Talk:Not peace, but a sword

message: Removed text:
A human born of a mortal woman and the son of a patriach in a nation whose prophets had warned against patriarchy, jesus declined to rise to the throne of israel, dashing his countrymens hopes of overturning the occupying forces. Instead, the son of royalty advocated an approach that confronted his own cultures religious leaders for their idolatry and hypocricy.
I like it, but it needs work to fit the scope of the article - generally we leave articles this specific without much in the way of background - the link to Jesus should do that. -SV(talk) 06:52, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a minor point - can we fix the highlighting? It's SO ugly! Mark Richards 06:53, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: ===I come to bring a sword===
*Jesus here isn't advocating violence- he clearly lays out his stance on violence in earlier chapters when he says to "love thine enemies" and "turn the other cheek". He is saying that truth is so often controversial. Because Christianity often seems from the outside to not be benefitial, people will try to validate the wish that it is false so that they don't feel guilty about doing what they wish, so it will naturally cause much division among people. Many will have to give up things- even be at odds with their family if their family doesn't support their beliefs, like many Muslim-to-Christian converts face. And somethings are going to hurt, like a sword! But everything in life, even the painful, inconvenient, not peaceful things, happen for a reason. They teach us so many great lessons and bring us to depend on God, to lean on him when it hurts. When Jesus came, he set the world on fire! He is telling us that its not a religion of passivity, but of fighting a spiritual battle, being "prayer warriors", figting everyday against what drags us down and what stands against.
*I'm not convinced that an article interpreting a paraphrase of a saying attributed to Jesus in the Book of Matthew, all without a single attributed viewpoint, is a wise addition to Wikipedia. Contains many "facts" (such as this being "the most quoted" phrase, etc. that have no basis.  - Nunh-huh 00:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From Vfd:

message: *Jesus here isn't advocating violence- he clearly lays out his stance on violence in earlier chapters when he says to "love thine enemies" and "turn the other cheek". He is saying that truth is so often controversial. Because Christianity often seems from the outside to not be benefitial, people will try to validate the wish that it is false so that they don't feel guilty about doing what they wish, so it will naturally cause much division among people. Many will have to give up things- even be at odds with their family if their family doesn't support their beliefs, like many Muslim-to-Christian converts face. And somethings are going to hurt, like a sword! But everything in life, even the painful, inconvenient, not peaceful things, happen for a reason. They teach us so many great lessons and bring us to depend on God, to lean on him when it hurts. When Jesus came, he set the world on fire! He is telling us that its not a religion of passivity, but of fighting a spiritual battle, being "prayer warriors", figting everyday against what drags us down and what stands against.
*I'm not convinced that an article interpreting a paraphrase of a saying attributed to Jesus in the Book of Matthew, all without a single attributed viewpoint, is a wise addition to Wikipedia. Contains many "facts" (such as this being "the most quoted" phrase, etc. that have no basis.  - Nunh-huh 00:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[I come to bring a sword]]

message: I'd like to cut the Romans quote down to just verses 20-21, or just 21, or remove it entirely. Comments? One-dimensional Tangent 23:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds good.  excellent work, btw.  Ungtss 23:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. If I cut out anything that you consider important, do put it back. I admit that I don't understand the relevance (to this topic) of that passage. One-dimensional Tangent 00:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: I think this should be retitled Not Peace, but a Sword, Matthew 10:34-39, Luke 12:51-53,14:26-27. This is the name given by Kurt Aland's United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, the current standard reconstructed Greek text, edited by, among others, Bruce Metzger.
It's also the title of a NYT op-ed piece, March 1, 2004, by William Safire:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.20.90 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have belatedly acted on this, but using lowercase: Not peace, but a sword. – Fayenatic London 09:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: retitle

message: Thats a pretty controversial verse, kinda.....
:It's only controverial if you misread it, ignoring its context. Jesus is simply saying that he comes not to allow the status quo ('peace') but to cause change (using the metaphorical 'sword' to divide the flock). It is a powerful statement of His purpose; any controversy is simply a case of mistranslation and misinterpretation. In any case, it is certainly not a call to violence. --137.186.216.108 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matthew 15:4 

message: Shouldn't there be some info on this page about the various different translations of this passage? I'd love to see some analysis of the actual Greek (or Aramaic, or Latin), and I can't help but wonder whether or not this whole thing is just a misread intention that was lost in translation.
:Assuming you're expert in Koine Greek, you can find it easily enough online, or pick up a Greek interlinear Bible. Online: interlinear, interlinear (needs free font), or raw text. They don't always say what text they're using (Nestle, Westcott-Hort, etc), though.
:Assuming you're not and expert in Koine Greek, stop now and don't bother looking at the interlinear stuff--you'll just end up reading the English fragments and interpreting them in un-Greek ways. You're still going to need to rely on existing translations, which are typically prepared by large bodies of people who are experts.
:—One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 04:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:One-dimensional Tangent, shouldn't we be looking for the work of the "large bodies of people who are experts" and simply citing that research in the article? Otherwise it violates WP::OR. Crasshopper (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

text: —Mantovano (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Different translations?

