a question of respect.

[Jenyar]

Wasn't Matthew originally written in Aramaic and translated to Latin?
Perhaps not, but that was my understanding.
If that's so, what does the Hebrew delineation of love and hate have to do with it?

That website itself offers one possible explanation: A Hebrew Matthew. Aramaic is a dialect of Biblical Hebrew, so their use of idioms would be similar, even though the words used might differ.

Roman Era Hebrew, or Mishnaic Hebrew, has further grammatical influences from Greek and Parsi, mainly through the dialect of Aramaic which was the Lingua franca of the area at the time. - Wiki: Biblical Hebrew

By the early half of the 20th century, before the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls came to light, many scholars tried to reconstruct the New Testament Semitisms as if Aramaic only, albeit assuming several loan words from Hebrew (like the imperative, Hosha` nā "Please, save!" which can only come from Hebrew) (Mark 11:9). However as Hebrew evidently survived as a spoken language throughout Israel's Roman Period, scholars in the 21st century are more cautious. - Wiki: Aramaic​

 

[one_raven]

Thanks for the clarification.
I am too tired to really take it in right now, though.
I'll get back to it.

 

[The Devil Inside]

Reconciliation

and


Did jesus even exist?

huh did he.

honestly did he?

noone can prove that.

prove to me that your mother exists/existed.
you cant. i can just choose to interpret anything you bring as evidence as contradictory to the massive lack of evidence in my mind that such a person could ever exist.
alternately, i could call you a liar and say that any evidence you bring has been fabricated by you to justify the existence of said person.

do you see the dilemma a bit more clearly now?
and no, i am not a christian at all.

 

[(Q)]

prove to me that your mother exists/existed.
you cant. i can just choose to interpret anything you bring as evidence as contradictory to the massive lack of evidence in my mind that such a person could ever exist.
alternately, i could call you a liar and say that any evidence you bring has been fabricated by you to justify the existence of said person.

Silly in the extreme. Even test tube babies require eggs. Perhaps he/she simply sprung up from the ground?

do you see the dilemma a bit more clearly now?
and no, i am not a christian at all.

It's only a dilemma in your mind, delusions not requiring an organized religion.

 

[Jenyar]

Silly in the extreme. Even test tube babies require eggs. Perhaps he/she simply sprung up from the ground?

Maybe he evolved from a single-cell organism?

 

[The Devil Inside]

Silly in the extreme. Even test tube babies require eggs. Perhaps he/she simply sprung up from the ground?.

once i am convinced of the existench of said person, i will discuss how they got here.

 

[SnakeLord]

It would seem that the Aramaic word (sone') has three possible meanings:
1. to put aside
2. to hate
3. to have an aversion to

I often see biblical translators as being some of the most untrusted people on the planet. Seems all that time, energy and study were for nothing. Everyone on the internet seems oh so quick to label those translations as wrong. "Nope, it doesn't mean "hate", they just used that word because they had nothing better to do".

It's not unacceptable to quote the Bible, it's just unacceptible to use a single quote to justify a conclusion that contradicts other (more clear) passages.

All of us know that the bible is vastly contradictory - I need not point that out to you or anyone. What you're doing is turning a blind eye to anything that goes against your view - that you clearly consider an undeniable absolute. I am exploring the text, not my feelings regarding it.

Of course it should be understood that the negative pretty much always outweighs the positive. If Gandhi said: "love thy neighbour" and then said "I am here to cause war and hatred", the latter would be the sentence you would focus on more.

It can be seen a gazillion times in the OT. yhwh seems almost nice at times, ("Hey, here's a woman for you"), but then goes on to drown every single man, animal and plant on the planet. The latter makes the former somewhat redundant. And so I explore these things.

You take it as some form of attack, or some personal hatred of mine for fictional entities - but I suppose you have been trained to think such nonsense.

