A quick contradiction in Jesus' teachings, Part II

[Sven]

Since there were no takers in this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=78827), I decided to start this again as a new thread.

Originally posted by Thugpreacha
Hmmmm...so far I have yet to see any contradictions in the teachings of Jesus! You are going to have to do better than that!

You want to see contradictions? OK, let's go (NIV, all emphasis mine):

1 John 2:9-12 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.

1 John 3:15 Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.

versus

Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple."
[Jesus speaking]

Combining Luke 14:26 with 1 John 3:15, we see that one has to be a murderer to be Jesus disciple. Which is, BTW, a nice contradiction to Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder." (directly out of your cherished 10 commandments)

[Boomeister]

I've heard the Christian apologetic argument that this is a translation error or something. That Jesus really didn't mean "hate" but meant "love Jesus more than your family." :rolleyes: These are the same people that say the bible in inerrant. Either Jesus said it or he didn't. They can't have it both ways.
I haven't heard a good explanation for this contradiction. Hopefully a Christian will step up to the plate and answer this one for you. Good luck.

[JTurtle]

Well here's the thing. The emphasis was not so much on hating your family. Obviously that is not what Jesus teaches, because he says to love others like he loves us. However, Jesus was teaching the importance of not allowing anything to take the place of Jesus. If one loves their family more than they love Jesus, they are not his true follower. He used this to emphasize the importance to placing him above all else. You just twisted it to make it sound like a contradiction. However, if you truely understand Scripture then you understand what is being said....love

Jonathan

[Vinnie]

Objections that assume the most rigid form of wooden literalism are not very compelling. This is skeptics annotated bible nonsense. My advice: find a real error that can actually be demonstrated.

And yes, in biblical idiom it is commonly believed that "hate" can mean love less. Scoffing at this notion without providing any reasons why is not a valid way of dismissing it.

Vinnie

[Paul5204]

Sven:

The word translated "hate" also means "to put aside." So a perfectly acceptable translation is: "If any man comes to me and does not put aside his own father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

[Vinnie]

Them ost common interpretation I have found:

Jesus "may" be saying that ethical requirements in the kingdom entail loving your brother and loving your neighbor as thyself. The golden rule standard. Yet the kigdom takes prcedence over all else. If your family gets in the way of the kingdom you have to choose. God and the kingdom first is the verdict.

Vinnie

[Sven]

Vinnie: I only adressed the die-hard literalists (Thugpreacha seems to be one of those), sorry for not making this clear. Regarding other possible interpretations see below.

And if we go by the plain meaning of words, this is a contradiction - especially in the light of the other teachings of Jesus, JTurtle! If you use the other teachings to explain away the plain meaning of words, you do the text no favor. Don't you see the problem here? If a contradiction arises, you wave it away, saying it has to be consistent with the other teachings. This is proving inerrancy by assuming inerrancy, nothing more, nothing less.

OK, let's look at the not-so-literal interpretations. Both Vinnie and Paul5204 provided other translations. Let me first say, I'm willing to accept your interpretation if you can also provide evidence that you're right - and the bible translators were mostly wrong.

After all, at least the NLT seems to agree with you: "If you want to be my follower you must love me more than[1] your own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, more than your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple."

But this doesn't change the fact that most other translations have "hate" in this verse. Is there something in the original Greek (?) which suggest that the NLT-version is more accurate?

[Gregg]

Originally posted by Boomeister
I've heard the Christian apologetic argument that this is a translation error or something. That Jesus really didn't mean "hate" but meant "love Jesus more than your family." :rolleyes: These are the same people that say the bible in inerrant. Either Jesus said it or he didn't. They can't have it both ways.
I haven't heard a good explanation for this contradiction. Hopefully a Christian will step up to the plate and answer this one for you. Good luck. And along comes JTurtle who uses this exact argument. You're a prophet!

[Sven]

Just two points I wanted to address directly:

Originally posted by JTurtle
You just twisted it to make it sound like a contradiction.

Why is quoting verbatim out of the NIV "twisting"?


However, if you truely understand Scripture then you understand what is being said....love

Since Vinnie and Paul seem to have a reasonable explanation for this verse (which they have yet to substantiate) and if we ignore some other verses in the NT, we could perhaps agree that your statement is true for the NT. But if we include the OT, I see no possibility at all to defend that the god depicted there is a god of love.

[Magdlyn]

One explanation:

The "hate your family" line is hyperbole, typical of the writing style of the times. I picked his up in the notes and essays in the Oxford Annotated Bible.

and/or:

There are 2 standards in the Greek Scriptures, one for wandering prophet types like Jesus and his road warriors. Another for more settled yet devout followers, such as people of means like Jos of Arimathea and Mary of Bethany, who monetarily suported Jesus and the 12.


This type of distinction was seen in southern France with the Cathari: the "parfaits," who were ascetic celibates, and the laypeople, who had familes and lower standards of worship and lifestyle, while still being considered devout.

And I got this from The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.

[Vinnie]

And if we go by the plain meaning of words, this is a contradiction -

The "plain literal meaning of words" is not a good hermeneutic. People exaggerrate, use hyperbole, there are different genres like biography, poetry, narrative and so on. We live 2000 years ahead of the Biblical authors who had an ENTRIELY different world view and so on. The chasm between us is immence. Context is important. If you want to know the proper interpretation of something use the historical critical method.

According to Garret (Systematic THeology v. 1 p. 137), "The historical-critical method seeks to interpret a text in view of lexical, grammatical, syntactical, comparative lexical, author-related, literary, comparative religious, secular historical, and other factors or to see the text, as far as possible, in light of its total context and situation."

Garrett went on to say (p. 148): "Either "proof-text" hunting or excessive biblical literalism can lead to misinterpretations of the bible. According to Harry Emerson Fosdick, "to read the books of the Bible without thus knowing their vivid settings is like listening to one half of a telephone conversation."�

Let me first say, I'm willing to accept your interpretation if you can also provide evidence that you're right - and the bible translators were mostly wrong.

Yet you are willing to accept your interpretation without evidence? Why is your interpretation better than mine as a default? You are dealing with an ancient text that needs to interpreted in light of its settings, not in light of your modern ideology and "plain sense of the words" as they appear to people in 2004. The question is, what was the plain sense to those whom Jesus told this to.

On a literal level (if we are dealing extreme literalists we have to use their other standards as well) we can say that a guy who told us to love our parents and our neighbors as ourselves and to love God and then goes on to say hate everyone close to you would be a lunatic. So was Jesus bonkers or is my interpretation more likely?

On another level, I don't see much in the extant documents pointing to Jesus being crazy. But for some wooden skeptics and wooden literalists you might be able to point to his claims to being God, his self suicide, the charges leveled against him that he casts out demons by Beelzebub, his family trying to detain him and Rome crucifying this rabble rouser.might point in your direction. These may, with some wiggling, point in your dierection (on a wodden literalists level).

But I know many of those incidents are not historical and one might be a caricature. Further, two or three of them do not concincingly supoort your case that Jesus was nuts, just different.

At any rate, carry on.

Vinnie

[graymouser]

1 John 3:15
πας ο μισων τον αδελφον αυτου ανθÏ?ωποκτονος εστιν και οιδατε οτι πας ανθÏ?ωποκτονος ουκ εχει ζωην αιωνιον εν αυτω μενουσανLuke 14:26
ει τις εÏ?χεται Ï€Ï?ος με και ου μισει τον πατεÏ?α εαυτου και την μητεÏ?α και την γυναικα και τα τεκνα και τους αδελφους και τας αδελφας ετι τε και την ψυχην εαυτου ου δυναται ειναι μου μαθητης(Apologies to anyone who doesn't see Greek letters here...)

I've boldfaced the verb (the same verb, mind you) - both are the exact same word (different conjugations), and listed in Woodhouse's Greek-English dictionary as μισειν, "Hate." And I've italicized the form of "brother."

So, if it's a translation error in Luke, why not in 1 John? The phrase is identical. Is 1 John warning against hatred? Then why is Luke not speaking of hatred?

