing the beginnings of this, as time goes by we will be hated that much more and the day is coming when proclaiming the name of Jesus is going to be a crime.

The real question will become, who will stand for Jesus on that day?

2006-08-12 18:21:02 · answer #5 · answered by Dead Man Walking 4 · 2 0

You should have read on to verse 37 and you would understand it better. Jesus should be first in our lives. Sometimes we read a couple of verses and quit. If we had read the verse that followed or the verse that preceded what we read it would give a whole different meaning. That's why it is important to study an entire book or at least an entire chapter or at least a few verses on either side of what we are using for comment.

Jesus loves you.

2006-08-12 18:42:45 · answer #6 · answered by racam_us 4 · 0 0

Dear See the Light: Let's say He came to bring a Sword. . .
was it for literal physical battle in which deaths would occur? Or was it a spiritual battle for one Mind at a time? The Fisher of Souls. . .

I think we'd all agree - if the expression, "He came to bring a Sword" is acknowledged - we'll agree it's a different type of battle or war: One of Saving Souls. You could, in fact, even say He came with a Sword to fight the devils in us, and save us for the Kingdom - if your church interprets it that way. He would certainly be showing the results, 2000 years later of just how many souls have been saved throughout the Universe. It has hardly been a losing battle !

Now consider this quote:

"A mind that is stretched to a new idea
never returns to its original dimension."
By Oliver Wendell Holmes

Here's another quote:

"If the Apostles had not felt . . . .[war-like],
they never could have quoted Me as
saying, "I come not to bring peace, but
a Sword. This is clearly the opposite of
everything I taught."

He taught harmless-ness. He taught gentle-ness. He taught
defenseless-ness. He taught Trust - in the Father. He taught non-political-ness.

What kind of a warrior with a Great Sword is that?

Contemplate this. Not every word of sacred scripture, not the Gospels themselves, are dead accurate. We have to use our Minds when we read.

He told the Disciples They would understand everything better - later on. They only had, after all, one to two years with Him. Jesus, Himself, did not feel They understood Him quite properly. They were learning all they could at a fast pace, but you perceive things through the personality of your human-ness. If there's a bit of war-like-ness in yourself - you see it in others - or in what even a Teacher might be saying. It takes time, doesn't it - to put into proper perspective the ideas a Great Teacher has laid upon your Mind?

If you think to yourself, "But the Gospels were written years after His Ascension - the Apostles must have known what He was teaching and what He stood for, by then?" The answer to this may, perhaps, be another unpopular idea!:

Scholars say that in that Era of the Life of Christ, it was customary, and the proper manners of the times, to write all important works Anonymously - but to choose a name in place of their own that was well-known or respected by the people for whom they were writing.

Scholars believe the names the Gospels were written in were not necessarily the actual people who wrote them. The Scholars are NOT saying - in the least - that the works are probably grossly inaccurate - NO! - they are saying that the authors wrote in the names of the Apostles - as is customary for that era - and that a great deal of legitmacy is involved in their writing since you have Agreement amongst the four Gospels - fairly decisively !

When people write down what they have been told, or from oral traditions - not every word can be absolute fact.

2006-08-12 19:05:33 · answer #7 · answered by Lana S (1) 4 · 0 0

Jesus came to earth because the religious leaders of that time were leading man astray. They were painting a picture of God that was wrong! Jesus came to teach mankind the true way to God! God wanted man to know his true heart! Jesus did not come to solve the world's problems. All the bad things, he said will happen. We now know God's heart and the way to him!
With that came his gift of salvation!

2006-08-12 18:22:29 · answer #8 · answered by ron 4 · 1 0

He came to save everyone. The verses you refer to refer to the division he will bring. One will believe and the other will not. One will be taken to heaven, the other to hell. The result of his coming logically divides families, and nations. Brother against brother, father vs. son. It is the division that his coming brings that he is talking about.

2006-08-12 18:17:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. (John 3:17)

2006-08-12 18:18:04 · answer #10 · answered by isoar4jc 3 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers