Does Jesus Love You? Hate Your? Conditionally So?

Reading comprehension? you're one to talk ...

i asked for a specific example. you mentioned Jesus' last moments in the gospels. You made no effort to provide an example of what is different and why you believe why the different gospels contradict each other. Am I supposed to read your mind?

 

You erroneously claimed that I couldn't provide a single example, when truth be told, I had already provided one. What exactly about that is so difficult for you to understand?

His last moments is the example. His last words. The gospels contradict each other.

Is this an example of learned helplessness? Learned stupidity? Is this how the religious maintain their belief that their myth-text is inerrant? By refusing to think and see the obvious?

 

So you're going to based a contradiction claim and throw out the gospels because John's account is slightly different?

Slightly different? Are you able to interpret the Xtian myth-text (XMT) yourself? Or do you think the differences in these accounts from the XMT are "slight" because that is what your religious educators tell you?

For such an important event one would think that both the dialogue would be more accurate (resemble each other) and be more consistent in tone and message.

 

Exactly prodigal. He post a vague, blanket statement, and never gives a real example of what he claims is contradictory. for someone who claims to be such an "intellectual", he forms such a poor argument.

typical and another fail ...

I see nothing in there that is contradicts each other. at worst, one gospel records one statement and the other, another. both could have been said.

 

There are many people on here who have tried their best to answer in good faith (no pun intended). The problem is that the OP isn't honestly asking these questions. The OP is just using them as a way to grand stand about his answers to these questions.
He answered them already. Jesus is dead, so he can't love or hate you. Lock the thread. Evidently the OP found his answers so there is no need for further discussion.

 

I believe I can solve the enigma of the original thread title by quoting the scholarly research of a group of devout seminarians from right here in Austin, Texas:

I know you smoke, I know you drink that brew
I just can't abide a sinner like you
God can't either, that's why I know it to be true that
Jesus loves me -- but he can't stand you
I'm going straight to heaven, boys, when I die
'Cause I've crossed every "t" and I've dotted every "i'
My preacher tell me that I'm God's kind of guy; that's why
Jesus loves me -- but you're gonna fry

God loves all his children, by gum
That don't mean he won't incinerate some
Can't you feel those hot flames licking you
Woo woo woo
I'm raising my kids in a righteous way
So don't be sending your kids over to my house to play
Yours'll grow up stoned, left-leaning, and gay; I know
Jesus told me on the phone today
Jesus loves me, this I know
And he told me where you're gonna go
There's lots of room for your kind down below
Whoa whoa whoa
Jesus loves me but he can't stand you...

That should end the debate, and thank you, Austin Lounge Lizards.

 

Yo,
perhaps you missed that the OP answered his own questions. Jesus is dead so he neither loves nor hates anyone.

 

Nah we're off that, we'd moved on to whether Jesus loves the apostle Paul, or whether John was involved in a massive coverup by changing Jesus' last words from "Into thy hands I commit my spirit" to "it is finished". It was really a "DaVinci Code" sort of revelation - my faith has been wobbly ever since.

 

we'd moved on to whether Jesus loves the apostle Paul....

I have already gone on record stating that Jesus and Paul were not homosexual lovers. What more do you want?

As far as not being able to distinguish or appreciate the differences in the gospels regarding the last words of Jesus, you continue to excel in that arena.

 

so what you're saying is you can't really give an example of how they're actually and really contradictory.

I figured as much.

 

Incorrect. Again, I might add.

You are typical in toeing the devotional party line; parroting back what your religious indoctrinators have spoon-fed you.

You cannot see because you cannot think critically.

This is not a defect which I can cure over the internet.

 

/

this is exactly my point. you throw out accusations of contradiction and that the bible is not inerrant, but you can't (or refuse to) back it up with specific examples.

instead, you come swinging with attacks against our intelligence when we put YOU on the spot. you cower behind a veil of arrogance.

 

It's ok, bay. I understand why you fear the truth; why you are so reluctant to cast the scales of ignorance from your eyes.

The truth will set you free and you are all too comfortable ensconsed in the shackles of your Xtian myth-text (XMT).

I seem to get from your latest post that you are now taking the rather silly position that the XMT is really inerrant? Really?

There are plenty of contradictions residing within the XMT. You can find them, if you want. It is clear that you don't want to do this.

That's ok. We all have to travel the path which god sets before us and which we are capable of travelling. You are not yet ready for this path, the scary, adult path. You like your religion in fairy tale form, where the book is perfect, where you don't have to think. Not having to think seems to appeal to many of the faithful.

I do not cower behind a veil of arrogance. You, however, slink behind a wall of ignorance.

