What is the religious defense of this Jesus Christ quote?

[Fake Messiah]

How would theists defend Jesus here? It's my favorite biblical quote when I want to point out that Jesus is a dick.

[Vicki Q]

It’s not a literal sword. Jesus was pointing out the religions are, by their very nature, divisive, and faith in Jesus is very likely to divide families. He clearly wasn’t wrong.

Boru

This is correct.

The clear expectation in C1 Israel was that God would act to free His people. This was generally interpreted that through force of arms the Jews would boot the Romans out, God would return with forgiveness for Israel, and a forever golden age would begin in which Israel would be 'a light to the Gentiles'.

So branch of Judaism appears which claimed that Gentiles were to be freely admitted to the People of God, the God-given Torah was optional and the person who was supposed to free Israel (the Messiah) was in fact crucified. Israel would remain ruled by Rome, and Judaism rebuilt around a dead failure.

This was inevitably going to make the believer extremely unpopular amongst friends and family for effectively betraying country, race and religion. Violence was a likely result. Removal from the family WhatsApp was probable.

Don't forget this was a people of very strong religious beliefs backed up by violence , where groups with identical agendas could be murderously at each others throats (such as the People's Front of Judea vs the Judean People's Front).


The OP may need a new favourite quote.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It’s not a literal sword. Jesus was pointing out the religions are, by their very nature, divisive, and faith in Jesus is very likely to divide families. He clearly wasn’t wrong.

Boru

This is correct.

The clear expectation in C1 Israel was that God would act to free His people. This was generally interpreted that through force of arms the Jews would boot the Romans out, God would return with forgiveness for Israel, and a forever golden age would begin in which Israel would be 'a light to the Gentiles'.

So branch of Judaism appears which claimed that Gentiles were to be freely admitted to the People of God, the God-given Torah was optional and the person who was supposed to free Israel (the Messiah) was in fact crucified. Israel would remain ruled by Rome, and Judaism rebuilt around a dead failure.

This was inevitably going to make the believer extremely unpopular amongst friends and family for effectively betraying country, race and religion. Violence was a likely result. Removal from the family WhatsApp was probable.

Don't forget this was a people of very strong religious beliefs backed up by violence , where groups with identical agendas could be murderously at each others throats (such as the People's Front of Judea vs the Judean People's Front).


The OP may need a new favourite quote.

Paul was SUCH a drama queen.

Boru

[brewer]

How about 2 Kings 2:23-24. I always like this one.

And 2 Timothy 2:11-12.

Don't even get me started on suicidal pigs.

[Ferrocyanide]

The clear expectation in C1 Israel was that God would act to free His people. This was generally interpreted that through force of arms the Jews would boot the Romans out, God would return with forgiveness for Israel, and a forever golden age would begin in which Israel would be 'a light to the Gentiles'.

That is pretty obvious but that expectation is something that is much older than the 1 st century.
Since the jews believe in an intervening god, a god that helps them to defeat their enemies, it is normal for them to have such an expectation.
All children (jews) hear about the wars and victories of their ancestors and they see themselves as the superior culture, the culture with the one true god.

The first story that gives us a clue as to how the jewish mind works is the story of Moses trying to free his people from slavery, from Egypt.
I would say the moral of the story is “Don’t worry about being weak and having a small army. You can beat the scum of the earth because you (jews) are the good guys and the good god, the #1 omnipotent god, is on your side.”

That kind of story is a repeated a bunch of times to the children. It is something that is part of jewish culture.

The expectation of god intervening?
That expectation would be something that is developed sometime after Rome conquered Israel.
The jewish people would be asking “How is it possible for god’s army to lose? How is it possible that a foreign country is ruling over us?”
Such questions would be directed at the priests as well.

In terms of history, in terms of science, we can flush this notion of gods down the toilet.
Priests don’t talk to any god. They would have to use their own minds and make up an answer.
The old answer has always been the same: Shift the blame on the people. “Someone among you must have sinned. Maybe it was that girl who is a prostitute. Maybe it is those guys who have leprosy or are coughing or the blind guy. Maybe it is the guy who has a very lucrative business.”
That is based on the concept of the escape goat.
One goat takes the sins of the people away. The goat is sacrificed or let out into the desert. Think of Jesus getting sacrificed.
The other goat doesn’t carry any sins and is let free in the city. This would be Barabas. Apparently, Jesus is called Jesus Barabas in some old texts. The word has some special meaning.

So branch of Judaism appears which claimed that Gentiles were to be freely admitted to the People of God, the God-given Torah was optional and the person who was supposed to free Israel (the Messiah) was in fact crucified. Israel would remain ruled by Rome, and Judaism rebuilt around a dead failure.

