i would appreciate an answer/explanation

[littlelostsheep89]

hey guys! i have had some questions that i cannot get any solid answers to, no matter who i ask. i know the bible isnt perfect, since people wrote it, and edited it, and some bias obviously made it in to some parts of it. i dont care about that. what i do care about is the message as a whole.

the theme of the new testament was about peace and forgiveness. that said, i found several strange things about this theme, and what occurred within the testament itself.

first of all, matthew 10:34 and luke 12:51 both state something to the effect of "I do not bring peace, but division/a sword." stated by jesus. Why would Jesus say this? can there not be any reconciliation between two or more disagreeing parties? this does not seem at all peaceful to me =(

furthermore, this points out that jesus knew that people may have differing or even directly opposing views about christianity. now above, i acknowledged that the bible was not written by god himself, or it would be a perfect book. but surely, as biased and imperfect as the writers were, could the message not be clear enough for everyone to arrive at the same conclusion upon reading the same thing?

secondly is the concept of hell, which was also introduced in the new testament. is it right to punish someone eternally for merely not having faith in christ, despite being a good person their whole life? is that peaceful at all, or was forgiveness just not something that could be done?

now, thirdly, jesus died for our sins. why? could god truly not forgive the sinners? i consider not trying to prevent evil an evil itself. why did two sins (murder of christ, gods allowance of said murder) need to be committed in order for all sin to be forgiven? surely there is not a single atrocity that is so great, that even it could not be forgiven by anyone, god or not.

 

[razeontherock]

Hi! And welcome to CF.

first of all, matthew 10:34 and luke 12:51 both state something to the effect of "I do not bring peace, but division/a sword." stated by jesus. Why would Jesus say this?

Good question! It's not that hard, but it's not a passage that's readily understandable at first, either. I find when something is like that it's intentional, by G-d, to motivate us to GROW. Consider and compare:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

So the real question becomes, what was Jesus referring to dividing w/ said sword? IMHO it is NOT:

can there not be any reconciliation between two or more disagreeing parties? this does not seem at all peaceful to me

furthermore, this points out that jesus knew that people may have differing or even directly opposing views about christianity.

When viewed the way I have laid it out, it is consistent with the WHOLE of Scripture. I find this is essential! Otherwise, we're in danger of twisting something to suit our fancy, thereby not only missing the point but defeating G-d's overall purpose, and becoming His enemy.

now above, i acknowledged that the bible was not written by god himself, or it would be a perfect book. but surely, as biased and imperfect as the writers were, could the message not be clear enough for everyone to arrive at the same conclusion upon reading the same thing?

I have some answers that will apparently surprise you. Everyone did arrive at the same conclusions, at least in the beginning. This is NOT all-encompassing! Nor can it be, while we are in this frail mortal state. The Word of G-d IS G-d. (But just the portion He's revealed to us) Whether infinite or not, it's certainly far too vast for any one of us to take in. So there are also insights one has another doesn't. These are to be shared, not fought over. The sword in your original question is largely internal, but will eventually produce the "fruit" of a changed life. Sadly, not all will embrace that.

secondly is the concept of hell, which was also introduced in the new testament. is it right to punish someone eternally for merely not having faith in christ, despite being a good person their whole life? is that peaceful at all, or was forgiveness just not something that could be done?

You will find many different conceptions of hell, including from Orthodox Christianity which essentially bears no resemblance to what you stated. Even so, forgiveness is IN Christ.

now, thirdly, jesus died for our sins. why? could god truly not forgive the sinners? i consider not trying to prevent evil an evil itself. why did two sins (murder of christ, gods allowance of said murder) need to be committed in order for all sin to be forgiven? surely there is not a single atrocity that is so great, that even it could not be forgiven by anyone, god or not.

This one concept is what I hold to be what the Bible refers to as "earnestly contend for the Faith that was once delivered to the Saints." As such, it deserves a LOT of attention! This question can be answered, and answered again, and again, forever. When we read in Rev about most of the activities around G-d's throne, it is comprehending this answer. And it's enough to make us fall on our face, and worship Jesus. Forever!