The apologetic has a further weakness: Jesus in Luke never says "than me." There is no textual hint that "love less than me" is a good translation for μισει in this passage. Further, assuming this meaning for μισειν is contradicted directly by the 1 John passage, which doesn't make sense at all if it's substituted in. So I think that it's basically special begging to ask for this interpretation.

-Wayne

[Sven]

Originally posted by Vinnie
The "plain literal meaning of words" is not a good hermeneutic. People exaggerrate, use hyperbole, there are different genres like biography, poetry, narrative and so on.

Yes, I know this. Thus this was only addressed to the folks who don't know this and take for example Genesis literally.


Yet you are willing to accept your interpretation without evidence? Why is your interpretation better than mine as a default?

Because when we don't know anything, the plain meaning of the words is the only interpretation we have. Thus I said I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion if you can provide reasons why the plain meaning is wrong - for example a hint from the original Greek.
Edited to add:
And sorry, I have evidence for my position: That the translators of the KJV, NIV, etc. did not change "hate" into something more consistent with your interpretation. And that the Greek does not suggest a different translation (thanks, graymouser!).


You are dealing with an ancient text that needs to interpreted in light of its settings, not in light of your modern ideology and "plain sense of the words" as they appear to people in 2004. The question is, what was the plain sense to those whom Jesus told this to.

That's the reason why I asked you for evidence for your interpretation. I don't insist that the plain meaning of the words is the correct one, only the most obvious.


On a literal level (if we are dealing extreme literalists we have to use their other standards as well) we can say that a guy who told us to love our parents and our neighbors as ourselves and to love God and then goes on to say hate everyone close to you would be a lunatic. So was Jesus bonkers or is my interpretation more likely?

Huh? I suggest to first show that both of these statements are indeed from Jesus. Before this is established, no conclusion at all can be drawn about his mental condition.


Further, two or three of them do not concincingly supoort your case that Jesus was nuts, just different.

I never stated anything like this. My opinion is more along the line that different writers had different opinions what exactly Jesus teached. Or that the plain reading is indeed wrong - which remains to be shown.

[RTS]

In the Biblical verse Luke 14:26, Jesus said "hate" --the same word "hate" used in every other Bible verse which means to to hate, pursue with hatred, and/or detest. If the text meant to say/teach "love less" then the language would have said eactly that. The original Greek word in question used here is "miseo", from the primary word "misos" which means hatred. The Greek word used in the NT Bible for love is "agapao".

King James Version: Luke 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

New King James Version: Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

NASB: Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

Greek to English Interlinear Translation: Luke 14:26

ei [1487] {IF} tiV [5100] {ANY ONE} ercetai [2064] (5736) {COMES} proV [4314] {TO} me [3165] {ME,} kai [2532] ou [3756] {AND} misei [3404] (5719) ton [3588] {HATES NOT} patera [3962] eautou [1438] {HIS FATHER} kai [2532] thn [3588] {AND} mhtera [3384] {MOTHER} kai [2532] thn [3588] {AND} gunaika [1135] {WIFE} kai [2532] ta [3588] {AND} tekna [5043] {CHILDREN} kai [2532] touV [3588] {AND} adelfouV [80] {BROTHERS} kai [2532] taV [3588] {AND} adelfaV [79] eti [2089] {SISTERS,} de [1161] {AND BESIDES} kai [2532] thn [3588] eautou [1438] {ALSO} yuchn [5590] ou [3756] {HIS OWN LIFE,} dunatai [1410] (5736) mou [3450] {HE CANNOT} maqhthV [3101] {MY DISCIPLE} einai [1511] (5750) {BE;}

Check the Strong's Number: 3404... There are 42 instances of verses containing Strong's number 3404 and every one of them is translated "Hate". This is indisputable beyond doubt, undeniable, unambiguous, and unequivocal except to those who are blinded by the rhetoric of out-right LIES in an attempt to try to deflect the embarrassment of what their ¿god savior? actually said and taught. The correct translation is in all of the bibles up to the point where the New Revised Edition was rewritten to cover up this embarrassment.

It unequivocally means Hate!!!

[graymouser]

RTS: Thanks...my Strong's (yes, I have one) is at home. So is it well established that Lk. 14:36 and 1 John 3:15 are mutually contradictory? And the "love less" apologetic / hermeneutic / exegesis is just trying to hide this fact?