But it doesn't matter, if you could - for once, please concentrate on the text and answer my questions:

1) Do you deny the statement made by jesus concerning his purpose?

2) If so, are you saying that jesus did come to bring peace?

3) If you concur that jesus indeed said he did not come to bring peace, but a sword - would you not agree that the meaning of such is that, well.. he did not come to bring peace but a sword? (no the sword doesn't have to mean a physical sword - indeed I argued against it meaning a physical sword but descension between family members).

4) If you agree with all of this: jesus came to cause descension between family members instead of peace, would you consider that a nice thing?

5) If you do agree, doesn't all the "love thy neighbour" speeches become meaningless in the light that you wont love thy neighbour because jesus came to cause descension between you?

6) Would you agree that if you do love thy neighbour you are upholding one of jesus' sayings while ensuring his purpose for being here fails?

By your own argument, "I have not come to bring peace but a sword" becomes pretty meaningless when faced with all the "Don't stone prostitutes" quotes.

Not really no. A mass murderer can tell you he loves his mother dearly, but when he also tells you he's killed 50 people, the amount he loves his mother becomes meaningless. The negative will always outweigh the positive. Admittedly I wouldn't stone prostitutes to death, but then I wouldn't argue with them either.

Usually these type of arguments come down to the person with something invested in the contradiction, who will then claim the contradiction is inherent in the text.

A naive Sunday school view. Anyone dare say anything negative about your beloved and the argument changes from one concerned with the actual issue to one concerned about the person stating the issue. Needless to say, if the contradictions didn't exist, you wouldn't be spending such time concerned about the person pointing them out.

The implicit argument is, if my case fails, then so must the case of the text itself. Convinced that it is a "win-win" situation can make someone completely confident and dogmatic about what they're saying, because the argument is self-aupporting.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. This specific argument has weight because jesus said: "I have not come to bring peace". I didn't say it, he supposedly did.

Your case relies on a) reading Matt. 10:34 in isolation

Not exactly. The case simply relies on reading what was said. If I now said "I hate christians", you don't need to know that last month I said "love church goers, they're decent people" - and I'm sure even you would admit that my "I hate christians" statement would take up a lot more of your attention than the "love church goers" statement would.

and b) the interpretation of its use of "sword" without any context, and no argument can be made against it under those terms.

There is context, and it seems we even agree that the 'sword' in question is not a phyiscal sword but a verbal 'sword'.

You claimed "To hate your own children, your mother, your brothers... is clearly what jesus wanted most", without any proof for that outside Matt. 10:34

Much like exodus is the only source of knowing that god killed all the quail eaters. Would you now refute that that ever happened because there is no "proof" of it outside exodus?

You have not explained how you reconcile it with "all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52)

It is reconciled in that one refers to a physical sword, the other does not. You can tell this refers to a physical sword with the statements surrounding it, example:

'one of jesus companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear'.

"my kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36)

I fail to see the relevance of this statement.

or "honour your father and your mother" (Luke 18:20).

..unless you want to be a disciple and get into heaven in which case hate them & leave them.

"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."

"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.."

 

[Jenyar]

I often see biblical translators as being some of the most untrusted people on the planet. Seems all that time, energy and study were for nothing. Everyone on the internet seems oh so quick to label those translations as wrong. "Nope, it doesn't mean "hate", they just used that word because they had nothing better to do".

Yes, the literal translation of the word is "hate", but the nuance of it doesn't exist in Greek or English. They can translate the words quite easily and accurately, but to translate the intention is harder work and more difficult. That's why many Bibles are translated idiomatically, while others are translated literally. If you work with a more literal translation (such as the KJV), you'll have to do the thinking yourself. That's when what Jesus also said becomes much more important to decide what it can and cannot mean.

But it doesn't matter, if you could - for once, please concentrate on the text and answer my questions:

1) Do you deny the statement made by jesus concerning his purpose?