 

that's funny ... most "adults" should be able to back up a claim with a good, educated example and reasoning.

clearly, you do not, so you resort to insults ... like a child, really.

 

Doesn't your XMT tell us to become as little children?

But I have led you to the fountains of knowledge; it is you who choose not to slake your thirst.

I take it that you still persist in your claim that the XMT is inerrant? Fascinating. Group think run amok.

 

OK if someone wants to actually have a discussion, please post and we'll do it. I'm not going to argue with someone who won't answer direct questions, won't supply specific evidence of his claims (excuse me... one really weak one - please tell me that wasn't your "ace in the hole" talking point) and in general has nothing but contempt for the people on this thread.

I would actually enjoy having this conversation with an atheist who didn't feel the need to indulge in personal attacks and was able to think outside the "if I believe it, that proves it" mindset. I know they're out there, they're just not posting on this thread.

 

The self aggrandizing on this thread by Perham1 is unreal. He's like the Ryan Perrilloux of hornfans.

 

There are all kinds of sites on the web that set forth biblical contradictions. Here's one.

That particular list doesn't even discuss the contradiction that I think is the most difficult contradiction. The Gospel of John says Jesus' trial and execution occurred before the passover dinner. Matthew, Mark and Luke present the more "traditional" view that Jesus' trial and execution occurred after the passover dinner.

There are good historical reasons for the contradiction, but the contradiction itself is impossible to harmonize in any sensible way. Thus is inerrancy destroyed.

 

There are several ways to harmonize the accounts. I don't see how you can say there are historical ways to account for the difference but it some how still proves the Bible has an error. Inerrancy does not rely on the absence of any accusations of contradictions. In other words, just because you say there is a contradiction does not mean there is. There either is or there is not. There are ways to understand the accounts which are not contradictory. Therefore there is no threat to inerrancy (see I can do that too).

Here is a footnote from another article. It provides some possible explanation and other sources of reading for those who are interested.

---

 

what are some meaningful contradictions, things that would call in to question the life, death and resurrection of jesus?
some of the details of modern day events vary so why wouldn't they 2,000 years ago?

 

The gyrations of apologetics are there, Monahans, sure.

But in fact John plainly says,in paraphrase, "before passover," and the others plainly say, in paraphrase, "after passover." The different days for Jesus' trial and death are made exceedingly clear from the plain language of the texts, absent external apologetics.

The thing is, the Bible is purported to be "holy" -- the word of god written by human hands divinely inspired. Some believers say god himself actually guided the hands of the original scribes.

The book itself is theoretically directed at two audiences. First, to believers. To reinforce their faith. Second, to non-believers. To persuade them to believe.

Why, then, the need for apologetics? We are here focusing on just one obvious contradiction: the trial and death of Jesus. Seems simple. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are clear: After passover. John is clear: Before passover.

Why is such an all-knowing perfect god so confusing in his "perfect book"? I mean, does the guy really want to save the souls of non-believers or not? Why can't some god who is supposedly perfect say what he means and mean what he says? Why can't a perfect god get his message consistent from tract to tract in the Bible? Why the confusion? Why does god apparently delight in sowing seeds of doubt in his perfect book?

Either god is duplicitous or god is make-believe. Those are the obvious conclusions one must draw from reading the bible, given the huge number of contradictions, and some really bad examples of hateful morality contained therein (bad ideas like god has previously commanded men to commit genocide, to murder babies, and so forth).

Again, why would this all-knowing powerful god create a book with so many obvious contradictions that require believers to come and say, "not really, what it really means is [insert apology here]"? If god is perfect but cannot write a clear, understandable, consistent message (later compiled into a book), doesn't it make sense that god is make-believe?

Well, believers are perfectly fine doing their gyrations, puzzling though those gyrations are to non-believers. Most non-believers are totally bemused when the bible clearly says "A", believers come and tell us the bible actually means "B", and "A" does not equal "B". To non-believers the contradictions of the Bible simply demonstrate that it is merely a compilation of several little tracts written by men at different times and places for different purposes.

Take John, for example. the majority view says it was written years after Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and for a different audience. Most scholars say John was written no earlier than year 90, and others say as late as the year 100. The concerns of the church were much different in year 90 than they were during and shortly after the Jewish rebellion during the years 67-70, around which time it is generally thought Mark appeared.

Truth is, given the obvious contradiction in the trial and death of Jesus, John should have been thrown out of the Bible along with, say, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which was once part of the liturgy of many sects of Christianity. But John wasn't thrown out, and now there is a very real problem, apologetics notwithstanding, with exactly when Jesus was tried and when he died.