-Wayne

[RTS]

Originally posted by graymouser
RTS: Thanks...my Strong's (yes, I have one) is at home. So is it well established that Lk. 14:36 and 1 John 3:15 are mutually contradictory? And the "love less" apologetic / hermeneutic / exegesis is just trying to hide this fact?

Yes, Luke 14:26 and 1John 3:15 are definitely contradictory.


Greek/English Interlinear Translation: 1 John 3:15

paV [3956] {EVERYONE} o [3588] {THAT} miswn [3404] (5723) ton [3588] {HATES} adelfon [80] {BROTHER} autou [846] {HIS} anqrwpoktonoV [443] {A MURDERER} estin [2076] (5748) {IS,} kai [2532] {AND} oidate [1492] (5758) {YE KNOW} oti [3754] {THAT} paV [3956] {ANY} anqrwpoktonoV [443] {MURDERER ouk [3756] {NOT} ecei [2192] (5719) {HAS} zwhn [2222] {LIFE} aiwnion [166] {ETERNAL} en [1722] {IN} autw [846] {HIM} menousan [3306] (5723) {ABIDING.}

[NOGO]

Vinnie
Jesus "may" be saying that ethical requirements in the kingdom entail loving your brother and loving your neighbor as thyself. The golden rule standard. Yet the kigdom takes prcedence over all else. If your family gets in the way of the kingdom you have to choose. God and the kingdom first is the verdict.


Yet again the word of God says something but meant something entirely different.

... and of course thanks to some apologist (Vinnie in this case) we can now perceive its REAL meaning.

In this particular case we are dealing with sectarian thinking.

If all we are told here is that unethical people should be avoided then I would not object. But how can one authomatically assume that all people who do not believe are also unethical. Sects make this equation.

A sect will try and isolate people from their friends and family.
That is the only way to keep them in the sect.

So Vinnie here is trying to justify a stupid statement with sectarian nonsense.

I have trouble deciding which I object to the most.

[Boomeister]

I'm assuming sectarian thinking is similar to cult thinking?
I agree.
Jesus told one of his followers to forsake his father (or maybe another male relative ???) by not burying him. "Let the dead bury their dead." Whatever in the hell that means. Oops, sorry for my un-lady like language there.
He also broke the commandment about honoring your mama. When Mary and his brothers were looking for him, he told his followers that his followers were his mother and brothers.
Sounds very cult-like to me.
And people wonder why many of the Jews during that time were suspicious of this new cult.
Where's the family values?
Of course, if one thinks the end of time is coming, what's the point of family values?...you have a mission to run. I get the impression that Jesus (and Paul also) really did think the end of times were coming so soon that their mission was more important than social stability. Give up your money, forsake your family, and come along.
I wonder how many children were left behind without their fathers and how many widowed mothers were left behind without their sons. How many people decided to not settle down and not have their own families. Sad, really.


Boomeister

[Lord Emsworth]

Hi all!

Is it possible that there is a simple Horse-Cart problem with the interpretations of Luke 14:26? That through the discipleship hate should arise or be kept seems even to a thoroughbred Atheist like me to be completely out of tune with the basic gist of Jesus' teachings.

The apologetic You-should-love-anything-less-than-Jesus seems just like a lame cop-out. Biblical idiom notwithstanding.

I think Luke 14:26 means that those who hate, or do not love, their brothers etc. can/need to be Jesus' disciples in order to be taught that lack of love. And that those who already love their brothers etc. cannot/do not need to be Jesus' diciples.

Does that make sense?

Here's the verse again:
Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple."

[RTS]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
...I think Luke 14:26 means that those who hate, or do not love, their brothers etc. can/need to be Jesus' disciples in order to be taught that lack of love. And that those who already love their brothers etc. cannot/do not need to be Jesus' diciples.

Does that make sense?...

Welcome Lord Emsworth,

You have done exactly what "love less" apologetics have done. You state "I think Luke 14:26 means that those who hate, or do not love,..."; then you build your explanation around the "do not love" theme. If Jesus had meant to say either "do not love or love less" the verse would have been recorded saying exactly that and used the word "agapao". The correct interpretation of the proper translation is exactly what it says; one must HATE father, mother, bother, sister and yourself to become a disciple of Jesus!