Our problem now is we don't see this that clearly. And even when we do, we don't get the full picture. EVER. We just can't take it all in.

Consider:

Psalm 85:10 Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed [each other]"

Hebrews 9:22 Without shedding of blood is no remission"

God GAVE man dominion. This means if we take it upon ourselves to DO evil, G-d's only fool-proof method of stopping that is to strike us dead. Kinda lets the wind out of the sails of your theory that "not trying to prevent evil is evil itself." Besides, He doesn't want any to perish, but all to come to Everlasting Life. Enter patience, and longsuffering ...

And yes, there is the unforgivable sin.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

hey guys! i have had some questions that i cannot get any solid answers to, no matter who i ask. i know the bible isnt perfect, since people wrote it, and edited it, and some bias obviously made it in to some parts of it. i dont care about that. what i do care about is the message as a whole.

the theme of the new testament was about peace and forgiveness. that said, i found several strange things about this theme, and what occurred within the testament itself.

Actually the entire theme of the whole bible is Jesus Christ and his redemption of mankind. Here is something interesting. Genesis 1 and 2, the first 2 chapters in the bible show a perfect God with a perfect people in a perfect environment. The last 2 chapters int he bible (Rev 21 and 22) show a perfect God with a perfect people in a perfect environment. Turn one chapter from Genesis 2 and in Genesis 3 you find the first attack on humanity by the devil. Turn one chapter back from Revelation 21 you find in Rev 20 the final attack on humanity by the devil. So everything between shows God trying to get his people from a fallen state to a redeemed state. The bible is truly inspired. It makes sense to either trust it completely or don't trust it at all.

first of all, matthew 10:34 and luke 12:51 both state something to the effect of "I do not bring peace, but division/a sword." stated by jesus. Why would Jesus say this? can there not be any reconciliation between two or more disagreeing parties? this does not seem at all peaceful to me =(

What Jesus meant is that because of him there will be much division and persecution. Jesus isn't making war, but the devil is. The bible tells us many places that those who align with Jesus will be persecuted and attacked by the devil. Jesus is saying that because of him, there will be allot of hardships for those who follow him and not a peaceful life on earth. In the end it will be total peace when we enter his kingdom.

secondly is the concept of hell, which was also introduced in the new testament. is it right to punish someone eternally for merely not having faith in christ, despite being a good person their whole life? is that peaceful at all, or was forgiveness just not something that could be done?

Hell was there even in the old testament. It is not right to torment someone eternally for something they did in lets say 25 years of life. That is why it is not going to happen. Forever is only truly forever when referring to something that is in itself eternal. Man is not eternal, so we cannot burn forever in its true sense. God told David he would be king over Israel forever. Is he still king over Israel? Of course not but it means he would be king as long as his body was able. We tell out spouses we are going to be with them forever, but we really mean until we die. Jude refers to the fires of Sodom and Gomorrah as eternal but of course it is not burning today. So God isn't going to burn people forever in the true sense. The bible says in Psalms 37 I believer, "for yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more.......into smoke they shall consume away".

now, thirdly, jesus died for our sins. why? could god truly not forgive the sinners? i consider not trying to prevent evil an evil itself. why did two sins (murder of christ, gods allowance of said murder) need to be committed in order for all sin to be forgiven? surely there is not a single atrocity that is so great, that even it could not be forgiven by anyone, god or not.

The wages of sin is death. That is a natural law like the law of gravity. God does forgive the sinner but there is still a wage. If your child was playing baseball in the yard and hits the ball through the neighbours window you forgive him but still the window must be paid for. The bible says that without the sheeding of blood there is no remission of sins. That is just how terrible sin is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

hey guys! i have had some questions that i cannot get any solid answers to, no matter who i ask. i know the bible isnt perfect, since people wrote it, and edited it, and some bias obviously made it in to some parts of it. i dont care about that. what i do care about is the message as a whole.

the theme of the new testament was about peace and forgiveness. that said, i found several strange things about this theme, and what occurred within the testament itself.

