geeser said:
jesus came as the master to his slaves, and (pun intended)god help he who does'nt cower at his feet.
NKJV matthew 10:34 - "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.but he did.
NKJV matthew 10:35 For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; 36 and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
This is very simple to understand when in its correct context. I am sure you know very well it cannot mean a literal sword with which to slay people with. In the bible, Jesus clearly shows opposition to the very thinking you would attribute as His i.e. when He heals the soldiers ear and rebukes one of His own followers with the charge that 'those who live by the sword shall die by the sword'.
If we then take it as read that Jesus was refering to an entirely different context to that of the literal sword (and here we can make a comparison to His claims that He would destroy and rebuild this temple in 3 days - obviously not meaing a literal temple but that which was His body) we should at least try to understand the actual context.
Jesus believed in His mission. He was to lay down His life for the life of men. That was His Father's will. God's will for man. His was a mission to prevent the otherwise inevitable full force of the law impacting on God's creation i.e. the wages of sin is death << non reversable death. The law requiring a pure life sacrifice to prevent the otherwise inevitable.
Jesus' own life had to be free from sin or else a) The law would not be fulfilled and b) Jesus would suffer irreversable death as well.
The sword he brought was what He called 'The Truth' and given what He understood His mission to be, one might be forgiven for misinterpreting any of His words. The divisions would be caused because 'The Truth' was standing right in front of them and He believed that those who accepted His words, would begin a relationship with His Father whom He loved and they would therefore 'enter life'; those that rejected Him and therefore rejected the truth would perish, thus factions would be created on Earth. This He knew was inevitable given the reality of His mission. He believed that those who were prepared to face persecution and even death in order that the truth of God's love might be spoken of even under torture, were worthy of the honour that knowing the truth brings i.e. eternal life with an everlasting pardon.
I guess Jesus figured that those who rejected His message were truly not worthy of eternal life with Him, else why would their lack of 'belief' be His soul concern why they were alive? If rejecting His message meant rejecting life, then I guess even God has to respect a man's right to reject life. But God cherishes life and wishes that no man would perish. However He also knows that man will reject Him because of their pride. He knows this will bring death
to those that refuse His Son's offering.
So we have the very real 'to be or not to be' dilemma whilst we move on the earth. I dont judge anyone who rejects the message of Jesus. The division between us was predicted. This doesnt mean that I wish to be divided, after all factions are a terrible thing. But the bible says that even though factions are a terrible thing, they are needed to define which side justice falls on. Justice being the principal that supports the law.
The greatest faction that existed at any one time on Earth, was when Jesus walked the earth. Him versus pretty much the whole world. The bible says he was the light of the world but the world rejected Him preferring the darkness instead. Those that humbly believe in Him and accept the message of the bible are changed through the self same act. For them it becomes a living faith. They are naturally at odds with those that reject their faith. There cannot be peace between the two set of beliefs. We see that very clearly on sciforums.
In a nutshell Jesus was saying 'What I stand for is 'life to you'. What I stand for created you, your mum,your sister, the apple you ate for breakfast and everything else. Put what I stand for first and deny yourself at any cost. Love Me first. I.e Love the fact that God has saved you from perishing and give thanks Our Father and then you will be right to go and love others with a new humble spirit. '
What is 'Carrying a cross'? Why do you need to do this to be worthy? Well it is the same as being told 'Accepting this grace comes with a price. You will be at odds with the world that has 'loved' you thus far. It will be a long-suffering affair. You will be rejected, despised and possibly even murdered for professing the truth of Christ.'
This was a very sober but sound prediction when speaking to potential followers of that day who were indeed murdered, despised and so on after Jesus' resurection for professing their faith.
But these martyrs only served to spread the message wider and wider. Being killed was nowhere as important as 'eternal life' and of course the message of Jesus was that 'he came not to judge but to save.'. Jesus' idea of being saved meant being granted 'eternal life'. A truly wonderful gift to be accepted at all costs.
peace
c20