What apologetics does is twist and manipulate meanings and words, and keep digging deeper and deeper until they find SOME obscure means for making it say something completely different than what it actually says in order to satisfy their preconceived bias.

When the "resultant meaning" smells fishy, doesn't fit the actual translation, and takes a great deal of effort and contortion to evade the obvious meaning, then it's obviously adulterated. When that square peg just won't fit into the round hole, it's time to question how accurate that exegesis really is.

You are welcome to attribute any meaning you wish to the passage. Certainly, anyone by looking hard enough can find a variety of meanings for any writings that fit their preconceived notions, thus rendering any text MEANINGLESS. Perhaps it would be fitting to say that in seeking the real meaning of the word "hate" we discover those who hate "real meaning". No matter, it doesn't change what the text actually says, and it means exactly what it says.

[Yannis (J'ohn)]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
[B]I think Luke 14:26 means that those who hate, or do not love, their brothers etc. can/need to be Jesus' disciples in order to be taught that lack of love. And that those who already love their brothers etc. cannot/do not need to be Jesus' diciples.

Does that make sense?

Errr... no!

If you check the text after the aforementioned verse, you'll see that Jesus is talking about the sacrifices people must make in order to become his disciples. He's not talking about people being "too good" to become his disciples.

SBS :)

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted Yannis (J'ohn)
Errr... no!

If you check the text after the aforementioned verse, you'll see that Jesus is talking about the sacrifices people must make in order to become his disciples. He's not talking about people being "too good" to become his disciples.

Point taken.

[Johann_Kaspar]

There are many examples of hate in the gospels. It is beyond my understanding that Yeshua is depicted as the "prince of love". People are reading only what they want to read.

[archpaladin]

With all due respect, I must point out an inconsistency:

From RTS:
The correct interpretation of the proper translation is exactly what it says; one must HATE father, mother, bother, sister and yourself to become a disciple of Jesus!

Later in the same post by RTS:
No matter, it doesn't change what the text actually says, and it means exactly what it says.


And earlier on, from Vinnie:
The "plain literal meaning of words" is not a good hermeneutic. People exaggerrate, use hyperbole, there are different genres like biography, poetry, narrative and so on.

The discussion in this post has fallen into the very trap that we set out to avoid when we started: too much literalism and looking at the literal words of the text.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that Jesus did not use the word "hate" when he spoke here. I do, however, mean to suggest what has already been proposed: simply because Jesus used the literal word "hate" when he spoke does not mean that He meant hate in its literal sense. Let's not get caught up in reading the text too literally in this passage. Everything must be evaluated in its context.

With that said - let's have a look at context:

The verses following Lk 14:26 speak about the cost of discipleship. In particular, note v27, which speaks about cross-bearing. Speaking of crucifixion in such a manner, being the horrible death sentence that it was, would almost certainly have brought out a shocking reaction to those who were listening at the time. Hating one's family, parents, and self could have brought about the same type of reaction. This passage is one of multiple occasions where Jesus would say something startling in order to underscore the meaning of what He's trying to get across, namely that being one of His disciple's is not an easy road to follow, and that sacrifices will have to be made.

[Johann_Kaspar]

Originally posted by archpaladin
Now, I don't mean to suggest that Jesus did not use the word "hate" when he spoke here. I do, however, mean to suggest what has already been proposed: simply because Jesus used the literal word "hate" when he spoke does not mean that He meant hate in its literal sense. Let's not get caught up in reading the text too literally in this passage. Everything must be evaluated in its context. Reminds me of an anecdote. Often I am asking some xians even priests about who said that (see Lk 19:27). Nobody could answer that question. Not even the priests I asked. Well I gave them the answer, and invariably the reply went: "That is not true!" So I made them open their gospel and read. And then invariably they said : "Ahhhhhh, but look at the context!" as if the context will make turn the saying in its opposite meaning. Yep, the context here is that Yeshua goes to Hierushalem to be accepted as king.

