Good question, MthGM, and one that has already been asked by many other people. ;-) For the answer, go not to what a whole assortment of different people attributed to Jesus in their writings, but go to the general account of his own personal conduct that can be easily gleaned from studying the many different accounts of his life and comparing them for the commonalities in his actual behaviour.

He did not go about wearing a sword. He did not command an army. He did not encourage his followers to practice violence. He was never noted for attacking anyone with a sword or encouraging anyone else to. When arrested in Gethsemane, one of his apostles attacked one of the arresting soldiers with a sword, and Jesus immediately told him to stop doing that.

Therefore I suspect that the statement which ONE of the many writers attributed to Jesus, saying that he came "to bring not peace, but a sword" was probably either..

1. Made up by that writer to serve some agenda of his own...or

2. It has a symbolic significance not a literal one. The Archangel Michael, for example, in all ancient traditions is spoken of as carrying a sword...a sword which divides between truth and falsehood. Anyone who carries that symbolic sword and uses it by expressing truth and exposing falsehood will be extremely unsettling to people. He will cause them to be confronted with truths that they will probably find uncomfortable! And they will experience inner turmoil...it won't be a "peaceful" process for them while that is happening, because they'll be challenged to move out of their usual comfort zone.

You won't like my explanation, I trust. You'll argue against it. Fine. But your interpretation is just one person's interpretation, and I don't buy it. There's no material supporting it in Jesus' recorded behaviour when he was around other people. It's a little verbal straw you've grasped in the midst of an ocean of information to the contrary, and it carries no weight with me.

Remember: I've stated clearly that I do not think the Bible is without error. I think it has a good deal of error in it. Why should I be surprised that you can find the odd little straw in it to apparently back whatever argument you wish to entertain?