Funny but also very true.

Well, we all die evetually. Plus it's like everying in life today, for example, if you have sex with animals or little children you get throwing in jail. The bible is just a bit more excessive in its description of the punishment.

Oh my. You're being really silly now. Book of John is a part of the gospel, and contains a lot of the same stories and events that Matthew does. I'm starting to wonder if you've really read and understood what we're talking about.

All Jesus is saying is that the sword, i.e. his words or teachings, will not be acceptable to all, even among people that are friends or of the same family. For example, imagine an Israeli family that for years has agreed that they must hate Palestinians. Then one member of that family starts believing and following the teachings of Jesus, i.e. to love your enemies.

So, you are incorrect, because Jesus and his teachings are peaceful. Conversely, it is people that are generally not peaceful hear or try to apply his teachings that are not peaceful.

Apparently you didn't even read your own source as it does not pull anything from Matthew in its explanation. I begins with just the author talking about Matthew using nothing but his own thoughts, then proceeds to quote from John not once, but 3 times and use those as explanations.

Words don't have deeper meanings; sentences may. This sentence has no deeper meaning and makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that Jesus is not peaceful. His ultimate goal is to spread His concept of truth above all else with no care for those who defy him.

I think it is a complicated question.  You are asking if I would be friends with someone I have never met, who if they lived did so 2000 years ago and all accounts of their words are second hand.

You are a product of the 20th and 21st century so I have different expectations of someone from that period.  Still, if a secondary source told me "DeRev said we should commit genocide" I would have the decency of letting you explain yourself. Afterall, it could be slander or it could have been taken out of context. Perhaps it was parody or you were trying to illustrate a greater point and had a provocative line to get audience attention.  In any event, I'd let you defend yourself or investigate the matter before coming to a conclusion on your character.

So, again, we do not know what Jesus said.  What we know is people years later wrote about what he said.  What was their motivation for doing so? Why do any accounts differ? What does it tell us about the region, culture or era in history?  I ask these things because Jesus can "say" a whole myriad of things to support the speaker's view.

Now, we move to the idea, which can be separated from the man.  If you think this hard to believe I will submit a more recent historical figure: Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson is held up as a scholar and great thinker of his time, his writings are well known and respected and the man wrote "All men are created equal" which is a noble sentiment.  However, because we know much more about Jefferson and his lifestyle we know he owned slaves.  This makes things complicated because we respect his work and detest his lifestyle.  So, we have to understand the period of time he existed in.  It does not excuse the practice, but shed light on how cognitive dissonance in such a matter that "all men" meant "all land owning white guys" and how ideas grow and change based on our own experiences and views.

Turning to the notion "love your enemies" I would have to understand better what the notion of love and enemy meant.  I would counter we should strive to better understand one another, because in the vacuum ignorance thrives and breeds hatred.  Thus, we would move towards the removal of labels such as enemies in discourse.  We may not agree or love one another, but I think becoming a more tolerant society is a reasonable expectation to put upon us as a species.

So, I close saying as I did before that my natural instinct is to be friends with anyone I meet, but I cannot speak to someone shrouded by antiquity and interpretations by others.

No way, man. Not after last time.

Lol what? You're the same person who said I couldn't apply the book of John to this thread topic just a brief while ago?

Contradict yourself much? Lol

I voted yes, but I'm beginning to think that I couldn't.

I have many disagreements with my friends, but at least it's possible that I could convince them. Jesus would believe that every belief he holds comes directly from god, so a conversation with him would probably just be him preaching at me. It doesn't sound like very much fun. He would be a handy person to know, though.

If you're okay using John then look at Revelation 2:22-23. (outlawauron made it clear this was not acceptable to him/her.)

Again, words have no ambiguous meaning by themselves. The sentence can change the meaning.

What is unclear to you about "I have not come here for Peace?"