No takers? Okay, I'll kick it off...

[hnumpah]

Matthew 10:34-37

Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And as a man?s enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. ? Jesus

[_JS]

Matthew 10:35 parallels Matthew 10:21 above it, which are in Christ's instructions to his disciples (including Judas). Both are merely citations of Micah 7:6.

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;

Matthew 10:21 Brother will hand over brother to death, and the father his child; children will rise up against parents and have them put to death.

Micah 7:6-7 For the son dishonors his father, the daughter rises up against her mother, The daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's enemies are those of his household. But as for me, I will look to the LORD, I will put my trust in God my savior; my God will hear me!

The important thing here is the timing, in my opinion. Remember that this is before Christ's death and Resurrection. This is before He establishes His Church. He certainly did not bring peace, both in terms of Israel in general and in terms of our Christian hearts.

Christ's call is very radical, but not in the way some might imply from this verse (i.e. sword).

[hnumpah]

I'm not so sure. He did, at times, seem to espouse violence.

Matthew 15:4:  Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death. - Jesus ('the death' here apparently being death by stoning, from Deuteronomy 21:18-21:  If a man have a stubborn and unruly son, who will not hear the commandments of his father or mother, and being corrected, slighteth obedience. They shall take him and bring him to the ancients of his city, and to the gate of judgment, and shall say to them: This our son is rebellious and stubborn, he slighteth hearing our admonitions, he giveth himself to revelling, and to debauchery and banquetings: The people of the city shall stone him: and he shall die, that you may take away the evil out of the midst of you, and all Israel hearing it may be afraid.)

Luke 19:26-27:  But I say to you, that to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: and from him that hath not, even that which he hath, shall be taken from him. But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me. - Jesus

[_JS]

I'm not so sure. He did, at times, seem to espouse violence.

There are those Christians that believe that. Most often they quote the scripture about Christ's encounter with the moneychangers outside the temple.

Interestingly, Adolf Hitler was one of the people who used that very argument. Though, that in and of itself does not make it false.

I disagree. What part of loving one's enemies and persecutors involves reacting to them with violence? Moreover, in the Beatitudes Christ blesses the meek and the peacemakers. Not once does he bless the generals or the warriors.

Taken further, Father Raniero Cantalamessa discusses Christianity in these terms: "Christianity exalts the sacrifice of the strong in the favor of the weak." Whereas it is in the philosophy of those such as Nietzsche (or Ayn Rand) that you find the modern day reverse where the weak are sacrificed for the strong.

Certainly Christians have not always acted in that way, but no, I don't find that the spirit of the Gospel calls for violence - in fact, I think it calls for the exact opposite.

A good example is in Luke 9:51-56

51 When the days for his being taken up were fulfilled, he resolutely determined to journey to Jerusalem,
52 and he sent messengers ahead of him. On the way they entered a Samaritan village to prepare for his reception there,
53 but they would not welcome him because the destination of his journey was Jerusalem.
54 When the disciples James and John saw this they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to consume them?"
55 Jesus turned and rebuked them,
56 and they journeyed to another village.

Now here Christ could have certainly made an example of this Samaritan village. James and John were ready to do what in modern terms would be called "shock & awe" and all the "collateral damage" that comes with that. Yet, Christ not only tells them no, but also rebukes them (too bad Luke didn't know what He said).

So no. I definitely do not find violence as a Christian solution at all.

[hnumpah]

If I remember correctly (it has been a long time since I've read it), isn't there a passage in the apocryphal book of St. Thomas (he of 'doubting Thomas' fame) where the young Jesus causes the death of another child who was taunting him?

Probably why this book ended up in the apocrypha - don't want anything in the bible that might make Jesus look petty or spiteful.

Still, the passages I cited in Matthew and Luke did make the final cut:

He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death.

But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me.

[_JS]

Per Luke 19:27 as it is tied in to the rest of the chapter as well.

As the story is used by Luke, however, it furnishes a correction to the expectation of the imminent end of the age and of the establishment of the kingdom in Jerusalem. Jesus is not on his way to Jerusalem to receive the kingly power; for that, he must go away and only after returning from the distant country (a reference to the parousia) will reward and judgment take place.

For Matthew 15:4 you need to read the whole text. Jesus is calling out the Pharisees and basically pointing out that they are extreme legalists in some areas, but not others. In context He is not making the violent command to His followers as you claim.

1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They do not wash (their) hands when they eat a meal."
3 He said to them in reply, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother shall die.'
5 But you say, 'Whoever says to father or mother, "Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,"
6 need not honor his father.' You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

[Cynthia]

Not once does he bless the generals or the warriors.

Jesus did not "bless or curse" any human being based on the person's singular action.....in battle, in the streets, or in bed.
He  forgave the sinner 20 fold.
 He does, however, rebuke satan who lies beneath the surface of those who sin(warriors, generals, tax collectors, you, me etc).
My point is I wonder if the "sword" He speaks of is the "fight" against sin (the enemy, the devil) according to some Christians.

Just a thought....

[_JS]

If I remember correctly (it has been a long time since I've read it), isn't there a passage in the apocryphal book of St. Thomas (he of 'doubting Thomas' fame) where the young Jesus causes the death of another child who was taunting him?

Probably why this book ended up in the apocrypha - don't want anything in the bible that might make Jesus look petty or spiteful.

The Gospel of Thomas was not considered Biblical because it clearly did not fit into the Gospel texts. If you read it you will see that it is very gnostic in origin and beliefs. Jesus also kills some animals I believe. It is an interesting book though as it relates how a child with the powers of God becomes a man who learns the responsibility to use them per his Father's will.

It is more of a morality coming of age tale than a Biblical text and was clearly written due to the interest many Christians had in Christ's childhood. The Church dealt with quite a few of these books and had to organise councils to come to agreements on what was worthy of being included in the Bible.

Of much more merit (in my opinion) is the Protoevangelium of James, which is at least worth reading even if not biblically worthy. Interestingly, Revelations met with great opposition and was not fully accepted as part of the canon for quite a while.

Jesus did not "bless or curse" any human being based on the person's singular action.....in battle, in the streets, or in bed.
He  forgave the sinner 20 fold.
 He does, however, rebuke satan who lies beneath the surface of those who sin(warriors, generals, tax collectors, you, me etc).
My point is I wonder if the "sword" He speaks of is the "fight" against sin (the enemy, the devil) according to some Christians.

Note that I was specifically referencing the beatitudes, which you neglected to mention when you quoted me. But your point is well made.

[Cynthia]

I was just putting out a "thought". Religous scholars debate the details. I think there is room for "broad Stroking" here in this discussion. Thanks.

Overall....the matter of Christ is also a matter of "faith" and trust. . . which isn't in the "Head level' or written word, necessarily.

I think we tend to forget that part of the Christian faith. . . "faith" and the realization that there is evil in the world to be "fought".