message: There is a less robust but better sourced stub on a  similar verse. Perhaps this could be used uniquely, and the rest of the "interpretation" sourced or removed.74.74.191.241 (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sapiential interpretation 

message: 10-34 is actually a police '10 code' meaning riot  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.185.144 (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting Fact 

message: I agree with User:Mantovano, there can't be a realistic exegesis of a controversial subject like this without considering the original language. Comparing different English translations is much less direct and adds another layer of indeterminacy.
Crasshopper (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original language 

message: "This verse makes it more clear regarding the sword, Jesus clearly says (New International Version ©1984) But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'" (Luke 19:27)"
Jesus is telling a parable, and it's a character in the parable who uses those words. 
"11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’
14 “But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’
15 “He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16 “The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’
17 “ ‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’
18 “The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’
19 “His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’
20 “Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’
22 “His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’
24 “Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’
25 “ ‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’
26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’ ”
I haven't edited the text, just providing some context I think is important.
SicTim (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Luke 19:27

message: Why not divide the article in two sections with the first one presenting arguments about the violent viewpoint and the other talking about the apologetic one? 
It would certainly be better, mainly because the article is about a wildly-discussed topic. 
In addition, it is uncyclopedic to spam the article with the apologetic version and ignoring the other points of views. 
--90.149.188.205 (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not divide the article in two sections with... 

message: About the recent edits made by Editor2020, please, let us make one cut at a time, and then the additions.
I added one edit at a time, carefully, over many weeks.
At first I proceeded cautiously,
knowing Editor2020's presence and editing style.
After three weeks attending to the article,
I felt Editor2020 was accepting my good faith edits
the same way I accepted Jojalozzo's cut.
The amount of material that was recently removed was excessive.
The version that was leftover, with its "massive 19 minute rewrite effort", I had issues with.— CpiralCpiral 05:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I reach too far? At least I didn't strip it to a stub, as suggested above. Sorry, I'll try to do it step at a time. Editor2020 (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: He, he. Thank you. — CpiralCpiral 07:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

text: I see that you're right about violence begets violence and the synoptic problem being poor seed, and I am happy to see them rooted out by you, Editor2020. — CpiralCpiral 07:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Woah, fellas.  What happened here?  This page has clearly been steralized by somebody with an agenda.  There used to be so much info on 10:34, not it's just a confusing sub-heading that minimizes its importance.  Are we okay with people with agendas monkeying with the repository of human knowledge? DigitalPants (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gutted article 

message: I think the part about Richard Dawkins' views are entirely unrelated to the topic of wiki article.
GreenOrca (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Someone with militant atheist views is not going to provide much of value in the discussion other than representing the most extreme viewpoint. He is also not, to my knowledge, a subject matter expert in the Bible or Christianity. 173.2.236.247 (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The part about Richard Dawkins' views

message: I have never seen such a blatant violation of WP:OR and WP:NOT!   We don't do essays in mainspace.   I merged what was useable to The Bible and violence.  I suggest that anybody who cares about this idea develop actual Wikipedia content  (you know, sourced, NPOV, reflecting what mainstream authorities say, and not what pops out of some editor's head) in that article, and if it becomes big enough that it needs splitting out, we can re-fill this article with the split-off content.  Happy to discuss, over there. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  what the heck? 

message: Why was this article gutted of content?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.103.31 (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The content that was removed was unsourced original research.  Content in Wikipedia needs to be sourced from reliable sources - it cannot be editors' reflections on anything. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it a little. Right now this is at least brief and understandable. The sourcing could be a lot better, but I do not have time. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to this article? 

message: This verse is in the context of the subject "variance" ("division"), and should not be detached therefrom.
Also, whether the "peace", or "sword" is "sent" or "brought" is irrelevant to the moral of the passage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.60.146 (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context: "variance"