No Christianity is not the religion of peace. Jesus Christ himself was very clear that he was not the 'Prince of peace' and that he came to bring the opposite of peace to earth, inhis own words in the New testament he says the following:
Quote
Luke 12:49-53
Not Peace but Division
"I have come to bring fire on 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 completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, 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."
Matthew 10:34-36 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
These are the words of Jesus, his word was edited out of most of the Bible but seems the Romans forgot about this bit.
I'm not a bible scholar, but I was always under the impression that the division he was talking about was going to be crated by his teachings.
He knew that the new testament wasn't going to be excepted by some, and indeed, he was crucified by the Jews for it. Some would except the love and forgiveness that he brought and others would reject it.
And to those that reject him, he didn't say "death to the infidels" he said love thy neighbor.
Please consider carefully the politics of the time. Judea (as the Romans called it) was a province that was basically "annexed" to put it politely. Pontius Pilate was a Company Man (tm).
What the Jews were seeking was a warrior-king (Son of David [tm]), but although Jesus' pedigree established him as the legitimate descendant of David, what He was telling them with the sword analogy (and YES, it is an analogy, because He often spoke symbolically, and in parables), that He WASN'T there to UNITE the Jews against the Roman occupation ("This isn't the Messiah you're looking for. You can go about your business - move along"). Instead, He was stationed on Earth for the sole purpose of bringing about a total change in the established Mosaic / Talmudic (read: prevailing religious and political) order, and the sword, in this case, is symbolic and represents the division between the Old and the New. Yes, there is the bit about "If he has no sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one"), but don't forget that Jesus allowed these things to happen (id est Gethsemane, where He fulfilled prophecy by allowing one of his disciples to raise a sword, and that this is a far cry from the rape, pillage and burn policy of mohammed).
However, please DO NOT FORGET that it was a disciple who did this, and not the Christ himself. Unlike our old buddy Mo, who was far more bloodthirsty than the Old Testament kings ever were.
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
And YES, Yeshua bar Josef NEVER said ANYTHING about revenge and goats, which is what islam is full of. And as above, He NEVER said anything about enslaving or killing those who had different beliefs, unlike that spawn of Satan we now know as mohammed.
I rest my case (again)
Respectfully,
mh
.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
You can post now and register later.
If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.
Please consider carefully the politics of the time. Judea (as the Romans called it) was a province that was basically "annexed" to put it politely. Pontius Pilate was a Company Man (tm).
What the Jews were seeking was a warrior-king (Son of David [tm]), but although Jesus' pedigree established him as the legitimate descendant of David, what He was telling them with the sword analogy (and YES, it is an analogy, because He often spoke symbolically, and in parables), that He WASN'T there to UNITE the Jews against the Roman occupation ("This isn't the Messiah you're looking for. You can go about your business - move along"). Instead, He was stationed on Earth for the sole purpose of bringing about a total change in the established Mosaic / Talmudic (read: prevailing religious and political) order, and the sword, in this case, is symbolic and represents the division between the Old and the New. Yes, there is the bit about "If he has no sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one"), but don't forget that Jesus allowed these things to happen (id est Gethsemane, where He fulfilled prophecy by allowing one of his disciples to raise a sword, and that this is a far cry from the rape, pillage and burn policy of mohammed).
However, please DO NOT FORGET that it was a disciple who did this, and not the Christ himself. Unlike our old buddy Mo, who was far more bloodthirsty than the Old Testament kings ever were.
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
And YES, Yeshua bar Josef NEVER said ANYTHING about revenge and goats, which is what islam is full of. And as above, He NEVER said anything about enslaving or killing those who had different beliefs, unlike that spawn of Satan we now know as mohammed.
I rest my case (again)
Respectfully,
mh
.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites