General Category > Tamil Bible
அவர் ஏன் அப்படி கூறினார் ?
udaya:
Welcome back to the topic....
மகனுக்கும் தகப்பனுக்கும், மகளுக்கும் தாய்க்கும், மருமகளுக்கும் மாமிக்கும் பிரிவினையுண்டாக்க வந்தேன் - இயேசு கிறிஸ்து.
குடும்பத்தை ஏன் பிரிக்க நினைக்கிறார் ?
Bargavi Ramachandran:
Dear Brother, you missed the whole point in my message.
Lord came into my life, i chose Him. I still choose Him. So i am facing problems and fighting with my family a lot who are idol worshippers. A friend of mine who chose light fought with her father for 7 years cos he was a devote of mother mary.
When Christ comes into your life, and when your family is not with Him. There ll be problems. There ll be fights. That's what this verse says
I came to create problems between family members.
But obeying Lord is important than obeying your parents.
He who loves his parents more than he loves the God is not a child of God.
udaya:
@: Dear Brother, you missed the whole point in my message.
Sorry sister.
@: Lord came into my life, ........................................... mother mary.
I don't want to take your personal situation for a public forum discussion.I just wish you a peaceful life.
@: When Christ comes into your life, and when your family is not with Him. There ll be problems. There ll be fights. That's what this verse says
The verse does not say some of the members of the family were not with Jesus, as you said. Moreover problems "does" exist irrespective of whether the family members are with or not with Jesus (there are real world examples for this). When all the members of the family are with Jesus and if still there are problems,People say it is the hand of Satan.On the other hand , there are idol worshiping families who are living in total harmony and peace. So, I think "taking side with Jesus" shall not be the criteria for dividing the family , as you suggested.
நான் பூமியிலே சமாதானத்தை உண்டாக்கவந்தேன் என்று நினைக்கிறீர்களோ? சமாதானத்தையல்ல, பிரிவினையையே உண்டாக்கவந்தேன் என்று உங்களுக்குச் சொல்லுகிறேன்.
லூக்கா 12 :51
" சமாதான பிரபு " என்று கருதப்பட்ட இயேசு கிறிஸ்து , தான் சமாதானத்தை கொடுக்க வரவில்லை என்று கூறுவது ஆச்சரியமாக உள்ளது .
Bargavi Ramachandran:
Dear brother, hope you re aware of apologetics. I am pasting a research paper here.
Did Jesus Come to Bring Peace—or Turmoil?
by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.
Militant, violent, religious extremists have caused legitimate concern for America’s security. In Palestine, on the very soil Jesus walked, people kill each other in warfare motivated by religion. Do the teachings of Christ authorize or encourage such behavior? In John 14:27, Jesus said: “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” Some have charged that Jesus’ promise of peace in that verse contradicts His message in Matthew 10:34: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.” Did Jesus come to Earth to bring peace—or turmoil?
Based on scriptural evidence, it is indisputable that Jesus wants His followers to have peace. The words “Christ” and “peace” are found together in the same verse no less than 24 times in the New King James Version. Consider Philippians 1:2: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 Corinthians 1:2 reads: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul urged the Thessalonians, “Be at peace among yourselves” (1 Thessalonians 5:13). The message of Christ is called “the gospel of peace” (Ephesians 6:15), and Philippians 4:7 says that the peace of God “surpasses all understanding” and that peace will guard the hearts and minds of Christians. Jesus, Who is called the Prince of Peace in Isaiah 9:6, most definitely came to bring peace.
Could it also be that Jesus came to bring turmoil? Certainly. In the context of Matthew 10:34, Jesus was explaining to His disciples that the Gospel, in some cases, would cause division. A son would believe in Jesus, but his father might not. A mother would believe, but her daughter might refuse even to hear the Gospel. In Matthew 10:37-38, Jesus presented a hard truth: “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.” Richard Lenski offered insight into the implications of the “turmoil” brought by Christ:
The idea is this: if Christ had not come, the earth would have gone on undisturbed in its sin and its guilt until the day of its doom. Now Christ came to take away that sin and that guilt. At once war resulted, for in their perversion men clung to their sin, fought Christ and the gospel, and thus produced two hostile camps. Christ foresaw this effect and willed it. Emphatically He declared that He came to throw a sword on the earth. Better the war and the division, saving as many as possible, than to let all perish in their sin (1943, p. 415).
Many react with hostility to the Gospel. This is not because Christ’s teaching promotes hostility (see Matthew 5:44; 7:12; John 13:14; 13:35), but because Jesus’ teachings are highly controversial. In Matthew 10:34, Jesus did not mean to suggest that His purpose was to bring hostility or turmoil, but that hostility would, in some cases, be an effect of His teaching (Barnes, 1949, p. 115). It always will be the case that some people will respond negatively to Christ’s teachings, for some always will prefer spiritual darkness to the light of Jesus (John 3:19). Christ, Who came to Earth to bring both peace and turmoil, never contradicted Himself.
REFERENCES
Barnes, Albert (1949), Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Lenksi, Richard C. H. (1943), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
udaya:
Thank you for the paper..
The author try to resolve a possible contradiction between John 14:27 and Mathew 10:34.
But he explained Mathew 10:34 based on his OWN assumption . That is what you have already said in your previous reply. Nothing new.
The question is ....is it ok to explain scripture inserting our own ideas ?
BTW...
If we are not accepting an explanation offered , the person who explained accuses us as spiritual blind , negative mind ..etc. The explainer usually think he is right and others are wrong.
Does God's word need an explanation , especially when it is absolutely clear and does not require an explanation ?
OR
Does it require an explanation only when it sounds not right and creates big discomfort ?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version