Another evidence of love: "Race of vipers". Now someone will explain us that those are love words! Yes, not being literally will help quite a lot. Please, make us laugh!

There are contradictions because there are many strata in the gospels written by different authors at different times. Everybody tried to draw the current literature to his party, modifying, deleting, adding. But that is only literature. No hard fact.

[MortalWombat]

Originally posted by Johann_Kaspar
Another evidence of love: "Race of vipers". Now someone will explain us that those are love words!Hey, who wouldn't love to drive in a race with one of these?

http://www.dodge-vipers.com/header.gif

[Johann_Kaspar]

:) :) :)
I for one would not!
Sorry!

[Johann_Kaspar]

Thinking about it, the correct translation in current modern everyday language should read: sons of bitches, hijos de putas...
Lovely, isn't it?

[RTS]

Originally posted by archpaladin
Now, I don't mean to suggest that Jesus did not use the word "hate" when he spoke here. I do, however, mean to suggest what has already been proposed: simply because Jesus used the literal word "hate" when he spoke does not mean that He meant hate in its literal sense. Let's not get caught up in reading the text too literally in this passage. Everything must be evaluated in its context.

With that said - let's have a look at context:

The verses following Lk 14:26 speak about the cost of discipleship. In particular, note v27, which speaks about cross-bearing. Speaking of crucifixion in such a manner, being the horrible death sentence that it was, would almost certainly have brought out a shocking reaction to those who were listening at the time. Hating one's family, parents, and self could have brought about the same type of reaction. This passage is one of multiple occasions where Jesus would say something startling in order to underscore the meaning of what He's trying to get across, namely that being one of His disciple's is not an easy road to follow, and that sacrifices will have to be made.

As we have seen many times before, believers from all levels are willing to stoop to this "out of context" tactic when the passage is embarrassing enough and revolting enough to shatter their cherished beliefs.

The meaning, within the context, is extremely clear. The context shows Jesus telling his followers to hate their families because they distract from full cult-like dedication.

It only becomes complicated to those who do not like what it ACTUALLY SAYS and are faced with the dilemma of justifying some way to change the meaning to something they prefer.

[Yannis (J'ohn)]

Originally posted by archpaladin
This passage is one of multiple occasions where Jesus would say something startling in order to underscore the meaning of what He's trying to get across, namely that being one of His disciple's is not an easy road to follow, and that sacrifices will have to be made.
Really, now?

Then why did he say that "my yoke is easy, and my burden is light"? (Matthew 11:30) :)

I find it more than slightly hypocritical that people are so ready to claim that Jesus telling people to hate their families is clearly a hyperbole, while Jesus telling people to love their neighbour must be taken in its literal meaning. There is no distinction, save that which is made in the mind of the interpreter.

SBS :)

[NOGO]

Boomeister
I wonder how many children were left behind without their fathers and how many widowed mothers were left behind without their sons. How many people decided to not settle down and not have their own families. Sad, really.


Right on!
And how many broken families were left behind throughout the centuries as Christianity spread.

Paul actually says that what is best is to be like him, that is, unmarried. But if you cannot be without sex then it is best to marry. Talk about anti-family.

Now if all Christians of the day had followed his advice there would be no Christianity today and we would all be better for it.

Unless Paul was a complete moron he would have understood that Christianity was going nowhere if people did not marry and make children. This is another strong indication that Paul believed the end of the world to be at hand.

[NOGO]

archpaladin
The verses following Lk 14:26 speak about the cost of discipleship. In particular, note v27, which speaks about cross-bearing. Speaking of crucifixion in such a manner, being the horrible death sentence that it was, would almost certainly have brought out a shocking reaction to those who were listening at the time. Hating one's family, parents, and self could have brought about the same type of reaction. This passage is one of multiple occasions where Jesus would say something startling in order to underscore the meaning of what He's trying to get across, namely that being one of His disciple's is not an easy road to follow, and that sacrifices will have to be made.


One gets the impression that you have written this in order to help your cause. It does not.

You have simply confirmed the literal interpretation of the text.

Basically the text prepares the sect (cult) members for persecution. You need to hate your very life - and of course everybody in it like friends and family.