I’m sure that every decade, a new messiah appeared. If he is a good speaker, he can get himself an audience or “students” or “disciples”. Sometimes, you get a few messiahs at the same time and I guess they will argue with each other.

Like I said:
In terms of history, in terms of science, we can flush this notion of gods down the toilet.

In other words, pretty words from a messiah isn’t going to save Israel.
A messiah is just a human. Jesus is not the son of a god.
You need a lot of weapons and a good army to stand up against a big enemy.
Rome will likely send its own soldiers and also countries that are allied with them.

In the end, all wars are based on who has the most resources, the most advanced technology.
When you run out of bombs or bullets or soldiers to operate those bombs and technologies, you lost the war.

[Vicki Q]

How about 2 Kings 2:23-24. I always like this one.

It's a textbook case of understanding the context. This is a little lengthy, so please bear with me.

Firstly, and most importantly, no children were harmed in the making of this story. Or bears, if that's more important to you. It's a story. Children die in stories all the time, and no-one gets irate. Hansel and Gretel? Pied Piper?

Secondly, it's not about baldness. There is no indication anywhere that Elisha went prematurely bald, and he lived long after these events. Elijah had only just gone to heaven, and that context makes it clear that Elisha had done the ritual head shaving that was funeral custom at the time.

Thirdly, the Hebrew words used for 'boys' cover a spectrum from ankle biters to army ready young men. Think 'hoodie'. And lots and lots of them. Not nice if they take agin' you.

Fourthly, the town was a hotbed of religious tension, and the youths were on the God-disliking side. The writer is clearly telling us it's all about to kick off, with 'it' being Elisha's head.

Which explains why the rather odd phrase “Go up, you baldhead!” (ESV) gets used. It's not a normal term of threatening. They're basically saying “You're now going to follow your BFF in departing this earth”.

At which point in the story, God intervenes to protect His servant against His enemies; a bear, which was probably in the woods for the well known reason, and didn't appreciate the disturbance, decides to demonstrate the possible consequences of excessive noise.

It's a parable. It picks up on a number of key themes that occur throughout the OT. God looked after those of His people who were faithful. If God's people bring up their children to oppose God, it doesn't end well. Otherwise, nothing to see here.

[Silver]

I prefer the position of understanding the entire book is the opposite of literal.

[Vicki Q]

And 2 Timothy 2:11-12.

Are you sure that's the right thing?

2 Timothy 2:11-12
Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us.”

Where's the problem?

[brewer]

How about 2 Kings 2:23-24. I always like this one.

It's a textbook case of understanding the context. This is a little lengthy, so please bear with me.

Firstly, and most importantly, no children were harmed in the making of this story. Or bears, if that's more important to you. It's a story. Children die in stories all the time, and no-one gets irate. Hansel and Gretel? Pied Piper?

Secondly, it's not about baldness. There is no indication anywhere that Elisha went prematurely bald, and he lived long after these events. Elijah had only just gone to heaven, and that context makes it clear that Elisha had done the ritual head shaving that was funeral custom at the time.

Thirdly, the Hebrew words used for 'boys' cover a spectrum from ankle biters to army ready young men. Think 'hoodie'. And lots and lots of them. Not nice if they take agin' you.

Fourthly, the town was a hotbed of religious tension, and the youths were on the God-disliking side. The writer is clearly telling us it's all about to kick off, with 'it' being Elisha's head.

Which explains why the rather odd phrase “Go up, you baldhead!” (ESV) gets used. It's not a normal term of threatening. They're basically saying “You're now going to follow your BFF in departing this earth”.

At which point in the story, God intervenes to protect His servant against His enemies; a bear, which was probably in the woods for the well known reason, and didn't appreciate the disturbance, decides to demonstrate the possible consequences of excessive noise.

It's a parable. It picks up on a number of key themes that occur throughout the OT. God looked after those of His people who were faithful. If God's people bring up their children to oppose God, it doesn't end well. Otherwise, nothing to see here.

That's a lot of fancy dancing. Could jitterbug the suicidal pigs next? (Matthew 8:28-34)

Edit: I'm not suprised you validate this as a story, that's all the bible really is. Stories made by humans, nothing more. I hope you understand that makes god and all of it's attributes story also.

[brewer]

And 2 Timothy 2:11-12.

Are you sure that's the right thing?

2 Timothy 2:11-12
Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us.”

Where's the problem?

Apologies, it's 1 Tim 2:11-12. But I think you probably knew that.