When you say that the New Testament "was about peace and forgiveness", I think that a complete reading of the New Testament is more specifically about a restored relationship with God through Christ; it is peace with God that is foremost in the scheme of the message as a whole, not so much, or necessarily, peace with fellow people in this world.

first of all, matthew 10:34 and luke 12:51 both state something to the effect of "I do not bring peace, but division/a sword." stated by jesus. Why would Jesus say this? can there not be any reconciliation between two or more disagreeing parties? this does not seem at all peaceful to me =(

Yes, Jesus said these things about "division". And it is true, Jesus did not come primarily to set up a time of 'peace' among mankind. As long as we live in a world that does not concede to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, there will be no political or social peace of that nature. With that said, I think the thing to keep in mind here is that the instance in Matthew 10 should not be read as an isolated verse from the passage in which it is placed, and by which it is contextualized. This comment by Jesus about division is a part of the 'sending of the Twelve' into harms way and reflects the accompanying ideas of the whole passage, such as Matthew 10:21-23, and so on. The point being that the gospel message will incite people to rebel, no matter how gentle and lovingly it is communicated, because it is a message of repentance from dead sins...something which people hate doing and hate hearing about.

furthermore, this points out that jesus knew that people may have differing or even directly opposing views about christianity. now above, i acknowledged that the bible was not written by god himself, or it would be a perfect book. but surely, as biased and imperfect as the writers were, could the message not be clear enough for everyone to arrive at the same conclusion upon reading the same thing?

No, I don't think the division is indicating problems between Christians, but between Christians and non-Christians, all of whom live in a predominantly unchristian world (at that time during the 1st century).

The message is clear enough for those who truly desire to understand what they read. Understanding will come, after it is thought about for a while.

secondly is the concept of hell, which was also introduced in the new testament. is it right to punish someone eternally for merely not having faith in christ, despite being a good person their whole life? is that peaceful at all, or was forgiveness just not something that could be done?

I am not a Christian who assumes that those who die without ever hearing about Christ are eternally doomed. Rather, I believe firmly that it is those who consciously reject Christ as their Savior who are doomed, and even then, I'm not sure that it will be in an everlasting fire. But whether or not there is an eternal fire, when sin is eradicated from God's creation someday, there will be peace as God intended it.

now, thirdly, jesus died for our sins. why? could god truly not forgive the sinners? i consider not trying to prevent evil an evil itself. why did two sins (murder of christ, gods allowance of said murder) need to be committed in order for all sin to be forgiven? surely there is not a single atrocity that is so great, that even it could not be forgiven by anyone, god or not.

Forgiveness by fiat, to me, shows a lack of considered justice. A God who does not impose a penalty for sin is a negligent God. [Let's just forgive Hitler by fiat]. How many times have you simply forgiven someone without a condition for that forgiveness? Would you really forgive someone who does not intend to better himself or herself? Let's say, you're at school and a bully beats you up. You forgive him. He beats you up again, and you forgive him. He beats you up yet again and again and again, and you forgive him...if you do that, something is not quite right with your sense of justice. I would hope you would see that the bully deserves to answer for his terrible behavior and not just be forgiven. Forgiveness should be extended only when he repents.

 

[oi_antz]

hey guys! i have had some questions that i cannot get any solid answers to, no matter who i ask. i know the bible isnt perfect, since people wrote it, and edited it, and some bias obviously made it in to some parts of it. i dont care about that. what i do care about is the message as a whole.

And likewise, when you ask people they will not be able to give you the perfect answer. The person you have to ask is the Holy Spirit, because it is stated in John 14:26 that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things and remind us of what Jesus has said.

the theme of the new testament was about peace and forgiveness. that said, i found several strange things about this theme, and what occurred within the testament itself.

And that is interesting, because you are correct in your assertion of the message of the New Testament. It is good you have raised your questions, I hope I can help you with your understanding so you will see that the New Testament does indeed bring the perfect message of peace and forgiveness.

first of all, matthew 10:34 and luke 12:51 both state something to the effect of "I do not bring peace, but division/a sword." stated by jesus. Why would Jesus say this? can there not be any reconciliation between two or more disagreeing parties? this does not seem at all peaceful to me =(

It was not Jesus' role to bring unity to the world, but a division to distinguish the two sides we may belong to:
a) We may belong to God
b) We may belong to Satan
(See John 8:42-47)

furthermore, this points out that jesus knew that people may have differing or even directly opposing views about christianity. now above, i acknowledged that the bible was not written by god himself, or it would be a perfect book. but surely, as biased and imperfect as the writers were, could the message not be clear enough for everyone to arrive at the same conclusion upon reading the same thing?

Yes, this is why we need the Holy Spirit to guide us. If you haven't yet accepted Jesus into your life, you may be Christian-curious, in that case you need to pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance when you read. In fact, even when you do become Christian and have the Holy Spirit dwelling in your life, you will notice that every time you open the book your heart is crying out to the Holy Spirit for guidance. Human wisdom alone is not enough to reveal the truths God has placed there for us, we need the guidance of His Holy Spirit.

secondly is the concept of hell, which was also introduced in the new testament. is it right to punish someone eternally for merely not having faith in christ, despite being a good person their whole life? is that peaceful at all, or was forgiveness just not something that could be done?

I don't believe it is through "not having faith in Christ", but rather "denying the message of Christ". In denying the message of Christ, you are choosing the antichrist spirit over the Holy Spirit, and it is a conscious decision to either support Jesus or contest Him. If you read the gospels of Jesus and find that you agree with Him then you ought not worry about going to hell, but if you believe anything which suggests He isn't who the gospels make Him out to be then you are in danger of declining God's offer to you, and God has made it clear that there is no further need of bloodshed (sacrifice) than His beloved son. If you consciously decline His offer, how else do you expect to gain His mercy? Could you explain whether you think this is reasonable or not?

now, thirdly, jesus died for our sins. why? could god truly not forgive the sinners? i consider not trying to prevent evil an evil itself. why did two sins (murder of christ, gods allowance of said murder) need to be committed in order for all sin to be forgiven? surely there is not a single atrocity that is so great, that even it could not be forgiven by anyone, god or not.

Well, simply whenever we sin, we bring upon us the doom of the curse of death. This goes right back to when the human acquired the conscience in the Garden of Eden. God knew that the human was never capable of having a conscience and being 100% holy, we would always be susceptible to doom due to our sins. Since there is a law established by God that any sinner is deserving of death, there is only one human who is capable of being sin-free, and this is Jesus. Following so far? Ok, now Jesus understood that if He took upon Himself the doom of death for another person's sin, then God would respect His decision to do so, and thereby forgive any person who Jesus pleads for in front of God. This is how Jesus is able to forgive us our sins, because God esteems Him so highly that whosoever Jesus deems suitable for forgiveness, the Father will grant. See Romans 5:12-17.

 

[aiki]

first of all, matthew 10:34 and luke 12:51 both state something to the effect of "I do not bring peace, but division/a sword." stated by jesus. Why would Jesus say this?

The context of the verse explains it pretty clearly. What does Christ say leading up to verse 34 in Matthew 10?

32 "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father who is in heaven.
33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven."

So, what does this business about a sword have to do with confessing Christ before men? Well, Christ goes on to explain that those who confess him before men will find those of his own household his foes. (verse 36) Simply put, one's devotion to Christ will cause conflict between oneself and those who are not so devoted. And so it was. Many Christians early in the history of the Church were betrayed by members of their own family into the hands of the Roman government who put them to death - often at the edge of a sword.

can there not be any reconciliation between two or more disagreeing parties? this does not seem at all peaceful to me =(

Tell that to the Roman officials who stabbed, burned at the stake, beheaded, crucified, and fed to wild animals many of the first Christians.

furthermore, this points out that jesus knew that people may have differing or even directly opposing views about christianity.

This isn't what the verse is talking about at all. The "opposing views" were between Christians and non-Christians, not between Christians themselves.

now above, i acknowledged that the bible was not written by god himself, or it would be a perfect book.

In its original form it was a perfect book because it was written under the inspiration of God. He "breathed into" (which is what "inspired" means) the writers of Scripture what it was they were to write.

but surely, as biased and imperfect as the writers were, could the message not be clear enough for everyone to arrive at the same conclusion upon reading the same thing?

Doctrinal disagreement among Christians isn't the fault of Scripture, but of those who interpret it.

secondly is the concept of hell, which was also introduced in the new testament.

The concept of hell is present in the OT, too.

is it right to punish someone eternally for merely not having faith in christ, despite being a good person their whole life?

You make too little of sin and not enough of Christ. Hell isn't an over-reaction on God's part, but a declaration of, or a testimony to, the seriousness of our sin. Hell is awful because our sin is awful. Its eternal duration speaks to the heinous degree of our wickedness in defying an infinite God.

Compared to a perfectly holy God no one is good enough. But this is the standard by which we are judged acceptable to God and allowed to enter heaven. God has made a way through Christ to make us acceptable to Himself, and apart from Christ there is no other way.

is that peaceful at all, or was forgiveness just not something that could be done?

We can have peace with God through Christ. God didn't have to make such a way possible to us, but because of His great love and mercy He has. There is forgiveness for anyone if they will take it.

now, thirdly, jesus died for our sins. why? could god truly not forgive the sinners?

Yes, He could forgive sinners, and He did - but only after a sacrifice for their sin had been made on their behalf.

i consider not trying to prevent evil an evil itself.

Oh? Are you perfect? Have you never sinned? If not, are you not then guilty of failing to prevent evil in your own life?

why did two sins (murder of christ, gods allowance of said murder) need to be committed in order for all sin to be forgiven?

As has already been explained, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." This is a spiritual law that carries the same force in the spiritual realm as the law of gravity does in the material world. God held Himself to His own spiritual law and satisfied its demand for our sakes.

Christ's self-giving is not sin, however, but the highest demonstration of love. He laid down his life willingly; he was not murdered. As God, Jesus could have commanded ten thousand angels to fall upon and destroy those who were crucifying him. Instead, he silently submitted himself to their savage cruelty so that you and I might be reconciled to God.

surely there is not a single atrocity that is so great, that even it could not be forgiven by anyone, god or not.

Forgiveness stands ready for any who confess their sin to God and turn from it.

Selah.

 

[oi_antz]

Oh? Are you perfect? Have you never sinned? If not, are you not then guilty of failing to prevent evil in your own life?

That is beautiful, aiki, it's so easy for a human to impose their own expectations on God, but to see it from a point of reality requires that we accept God's point of view

 

[drich0150]

the theme of the new testament was about peace and forgiveness. that said, i found several strange things about this theme, and what occurred within the testament itself.

Actually the "Theme" of the NT is the reconciliation of sin between man and God, and as the bible points out this reconciliation does not always bring peace, even though peace is desired. To assume that the jist of the entire new testament is All about peace and forgiveness, is to speak were the bible is silent.

first of all, matthew 10:34 and luke 12:51 both state something to the effect of "I do not bring peace, but division/a sword." stated by Jesus. Why would Jesus say this? can there not be any reconciliation between two or more disagreeing parties? this does not seem at all peaceful to me =(

Again the reconciliation God speaks of is between Man and God. Not man and every religious effort we may endeavor to be apart of. These passages you have pointed out speak directly to those who would choose Christ over the religious standards of his and our time.

furthermore, this points out that Jesus knew that people may have differing or even directly opposing views about Christianity. now above, i acknowledged that the bible was not written by god himself, or it would be a perfect book. but surely, as biased and imperfect as the writers were, could the message not be clear enough for everyone to arrive at the same conclusion upon reading the same thing?

If we all came to the same conclusion then we would have a near perfect religion. God does not want us to worship religion (as the Pharisees did) He wants us to worship Him with all of our Hearts, Mind, Spirit and Strength. Now because we are all different our worship will look a little different to each other.

secondly is the concept of hell, which was also introduced in the new testament. is it right to punish someone eternally for merely not having faith in Christ, despite being a good person their whole life? is that peaceful at all, or was forgiveness just not something that could be done?