As I stated the purpose of the sect (cult) is to separate the new members from their environment that is the only way to keep them in the group.

[NOGO]

Today nobody thinks that they need to hate their mother and father to be a Christian.

But when Christianity was a cult this is a simple rule of survival.

Look around. All cult/sects which recruit have similar rules.

It is virtually impossible to convert a whole family in one shot.

Isolation is essential.

[Sven]

The discussion in this post has fallen into the very trap that we set out to avoid when we started: too much literalism and looking at the literal words of the text.

Did you miss it when I said "I only adressed the die-hard literalists" and later "this was only addressed to the folks who don't know this and take for example Genesis literally"?

I totally agree that there are interpretations which manage to wriggle out of the fact that Jesus apparently said nasty words. But if we conceed this, we also have to conceed that

(1) not everything in the bible has to be taken literally
(2) that one can explain away almost any contradiction in any sacred work

or, in short, that the claim of bible-inerrancy is nonsense.


A short, personal note, at the end: I experienced the separating of family members by myself as a teen, when I "lost" my mother to a sect. I have to agree with the postings of others: When you want to establish a cult, you have to separate new members from their family. Worked quite well in my mother's case :(

[HaysooChreesto!]

Darn. It's just too bad that Jesus didn't keep his appointment with "This Generation" so that 2,000 years later we wouldn't have to argue about this stuff.
Do they sell alarm clarks at Xtian book stores?

[Paul5204]

You might wish to consider the parallel version in Matthew:

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

It is from reading Matthew and Luke in conjunction that James Strong reports that, by extension, miseo means to love less.

You might also consider: (1) I love chili cheese fries; (2) I love my wife. Any confusion here about my love for my wife meaning the same thing as my love for chili cheese fries? I thought not.

You might also consider:

Jesus said, "Those who do not hate their fathers and their mothers cannot be disciples of me, and those who do not hate their brothers and their sisters and take up their cross like me will not become worthy of me."

That is saying no. 55 from the gospel of Thomas. As one soul has written re the same:

"This Q1 saying was first in Aramaic. The Greek MISEI in Aramaic is SANA which is an idiom for "set aside." The idiom was not transmitted in the Greek nor from Greek to Coptic." If you want to know why no transmitting....hyperbole.

[Johann_Kaspar]

Originally posted by Paul5204
"This Q1 saying was first in Aramaic. Can you provide the evidence of that?
Thanks!

[Johann_Kaspar]

Originally posted by Paul5204
You might wish to consider the parallel version in Matthew:

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." I think that the "cross" reading here is rising huge problems. If to make guesses, then it could well be a xian forged substitute for "spade" or "sica", for who will - unless with an insane mind - go voluntarily and directly to be crucified? By the way, at the end he had only two followers! According to the available literature. Finally crucified people were not asked to carry a "cross", but only one piece of wood. Another xian forgery.

[Sven]

Originally posted by Paul5204
You might wish to consider the parallel version in Matthew:
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."
It is from reading Matthew and Luke in conjunction that James Strong reports that, by extension, miseo means to love less.

OK, thanks. This it at least kind of an argument. A small (?) problem: The context of Jesus saying this is not the same. In Luke, Jesus is speaking to "large crowds" at no special time, in Matthew it's only the disciples, and the time is special: Jesus sends them out to preach.
Another problem are the verses directly preceding this (the above is Matthew 10:37-39).

Matthew 10:34-36
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn" 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."

(these verse are very well-known, I think)
Do you think this is also hyperbole?


Jesus said, "Those who do not hate their fathers and their mothers cannot be disciples of me, and those who do not hate their brothers and their sisters and take up their cross like me will not become worthy of me."
That is saying no. 55 from the gospel of Thomas. As one soul has written re the same:
"This Q1 saying was first in Aramaic. The Greek MISEI in Aramaic is SANA which is an idiom for "set aside." The idiom was not transmitted in the Greek nor from Greek to Coptic." If you want to know why no transmitting....hyperbole.
Do you have any evidence for this or only the opinion of an anonymous "soul"?

Anyway, can we agree on the first or on both of the points I wrote in my last post? If yes, this discussion should be settled.