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?"

I don't understand why you tie John and Revelation as one relates directly to the life and teachings to Jesus and the other to John's visions of the end days.

Personal assumptions.

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.

1) He didnt come here for peace - he was born, sacrificed so we can be forgiven for our sins - that is the whole purpose of Christ's Death and Resurrection. "He came to promote the truth and die for our sins" is what the whole teaching of Jesus is preached around the world.

Birth = Spread Truth (Obviously will cause tensions between people, he was taken by those who he offered to give his truth and placed on the cross - peace cannot come from truth because not everyone will accept it as truth)
Death and Resurrection = To save us from our sins (which he knew he had to do since he wanted to do it as a second chance to humanity)

2) Hi, you gave me a verse from revelations (a book that should NEVER be taken in a literal sense), I gave you the meaning of it - you did not mention any other verse especially the old testament verses where they promote stoning or killing. I answered you correctly, not my fault the "truth hurts" to you l0l.

3) Lmao. Truth hurts as I said previously but calling someone irrational because they gave you a response that you dont agree with is irrational itself . Who are you playing with seriously? You didnt come here to find truth or the meaning of verses, you just came here to prove people wrong no matter what their response is whether it be negative or positive - you just came here to derail and put down people who have a different belief other than you.

Also...."Personal Assumptions"? Honestly? I thought you wanted every day people's opinions and responses about their own views and that you enjoyed them?

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5292245

You sure dont seem to be enjoying my views and I dont even like going to Church (i.e. not a fan of organized religion and their practices due to politics/money involved) l0l

Edit: If you dont like the opinions of everyday people / average people - feel free to go to a religious forum/site and debate with those people otherwise you are going to get similar if not the same responses.

In response to your paragraphs:

1)     1- I still think you’re the one complicating things. Maybe I should’tn have used the word “friend”, or maybe I should have asked could you agree with Jesus’ teachings?

2)     2 - Idon’t think there would be any need for explanation. For example, you have never met Hitler, would need him to explain his ideals in order for you to say whether or not you could be friends with him? It’s not very complicated, Jesus = Yes, Hitler = No.

3)      3 - You’re complicating things.

4)      4. Owning slaves in and of itself is not a bad thing. In fact, I believe Jesus teaches that if you’re a slave, then be the best slave you can be. Same as being an employee, be the best employee you can be – don’t cheat your master or your employer. The fact that someone did something bad or even owned slaves doesn’t make them a person that you shouldn’t be a friend. Anyways, with regard to Jesus, my point is that he was all good, not owning slaves or anything like that, so why not say you could be friends with him – unless you can find some dirt on him.

5)      5. You’re complicating things here again. “Love your enemies” means just what it says in everyday language. I agree that it would be extremely difficult to do, but I think there is no ambiguity in what Jesus is asking us to do, whether it’s Nintendo supporters embracing Sony fanboys or Israelis and Palestinians hugging it out, love your enemies means just what it says. Yes it would be hard to do, but is it an ideal that you can agree with.

6)      6. OK, but don’t go around telling anyone that you would first have to talk to Hitler, or any other murderous idealist, before you can decide whether or not you could be friends with him.