Not at all. He said a few things concerning his purpose, and this is certainly one of them. But he also explained his purpose, which included the fact that though he brought division, he requires us to be peacemakers. Jesus said that he brings with him the time spoken of by Micah, a time of division (cf. Luke 12:49-53). That is because people will necessarily be divided over him, exactly the same way that shining a light on something must necessarily bring out shadows . That effect doesn't somehow change the role of the light - it only emphasizes it further and makes it all the more necessary (Matt. 5:14).

2) If so, are you saying that jesus did come to bring peace?

Not at that time, no. He did, however, come to establish a kingdom for those who are on the side of peace (Matt. 5:9). But the establishment of that kingdom would not be peaceful, and it will divide those who are for it against those who are not. The fact that he came would force people to decide for or against him.

3) If you concur that jesus indeed said he did not come to bring peace, but a sword - would you not agree that the meaning of such is that, well.. he did not come to bring peace but a sword? (no the sword doesn't have to mean a physical sword - indeed I argued against it meaning a physical sword but descension between family members).

Yes, I agree with that meaning, but it certainly wasn't his sole purpose or the ultimate goal of his ministry.

4) If you agree with all of this: jesus came to cause descension between family members instead of peace, would you consider that a nice thing?

No, and neither did Jesus. But sin and divisions already existed before he came (as I'm sure you know), and they weren't nice then, either. The only difference is that these divisions would be over him, and the quote agrees with a few others he gave that warned that whoever wishes to follow him shouldn't have delusions about the possible price to be paid for it here on earth - it wouldn't be comfortable (Luk. 9:58), convenient (Luk. 9:59) or peaceful (Luk. 12:49), and it might even (and in those days, most likely) cost them their very lives (to "carry your cross" literally meant to carry your death sentence with you). Becoming his disciple might require great sacrifice, but those who make the sacrifice voluntarily would have everything returned hundred-fold - but "whoever wishes to save his life will lose it".

5) If you do agree, doesn't all the "love thy neighbour" speeches become meaningless in the light that you wont love thy neighbour because jesus came to cause descension between you?

Not at all - it would be a clearest test for all those "love thy neighbour", "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy" speeches. Your reaction to the division would show which side you're on. If there were never any divisions, laws wouldn't have been required, and nobody would have to follow them.

6) Would you agree that if you do love thy neighbour you are upholding one of jesus' sayings while ensuring his purpose for being here fails?

Like I said, that's when you uphold all of what Jesus required (Matt. 22:39), and where you can also see the very reason for the division. In John 14:27 Jesus leaves his disciples with these important words: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid."

The peace Jesus brings is not a temporary truce, like a ceasefire between good and evil (which is the best "peace" the world has ever been able to offer). Ultimately, there can be no truce between those who continually break the law and those who want to see it upheld despite their own mistakes. Like you said, "the negative will always outweigh the positive", or as Jesus put it "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough" - they can't exist in harmony. Jesus represents the final division between them, but wherever there's a choice, there will be sides.

Not really no. A mass murderer can tell you he loves his mother dearly, but when he also tells you he's killed 50 people, the amount he loves his mother becomes meaningless. The negative will always outweigh the positive. Admittedly I wouldn't stone prostitutes to death, but then I wouldn't argue with them either.

I rest my case. You can't serve God and still pray to the household gods or to Caesar. If you want to be able to say you love God with your heart, mind and soul, there can't be any compromise. It's still that way in many Near East countries. If you become a Christian there, your father usually disowns you and your family might even try to kill you. We've seen one or two such refugees in our church - always under an assumed name. They know what Jesus meant, because they've actually had to pay such a high price for following him.

 

[one_raven]

I often see biblical translators as being some of the most untrusted people on the planet. Seems all that time, energy and study were for nothing. Everyone on the internet seems oh so quick to label those translations as wrong. "Nope, it doesn't mean "hate", they just used that word because they had nothing better to do".