This Life is not about reward or punishment. This life has been given to us to prove to ourselves where we wish to spend eternity. Either with God, or separated from Him. Would it be right of God to force someone to spend eternity with Him, that they spent this life putting distance between the two of them?
Heaven is the presents of God No matter what that looks like, and Hell is the absents of Him. What if the description of Heaven and Hell were some how reversed, and Hell was what we know to be paradise, (But no God) and Heaven was a fiery pit (But God was there) Would you still want to Goto Heaven (The Fiery pit) just to be with God?

Now what of all those who do not love God? is it right for God to drag those people into the fiery pit just to be with Him? Then why is it right or just that God do the same if Heaven is the paradise you think it to be?

now, thirdly, Jesus died for our sins. why?

Because we are told that the wages of sin is death.

could god truly not forgive the sinners? i consider not trying to prevent evil an evil itself. why did two sins (murder of Christ, gods allowance of said murder) need to be committed in order for all sin to be forgiven? surely there is not a single atrocity that is so great, that even it could not be forgiven by anyone, god or not.

Just because in your moral economy you have trivialized the Grave nature of even the smallest sin it does not mean God is forced to adopt your specific standards of righteousness. In God's sense of True Righteousness Any and All sin is a death penalty offense. An offense that He Himself paid on your behalf.. If you so accept this payment.

 

[littlelostsheep89]

But why must it be this way? All of your responses are interesting, but don't directly answer my questions. And of course, all of your answers differ, which is quite amusing. Furthermore, these ideas seem to make God quite an infantile being. Even I, a mere human, can forgive someone without requiring a punishment on them.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

But why must it be this way? All of your responses are interesting, but don't directly answer my questions. And of course, all of your answers differ, which is quite amusing. Furthermore, these ideas seem to make God quite an infantile being. Even I, a mere human, can forgive someone without requiring a punishment on them.

I understand your point but it is just a reality that sin must have a penalty. Think about it. When man sinned thorns and thistles began growing on the earth and even nature became corrupted. Sin is just something really dangerous and it is not God's doing to make sin what it is. Sin is just like that and it requires the sheding of blood to be remitted. That is just how it is.

 

[oi_antz]

But why must it be this way? All of your responses are interesting, but don't directly answer my questions. And of course, all of your answers differ, which is quite amusing. Furthermore, these ideas seem to make God quite an infantile being. Even I, a mere human, can forgive someone without requiring a punishment on them.

That is not necessarily true, for every sin generates some resentment in another. Think of a murderer, they generate resentment without doubt. Think of a liar, that generates resentment too. Think of a thief, that generates resentment too. Even if the resentment lasts only briefly, the fact that we have trespassed another causes resentment. This is why sin is not tolerated by God, but rather that sin is ultimately answerable by death, to remove from the world those that cause disrespect to another, and I'm pretty sure your conscience will bother you with some events in your life which have been unfair toward others, I know within myself this is true of me. The crux of the matter is to accept that we are all sinners by nature, we do have a tendency to favor our own desires over that of another at times, and because we have caused another to suffer (regardless if that person is capable of forgiving, it still causes suffering), then we have immediately surrendered our right to live forever. Jesus being the only person who never sinned against another, His sacrifice to attain God's favor was the only way possible for us to become forgiven by God, because God expects us to live respectfully toward Him and others, and when we do become Christian then we also attain the strength by the Holy Spirit to deny our selfish ambitions and thereby overcome sin. It is impossible for us to be sinless without the Holy Spirit present in our lives, the gift of the Holy Spirit is such that we do learn to favor the respect for others over our selfish ambitions and the change is instantaneous the moment we accept Jesus into our lives. Furthermore, the vast variety of words we may choose immediately dictates that when we choose to answer a question, our answer will appear to be different from another's.

 

[drich0150]

But why must it be this way?

Because God said so. When one has ultimate authority, "Because I said so." Should be enough. Understanding comes after acceptance, not before.

All of your responses are interesting, but don't directly answer my questions. And of course, all of your answers differ, which is quite amusing. Furthermore, these ideas seem to make God quite an infantile being. Even I, a mere human, can forgive someone without requiring a punishment on them.