So now Christians have to make excuses for what is clearly an irreconcilable contradiction: John says Jesus' trial and death occurred before the passover dinner, and the other gospels say after the passover dinner.

This is, I realize, a dumb question, but Monahans, do you really believe the reasoning you posted upthread in spite of the plain language of the four gospels with respect to Jesus trial and death? It's certainly okay that you do, but I suggest to you that non-believers have a whole lot of hesitation accepting the apologetics that says to the world, in effect, ignore what the gospels actually say and believe this external interpretation of what we want you to believe the gospels really mean.

Yet you insist your god is perfect. The need for apologetics does not equate with perfection to most non-believers. Apologetics suggest "make-believe" to most non-believers.

Admiral: I completely agree with your point about events being confusing, and recorded history sometimes being contradictory. Take the death of bin Laden this week, for example -- his wife was shielding him, his wife was not shielding him, etc.

But you miss the whole point of the bible.

Is the bible divinely inspired or not? Is it perfect or not? If god is *really* the author of the bible (through human instrumentality), then you don't get the excuse of "the memorialization of events can contain conflicting information." Does god know exactly what he's writing about or not?

We know today that Obama had imperfect command of the facts regarding the exact circumstances of bin Laden's death when Obama made his speech Sunday night. Does god get confused, too, like mere humans do?

Is the bible inerrant -- is it perfect, consistent, harmonious -- or not? If the bible is not inerrant -- no Christian can afford to concede this point -- then all of Christian theology crumbles.

Take the apology cited by Monahans above with respect to "confusing calenders." What a silly excuse. It's very simple really: Did Jesus break bread at the passover and say, "This is my body . . . ," etc., or not? If Jesus' trial and death occurred on the "day of preparation of the passover", as John maintains, then you don't get to have Jesus' passover comments.

The John gospel wanted to make Jesus a "sacrificial lamb," and wasn't much concerned with the "body and blood" imagery of the other gospels. Remember, a lamb is used during the Jew's passover meal to this very day because it was lamb's blood that the Jews smeared on their houses to cause the angel of death to ignore Jewish homes when the Egyptians' first-born sons had to die (by god's hands, by the way -- innocent boy children killed by god).

The imagery of making Jesus a "sacrificial lamb" was so important to the author of John that he just changed the day for Jesus trial and death. John obviously thought it would be very neat for Jesus to be sacrificed for the sins of the world on the same day the Jews sacrificed their lambs to avoid the death of their first-born in the days of Moses. So John's author just changed the day of death to make it coincide with the day the Jews kill the lambs in preparation for the passover meal. It's that simple.

I mean, seriously, think it through. Is it more likely that god decided to confuse the world as to the day of god's (Jesus') own death, or is it more likely that the human author of John thought it would be really neat to change the day of Jesus' sacrificial death to match up with the day the Jews sacrificed the lambs to fool the angel of death on the passover? Surely god knows the day god died on, right? So why the confusion?

If John was divinely inspired (or written by god guiding men's hands), would god really create such an obvious contradiction (or certainly confusion) regarding such a key day as the day of the trial and death of Jesus? You think "obviously." I think "no."

Ergo, for me, the Christian god is make-believe.

 

XOVER, look there are way to many mischaracterizations, accusations and subjects in your post than I care to address all at once. It would be very confusing to everyone and therefore not worth much.

If you want to discuss the timing of Jesus' trial, then fine. If you just want to vomit all your bile about God onto all of us, then no it's a moot point anyway.

 

Monahans, I must say you make an excellent evangelist.

Good post. Very persuasive, too.

 

There were lots of things he said. All of which I have heard multiple times before. Each subject could be discussion on its own. It would be worthless to try to tackle of them at once.

That is why I offered to continue the discussion for 1 of the subjects.

I can tell you didn't like the vomit comment but I think it succinctly describes what happened. He just poured out all these accusations and assertions at once. It was not a reasoned argument. It was an expulsion of bile against the Bible and the God of the Bible. That's fine. I hope you had fun doing it. But that's what it was.

 

So xover's argument is that all the authors should have all gotten together in a room and written word for word the same thing.

All four gospels are consistent on the days of the week on which event occurred, and we know historically that the Passover was celebrated early by certain groups. At no time do any of the gospels indicate anything other than those facts or anything contradictory to them.

The problem here is that you are so determined to see a contradiction that you insist on a superficial, basic reading and challenge someone to explain. When they do, you just call it "gyrations," challenge the honesty of the answer and claim victory.

It really makes no difference what you think is reasonable. if the Jews had certain among them who celebrated the Passover early, then there is no reason why any of the gospels should be required to include a detailed explanation of the Jewish calendar over an issue they would have understood clearly.