I agree that translations, especially from people with agendas, are often dubious.
However, I have often seen you use internet sources as alternate translations to what has been offered in the Bible, and I do not see, in this case, you offering any refutation of the translation.
You know for a fact the Bible has been atrociously translated in many situations )especially the Jing James).
I don't know ancient Aramaic, nor anyone who does.
What I have to go by is translations I read, and corroborating sources that offer a translation that clearly and closely aligns with the rest of Jesus' teachings in context.
What you have is completely at odds with the rest of what Jesus had to say and, if it weren;t for you trying to make a point, you would look at it in context and think it is an error at least and a ofrgery at most.
Why jump stright to the conlusion that supports your argument rather than question the translation that makes no sense?
Doesn't sound like a rational atheist intelligent skeptic point of view to me at all.

 

[water]

if you are a christian, and you are friends with someone who isn't a christian, how can you claim to have respect for their beliefs?

Speaking from the other side --

I used to have some Christians friends, so they called themselves. I have rarely felt respected by them.

Those relationships were all examples of me being the codependent of someone with control issues. Otherwise, it was impossible for me to stay in communication with them at all. Those control issues were conceptualized in terms of their Christian beliefs.

 

[water]

Some Christians told me, I quote, "I hope you will one day find Jesus", or "Hopefully, we will inherit eternal life together".

Just think what this is actually saying: "I hope you will give up what you believe now, and accept Christianity."

Christians, what if someone who calls himself your friend, told you they hope you will one day give up what you believe now, and accept some other beliefs and values?
Would you feel respected, appreciated, valued?

 

[Jenyar]

Initially, maybe not (especially if they seem more self-righteous than genuine). But after some thinking I would probably change my mind, because in their own language, they are telling me they wish me the best they can imagine - something they wish for themselves as well. If I resented them for doing that, I would be forcing my belief system on them, by wanting them to play by my rules and feeling upset because they won't. I don't think it's that much worse than saying "good luck" to someone who doesn't believe in luck. I've been wished worse things than someone else's heaven.

Anyway, that's how I would take my non-Christian friends if they wished I would one day "see the light" (or when they talk like I'm missing something). But none of us feel threatened by the other's beliefs, so there's none of the intolerance or prejudice that can make friendships so difficult. I even doubt they would want me to give up everything I believed, since a lot of it has to do with why we're friends in the first place. Maybe it's just the way I pick my friends, but their respect seem to be based more on whether I'm consistent with my beliefs than whether we share the same beliefs. Either way, it would be strange if they really insisted that I "convert", since so few of them are really sure what they believe. That seems to lie somewhere in the future, like some kind of intellectual "heaven" they're sure will be reached someday, and I'm sure they would like to see me there with them.

PS. The point is even more emphasized among Christians who have different beliefs (like over war, evolution, baptism, etc.), because Christians can sure be a judgemental bunch of people, especially if they're not comfortable about the subject. But the trait is universal: people often feel justified to condemn or mock those who hadn't got it "right" in their eyes (even if they don't claim they get it right themselves).

 

[water]

Initially, maybe not (especially if they seem more self-righteous than genuine). But after some thinking I would probably change my mind, because in their own language, they are telling me they wish me the best they can imagine - something they wish for themselves as well.

All well, were it not that so far, all those Christians delivered their "best wishes and hopes" with the notion that they are right and I am wrong, and that they have every right to correct me and reject me because I don't fit their idea of me.

 

[Jenyar]

All well, were it not that so far, all those Christians delivered their "best wishes and hopes" with the notion that they are right and I am wrong, and that they have every right to correct me and reject me because I don't fit their idea of me.

With all due respect, but that's their problem, not yours. Whether you're right or wrong doesn't depend on what they think, and their rejection will only affect you if their acceptance is important to you. Otherwise you haven't lost anything, have you?