All of the "Different" answers truly point to a forgiving God. We can all agree that their is only one truth, and yet all of these "wrong" answers still allow the believer to be close to God. (Because We are to love our God with all of our being, and not Love our worship/religions with all of our being)

From my perspective the only infantile being here is the one who expects or demands the God of the universe, to think or behave as he would. Can you really not see the Hypocrisy in your "judgment?"

 

[DreamOutLoud]

hey guys! i have had some questions that i cannot get any solid answers to, no matter who i ask. i know the bible isnt perfect, since people wrote it, and edited it, and some bias obviously made it in to some parts of it. i dont care about that. what i do care about is the message as a whole.

the theme of the new testament was about peace and forgiveness. that said, i found several strange things about this theme, and what occurred within the testament itself.

first of all, matthew 10:34 and luke 12:51 both state something to the effect of "I do not bring peace, but division/a sword." stated by jesus. Why would Jesus say this? can there not be any reconciliation between two or more disagreeing parties? this does not seem at all peaceful to me =(

It's out of context. Haven't you ever had a problems with your family/friends etc. because of your faith?
It doesn't say it's a kind of punishment or something. It's just about other people's reaction on faith in Christ. He knew how some peolple react on the Truth.

furthermore, this points out that jesus knew that people may have differing or even directly opposing views about christianity. now above, i acknowledged that the bible was not written by god himself, or it would be a perfect book. but surely, as biased and imperfect as the writers were, could the message not be clear enough for everyone to arrive at the same conclusion upon reading the same thing?

One fragment can contain more than a one message. In case of misunderstanding it doesn't matter if Bible is written by people or God.

secondly is the concept of hell, which was also introduced in the new testament. is it right to punish someone eternally for merely not having faith in christ, despite being a good person their whole life? is that peaceful at all, or was forgiveness just not something that could be done?

For example Catholic theology claims that everyone who hasn't intentionally rejected Jesus can be saved. Not all people heard a whole Jesus' message.

I also don't think about Hell as a punishment. It's a human choice. Does somebody want to be with God forever or not? If not, God can't force him. He gave us free will.

now, thirdly, jesus died for our sins. why? could god truly not forgive the sinners? i consider not trying to prevent evil an evil itself. why did two sins (murder of christ, gods allowance of said murder) need to be committed in order for all sin to be forgiven? surely there is not a single atrocity that is so great, that even it could not be forgiven by anyone, god or not.

It came form God's nature. If he hadn't had to sucrifice His beloved Son, wouldn't he have found an other way? “the wages sin pays is death”.

 

[aiki]

But why must it be this way? All of your responses are interesting, but don't directly answer my questions.

This remark suggests to me that you aren't really carefully considering what we've written to you.

And of course, all of your answers differ, which is quite amusing.

Again, this suggests that you aren't thinking much about what we have written to you. So what if our answers differ? Two people can offer different answers to a question and be quite complementary to one another, filling in parts of the answer the other may have left out or not emphasized. I don't see, then, why getting different answers from us should be "amusing." Such a response merely sounds condescending.

Furthermore, these ideas seem to make God quite an infantile being.

Hardly. If you're going to make such an assertion, it would be a good idea for you to justify it - with more than just your opinion.

Even I, a mere human, can forgive someone without requiring a punishment on them.

So? When did you become the standard by which we judge God's actions? That you can forgive without punishment doesn't mean it is a good idea. It certainly isn't a very just way to do things. Forgiveness doesn't necessarily entail the foregoing of punishment. I can forgive someone for murdering my sibling, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't spend some time in jail for doing so. Actions have consequences and forgiveness doesn't necessarily preclude those consequences from resulting from our actions.

Selah.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

the theme of the new testament was about peace and forgiveness. that said, i found several strange things about this theme, and what occurred within the testament itself.

first of all, matthew 10:34 and luke 12:51 both state something to the effect of "I do not bring peace, but division/a sword." stated by jesus. Why would Jesus say this? can there not be any reconciliation between two or more disagreeing parties? this does not seem at all peaceful to me =(

Hi. If you read the surrounding verses you will see Jesus is not talking about war, or physical violence, but rather opposition that can occur to the message of the gospel. Jesus states that a person must be willing to put him and his message before all opposition, i.e be willing to suffer. This does not go against his other message which states to:

Luk 6:27 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you"

Mat 5:44 "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

secondly is the concept of hell, which was also introduced in the new testament. is it right to punish someone eternally for merely not having faith in christ, despite being a good person their whole life? is that peaceful at all, or was forgiveness just not something that could be done?

