Topic: Controversial jesus scripture

[Firestarter]

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49–53)

Theres a whole wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword

Ultimately it appears he was really dividing folks. And in some ways this appears to be true. Say when one becomes christian, if say others in the household do not, there are many cases that this separates even families from each other.

I do not see this is a good or peaceful thing, to separate family members over such a thing. But very interesting scripture nonetheless.

[Nichi]

Is there any chance that what he was really talking about was shedding the programming of the family, and releasing the ties that bind?  (Or, severing them, as he seems to intend.)

[Firestarter]

Is there any chance that what he was really talking about was shedding the programming of the family, and releasing the ties that bind?  (Or, severing them, as he seems to intend.)

Well I think he really meant severing them. It almost seems like people would be hostile to each other, even in the household, like turning on each other as he implies. And it does seem people do this if they differ on christianity or not.

[Nichi]

Is it possible at all that the "severing" is a metaphor for anything else besides strife, discord, fire and brimstone?

[Firestarter]

i dont know, but it doesnt sound very positive.

[runningstream]

you could even say something gender like

as if who would be a stalker and who a dreamer

stalking their counterpart within their self

yet in those terms reach a astrological point even

if you were looking for what you wanted to find to suit your own purposes

you could find anything there

it will depend

"when the eye is full ,. the body is full "


no body can take it away from you

if you stumble upon it with certain eyes

[Muffin]

Or maybe it is not a metaphor at all and it's talking about the bickering between the primitive societies and tribes back then, where I would imagine much bickering was going on in the sphere of the family too. In the literal sense. Just as there is much bickering in our own time.
Maybe it's a description (although poetic) of the real physical/social conditions back then.

The text was written 2 thousand years ago, you can't just apply your 20th century spiritualistic view to it and call it a day. I call it attributing meaning in retrospective.

[Nichi]

Rudi, yay and hey! 

[Nichi]

The text was written 2 thousand years ago, you can't just apply your 20th century spiritualistic view to it and call it a day. I call it attributing meaning in retrospective.

That might be a good rule of thumb all around, for any scriptural contemplation!

[erik]

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49–53)

Theres a whole wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword

Ultimately it appears he was really dividing folks. And in some ways this appears to be true. Say when one becomes Christian, if say others in the household do not, there are many cases that this separates even families from each other.

I do not see this is a good or peaceful thing, to separate family members over such a thing. But very interesting scripture nonetheless.

The same division appears when one family member embarks on the path of spiritual growth.

"Let the dead bury their own dead".

[runningstream]

"in the beginning"

we began tracking time

astrologically

it comes it goes

in time

[Firestarter]

i did think of that too Juhani. perhaps he meant people who embark on a spiritual path. but then he gives the parable of allowing the wheat to grow along with the chaff, then the chaff is pulled and burned and this too not only implies the division of people but destruction.

[Nichi]

A flash came to me today regarding these passages, that there probably is significance in the "5", and the "3" vs "2", and vice versa..

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

For from henceforth there shall be five in one house,.... Which are the five following, mentioned in the next verse; the father and the son, the mother and the daughter, and her daughter-in-law, or son's wife; for the mother and mother-in-law are one and the same person, only standing in different relations; as a mother to her own daughter, and a mother-in-law to her son's wife, or to her husband's daughter by his first wife; though the former best answers to the word used: now from the time of Christ's saying these words, or quickly after this, immediately upon his baptism of sufferings, or soon after his death, when the Gospel should be preached more publicly and extensively, this should be the effect of it; that supposing a family consisting of the above number, they should be

divided from one another, in the following manner:

three against two, and two against three; three that did not believe in Christ, against two that did believe in him; or two that did not believe, against three that did; or three that did, against two that did not; or two that did, against three that did not. The Ethiopic version reads, "two shall be separated from three, and one shall be separated from two".
http://biblehub.com/luke/12-52.htm

But beyond that breakdown, seems that the numerological significance of "5" (change) can't be irrelevant.

[Nichi]

I asked my former coworker who is born-again Christian, back when the question came up about the division of the family in this passage, if it was actually about an undermining/erasure of the cultural programming to which we all are respectively privy. She most tactfully responded today:

In the first couple of verses, I believe Jesus is speaking of facing suffering on the cross and bearing the wrath of God for all humanity. This way, those who accept his bridging that gap between God and mankind will have peace with God. The division aspect comes from a greek word meaning 'disunion of opinion and conduct' - so it's similar to erasing the programming of the culture but going further to replacing it with his kingdom in our hearts as the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in/with us. I saw a lot of other worldly kingdom versus heavenly kingdom contrasts throughout the chapter.

If you enjoy tracking through the labyrinth of the "scriptures", here is a good site:
http://biblehub.com/luke/12-49.htm
Note that the Directories at the top provide Verses, Translations, and Commentaries.

I always like a good whodunnit, and for that reason it might be enjoyable to parse through it all, but I suspect it's anti-climactic in the end, for non-christians as myself.

I was on the wrong track there, according to the believers. I read quite a bit of it, through the maze, and it seems that many are of the mind that the whole thing is about the spreading of the Gospels.  Long story short, when I come up with my own interpretation, which I might find palatable, I find that I am in error in comparison to the prevailing, purist theories. Often, it's just as bad as it looks, and sometimes, it's even worse than it looks. ~Just my experience.

(I'll never forget pouring over the erotica of Song of Solomon in the St. Joseph's (Catholic) Bible, in my early 30's. At the head of one of the steamier chapters, there were these words italicized, by the authorities who rendered that edition:  Christ's Love for His Church. Which struck me as absurd. So I don't know how much more seriously one can take the commentaries, over the actual text.)

[Nick]

Didn't Jesus turn down Lucifer when he was offered dominion over the whole world? So why are Christians so bent on world dominion?

I don't think the second coming stuff has anything to do with Jesus being the ruler of the world.