 

[water]

With all due respect, but that's their problem, not yours. Whether you're right or wrong doesn't depend on what they think, and their rejection will only affect you if their acceptance is important to you. Otherwise you haven't lost anything, have you?

I've lost time and energy, being lied to and mislead.

 

[SnakeLord]

Yes, the literal translation of the word is "hate", but the nuance of it doesn't exist in Greek or English. They can translate the words quite easily and accurately, but to translate the intention is harder work and more difficult. That's why many Bibles are translated idiomatically, while others are translated literally. If you work with a more literal translation (such as the KJV), you'll have to do the thinking yourself. That's when what Jesus also said becomes much more important to decide what it can and cannot mean.

I actually use several, and find the majority use the word hate. I am personally under the opinion that if you've got it all worked out, so have the translators - whether you consider it difficult or not, (in which case being that it's so difficult, you'd have less chance of giving an accurate translation than they would).

But by all means give me your opinion on what version you think it best to use.

Jesus said that he brings with him the time spoken of by Micah, a time of division (cf. Luke 12:49-53). That is because people will necessarily be divided over him

Not "necessarily", but specifically. He's jesus.. if he came to bring peace, there would have been no necessary division, but peace - but if, as he claims to be the case, he came to cause division, then division is what will, (and does), happen.

exactly the same way that shining a light on something must necessarily bring out shadows

You consider an analogy between a torch and a supposed god/demi-god as acceptable?

and where you can also see the very reason for the division. In John 14:27 Jesus leaves his disciples with these important words: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives.

He does not give as the world gives because he didn't come to cause himself division, but everyone else.

If you want to be able to say you love God with your heart, mind and soul, there can't be any compromise.

So, you can't compromise the hating your own parents bit either?

-------

However, I have often seen you use internet sources as alternate translations to what has been offered in the Bible, and I do not see, in this case, you offering any refutation of the translation.

You've seen me using the internet? And why would I refute the translation? Surely biblical scholars know more than you or I?

You know for a fact the Bible has been atrociously translated in many situations )especially the Jing James)

I've never read the jing james, but who gets to decide, (considering you can't speak Aramaic and neither can anyone else you know), which version is considered atrocious?

What I have to go by is translations I read, and corroborating sources that offer a translation that clearly and closely aligns with the rest of Jesus' teachings in context.

What I see is his "My way or the highway" attitude is quite rife in the bible as is his teaching for general lack of respect for ones own family.

What you have is completely at odds with the rest of what Jesus had to say and, if it weren;t for you trying to make a point, you would look at it in context and think it is an error at least and a ofrgery at most.

Not really, no.

Why jump stright to the conlusion that supports your argument rather than question the translation that makes no sense?

Much like you I don't speak Aramaic. Who am I to question the translation of people with vastly more knowledge of translation than I? Who are you then to say that the passages I have cited are the wrong translations when perhaps it's just any passage you might cite?

As for 'conclusions'; I have asked several questions etc, and made a few points. In rebuttal I have received various statements telling me the bible is flawed when it comes to those specific passages - and yet have the audacity to talk to me about 'rational' and 'intelligent'. Strange, 'cause it's quite a common occurrence when mentioning anything the devout do not like the sound of. What we end up with is a bible that's basically perfect translation for anything you like, and wrong translation for anything you don't. Certainly seems a bit suspect for me, especially for those that can't even read Aramaic.

 

[water]

With all due respect, but that's their problem, not yours. Whether you're right or wrong doesn't depend on what they think, and their rejection will only affect you if their acceptance is important to you. Otherwise you haven't lost anything, have you?

And one more thing. People influence each other, whether they are currently aware of it or not. We are not zombies, unaffected by what we do to eachother. Of course one is affected by another's approval or rejection. We do not live alone, each one of us all by himself or herself. And neither do we have control over the effect our actions will have on others, and we have only very limited control over the effect others' actions will have on us.

