Go to Sannhetseeker
- Add a comment
- Go to What Does Luke 12:49-53 Mean?
boy! i missed out on a lot!!! . . .
questions and comments -- It hasn't been that long and all the usual are weighing in on the subject.
so let me too -- of course.
Luke was a later writing -- J. B. Phillips, in the preface to his translation of Luke, gives its date as between 65 and 70 C.E. -- meaning that a lot has happened -- persecutions and I would suppose family divisions, such as are described. We should know that if we take a path that is different from that of those closest to us, that we will be at odds with them on one level or another. It can be minor -- or it can be pretty serious.
Luke was addressing these things -- showing that they were to be. I've got to peruse the link you gave me more -- it has a lot of information, particularly about the dates of the writings of the New Testament. Events that had occured had a lot to do with what was put in the Gospels.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 23, 2004 at 10:24 AM
| link to this | reply
Thank you, Sannhet,
I apologize for presuming to know your beliefs, although I have read several of your blogs. I have assumed that you had already dismissed Christianity as an obsolete anachronism. Because quite honestly I did, it went agaisnt all my education, feminist self-sufficiency and desire to include everyone equally to believe that only faith in Jesus releases the power of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is I am now convinced the true reason of the crucifxion, which otherwise seems a barbaric act of torture without sense.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 22, 2004 at 8:11 PM
| link to this | reply
Mary X -
Thank you for commenting, but I believe you're off base just a bit. This is not a set up. I am interested in hearing all sides. I have my beliefs, based on my study of Christian writings. But I am not locked into them. The Truth is not held captive by any belief. If you have read my posts for any length of time, you will notice an evolution in my thinking (at least I hope you will). What I am most interested in is comments from people who are truly passionate about their beliefs.
Unicorn is very conservative in her views in comparison to mine, but she has pointed out some things in such a way that they appear new to me. Ariala has done the same for me. Westwend, while liberal in his interpretations, has helped me to see other possibilities in the interpretation of Christian writings. Kooka has helped me to better understand the Atheist's point of view - a very viable point of view, I might add. I've recently begun reading Pappy, who I am finding is providing a deeper level of understanding for me. Friar Tuck has pointed out some interesting bits in his fairly conservative view of Christ. And JustA, well, JustA is on a whole other level sometimes for me. Finally, I stopped by one of your blogs after I saw you comment on another site, to see your writings
And if you will notice, when I have asked for others to share their beliefs, I haven't had many takers. I haven't wondered why. I presume that all will offer their beliefs when they are ready.
Do I tend to side with those who hold beliefs close to mine? You bet. It's only natural. Do I fall prey to presuming to be right? Yes, unfortunately I do. But I try to step back and open up as I continue on my journey. All I am trying to do is get a better understanding of God, "God", IAM, Yeshua, Jesus - call it what you will. That's my goal.
posted by
sannhet
on November 22, 2004 at 8:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Okay,
Here goes, I believe that both of you are both right: that the Scripture means that there will be division and conflict between those who believe the atonement of Christ's blood and that Jesus is not merely a prophet, an enlightened thinker, but the Son of God.
His self-sacrifice had a spiritual power, in the spiritual realm, there is good and evil, and that his sacrifice has a profound power that is beyond intellectual comprehension.
Jackie, sorry for presuming. No, you and I have not had any conversation on the subject.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 22, 2004 at 7:47 PM
| link to this | reply
Unicorn -
Thanks for your input. I'm not confused about the verses. I am just interested in what others "read".
posted by
sannhet
on November 22, 2004 at 7:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Jackie O -
Thanks for commenting. Your interpretation is close to mine as well.
posted by
sannhet
on November 22, 2004 at 7:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Who are you referring to?
You mean you and I have been down this road before?
posted by
calmcantey75
on November 22, 2004 at 7:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Mary X
I am keenly aware that some people ask a guestion, not because they want the answer, but to create a debate and use your answers for ammo. But often times I give my 'answer' in hopes that there will be others who may read and glean something more from it, if they do fine, if not, that's o.k. too.
posted by
PastorB
on November 22, 2004 at 7:37 PM
| link to this | reply
I doubt it. We've been down this road before.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 22, 2004 at 7:34 PM
| link to this | reply
thank you mary x for your input
but where is your explanation on what these scriptures mean? I believe sannhet is wanting everyones take on it.
posted by
calmcantey75
on November 22, 2004 at 7:32 PM
| link to this | reply
This discussion is going in a very predictable direction: there is the set-up, the quotation for interpretation, and then the commentary from participants: Christian and non-Christian, then the facilitator. Unicorn, Jackie you are wasting your time, because those who are "evolved" past literal interpretation have evolved metaphorical theories, that is Holy Spirit, Satan, sin, and Jesus Christ are analogies to be interpreted in view of more enlightened minds.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 22, 2004 at 7:29 PM
| link to this | reply
interesting
from my studies (the actual books I used for my training), a BRIEF overview of my notes and the text.
These scriptures refer to the cost of being a disciple of Christ.
#49; fire i.e. Holy Spirit who will convict of sin and work to purge it, and set the believers back on the track of pursuing righteousness.
50; Jesus refering to His own death, knowing that it had to be not only to fulfill prophecy but to accomplish the mission of providing a way of salvation
51; (*see also Matt. 10:34-36) refering to some will accept Jesus, some not, this will create a separation among those.
52; same as 51, some will accept some not
53; even if we accept Christ, those in our own families who do not will be against us in that they disbelieve.
You'll notice that in Matt. 10:34, it says "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword", sword is often used in scripture to mean truth.
As the time of Christs' return draws nearer, there will be more division, because the father of lies will see to it. And even those who once claimed to be for Christ will be easily deceived and turn away from Him.
It's a pretty straight forward scripture, I guess I don't see the part you are confused with.
posted by
PastorB
on November 22, 2004 at 7:16 PM
| link to this | reply
He is talking about the Holy Spirit
coming to indwell believers as a result of His victory over death, sin and satan. As a result of a person being born again and filled with the holy spirit, they change. And some family members reject you as a result of this.
posted by
calmcantey75
on November 22, 2004 at 6:52 PM
| link to this | reply
Pappy -
Ooops! You're right! It should have been 49. And my take on it is close to yours. I want to get some other responses before I offer mine.
posted by
sannhet
on November 22, 2004 at 5:11 PM
| link to this | reply
sannhet
A trick question or a Freudian slip? Luke 12:46 finishes the parable of the servants. The servant who knows what to do but doesn't do it gets a severe beating, while the servant who is only ignorant of his duty gets a light beating. To him that much is given, much will be required.
In answer to your real question, the Prince of Peace is revealing that he knows the need for the turmoil his actions and their effects are going to cause. He is, in effect, taking responsibility for all the terrible things that are going to be done in his name. To Him that all was given, all was required.
posted by
pappy
on November 22, 2004 at 4:34 PM
| link to this | reply