The only explination that the bible gives on this is a "maybe", where paul states Rom 9:22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

The point to pick up on here is God "bore with great patience", meaning he waited for as long as he could, did all he could to turn the person to himself, but they still rejected. Some one who is genuinely interested in being a good person will be drawn to the message of the gospel, there are no good people in hell only people who want to do evil.

now, thirdly, jesus died for our sins. why? could god truly not forgive the sinners? i consider not trying to prevent evil an evil itself. why did two sins (murder of christ, gods allowance of said murder) need to be committed in order for all sin to be forgiven? surely there is not a single atrocity that is so great, that even it could not be forgiven by anyone, god or not.

This one is not that easy to explain, I am not sure why God chose this way. I just don't know.

 

[solarwave]

first of all, matthew 10:34 and luke 12:51 both state something to the effect of "I do not bring peace, but division/a sword." stated by jesus. Why would Jesus say this? can there not be any reconciliation between two or more disagreeing parties? this does not seem at all peaceful to me =(

I would say these verses should be looked at in light of the verses about peace, forgiveness and love. So the meaning could be that it will bring division between the moral and immoral.

furthermore, this points out that jesus knew that people may have differing or even directly opposing views about christianity. now above, i acknowledged that the bible was not written by god himself, or it would be a perfect book. but surely, as biased and imperfect as the writers were, could the message not be clear enough for everyone to arrive at the same conclusion upon reading the same thing?

Maybe Christianity is a religion of development?

secondly is the concept of hell, which was also introduced in the new testament. is it right to punish someone eternally for merely not having faith in christ, despite being a good person their whole life? is that peaceful at all, or was forgiveness just not something that could be done?

I also have trouble with the idea of hell. In fact I don't think a hell of eternal (in time) pain exists. A different understanding of hell could be true though.

now, thirdly, jesus died for our sins. why? could god truly not forgive the sinners? i consider not trying to prevent evil an evil itself. why did two sins (murder of christ, gods allowance of said murder) need to be committed in order for all sin to be forgiven? surely there is not a single atrocity that is so great, that even it could not be forgiven by anyone, god or not.

Maybe Jesus died to express the love of God and rose again to prove there is life after death. Maybe God can forgive without death but Jesus' life still had a role to play.

 

[oi_antz]

I also have trouble with the idea of hell. In fact I don't think a hell of eternal (in time) pain exists. A different understanding of hell could be true though.

Yes, hell is the destination in the afterlife for those who refuse Jesus and it is not eternal pain, it is eternal torment at having refused God's offer in light of what is awaiting us at judgment. However, once the judgment of the Great White Throne, those who do not belong to Jesus will be cast into the lake of fire, only because they have disrespected others. Jesus tells us that the goats are those who treat others with less respect than we would treat Jesus, those who are His sheep are those who have treated others's with the same respect we would give Jesus. The essence of this is to show that we are to be Christ-like. Jesus was God incarnate as the example of Christ to humanity, yet He never condescended another nor denied them what they required. If we are to be Christ-like, we must treat each other with the same respect as we would treat Jesus, in essence, treating another as we would wish to be treated ourselves! So while Hell is a temporary holding place where people are excluded from God's presence, the reality of hell is that those there will be forever tormented with their refusals to be Christ-like until the judgment of the Great White Throne, at which time Jesus will finally sort the Christians from the non-Christians and send us to our eventual desitnation (which is either the new earth or the lake of fire). So I agree with you to an extent that hell is not the ultimate reality for non-Christians, but that is the lake of fire. And all we have to do to avoid this is to be Christ-like, in that we will treat each other as though we would treat Jesus (if that is a good thing, otherwise burn!!!)

Matthew 25
The Sheep and the Goats

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”