I think many Christians are missing this, expecting me to be a heartless zombie whom they can treat whatever way they want to -- as if I am to be God or Jesus to them, and they have every right to deny me, neglect me, expect, even demand forgiveness of me no matter what they did and expecting that things should be all well between us, regardless of what they have done to me, be ungrateful, lack generosity, shit on me,
-- and then they call their behaviour love, and put it against me if I am not happy with it.

 

[Jenyar]

And one more thing. People influence each other, whether they are currently aware of it or not. We are not zombies, unaffected by what we do to eachother. Of course one is affected by another's approval or rejection. We do not live alone, each one of us all by himself or herself. And neither do we have control over the effect our actions will have on others, and we have only very limited control over the effect others' actions will have on us.

I agree completely. But once we are aware of how people are affecting us, we can decide what to do with that. You don't live inside their minds, so when it comes to your decisions when they're not around, what they think and expect of you is irrelevant. Even if you have been affected and influenced, that alone is not enough to determine who you are and what you do. It's obvious that you realize this from what you say below.

I think many Christians are missing this, expecting me to be a heartless zombie whom they can treat whatever way they want to -- as if I am to be God or Jesus to them, and they have every right to deny me, neglect me, expect, even demand forgiveness of me no matter what they did and expecting that things should be all well between us, regardless of what they have done to me, be ungrateful, lack generosity, shit on me,
-- and then they call their behaviour love, and put it against me if I am not happy with it.

This has nothing to do with Christians, or any other convenient label. You're obviously resisting what you think such people expect from you, and you can obviously see the difference between what they call something and what you call it. You seem concerned about what they consider their "rights", as if that somehow limits you. The way you describe it, they seem to take up all the space in your mind, and you feel like you have none. What they do isn't going to change or go away because it's wrong, and raging against their wrongs - or returning the favour - is not going to protect you against them.

There is nothing that can be "put against" you, as if you had to physically carry people's thoughts on your shoulders. If you're talking about blame, that's a game you can play or avoid. It takes more time and energy than almost anything else, because you can keep playing long after everybody has left.

 

[water]

You seem concerned about what they consider their "rights", as if that somehow limits you.

And it does. They act to extinguish me. This hurts.

 

[Jenyar]

I actually use several, and find the majority use the word hate. I am personally under the opinion that if you've got it all worked out, so have the translators - whether you consider it difficult or not, (in which case being that it's so difficult, you'd have less chance of giving an accurate translation than they would).

But by all means give me your opinion on what version you think it best to use.

Use a few, and inform yourself of the pros and cons of each. Most are more than adequate if you aren't trying to "catch out" the authors and translators between every line. In your case, I would suggest the Amplified Bible and The Message (they're both available at biblegateway.com). If you're really distrustful, learn the original languages and contexts, like ordained ministers are usually required to.

Not "necessarily", but specifically. He's jesus.. if he came to bring peace, there would have been no necessary division, but peace - but if, as he claims to be the case, he came to cause division, then division is what will, (and does), happen.

You sound very sure of that. How many religious and political leaders came promising peace, with just the opposite effect? Jesus was honest about what would happen. He did not come to bring the kind of peace that people would like a great figure to "bring" - because that will only happen when everybody believes the same thing, or when everybody spontaniously strip themselves of all beliefs - including the belief that peace is better than whatever we have now, because that's an ideology that causes division. I dont' think that's practical.

You consider an analogy between a torch and a supposed god/demi-god as acceptable?

Not a torch, light. It's a metaphor used for God and truth throughout the Bible, by Jesus himself, and of himself (in John).

He does not give as the world gives because he didn't come to cause himself division, but everyone else.

The world hates any peace that isn't on their own terms, so for the world to have peace, it must come in a different way. From the inside.

So, you can't compromise the hating your own parents bit either?

No, so if I ever had to choose between following them and following God, I would have to leave them behind. That would be my cross. The same for my own life and comfort (see Luke 14:26-27 and John 12:25-26 in The Message).