1 of 2
1
Jesus is all about the love
Posted: 16 May 2018 01:44 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4508
Joined  2009-10-21

Not sure if anyone will appreciate this, but, just in case you see it and what a ready response.

Someone put this up in facebook. Sounds like The New Testament is just full of love. Until you look at the context. The NT has lengthy passages explaining how you get salvation, how you should hate your body and give your mind to God. And it mentions love now and then.

Here’s the context for these:

    John 13:34,35 – This one is actually pretty clear, but it’s isolated. Keep reading.
    John 15:12,17 – verse 14 “You are my friends if you do what I command”
    Romans 13:8 – My favorite verse (not sarcasm). It specifically says the Old Testament covenant is overridden by love. Jesus, on the other hand, often says we should keep the old laws.
    1 Thess 3:12 – It’s a blessing from Paul.
    1 Thess 4:9 – Paul’s interpretation.
    1 Peter 3:8 – Okay, but it’s preceded by him saying wives should submit to their husbands. So, we get to cherry pick? Are we deciding for ourselves what “love” is? Then why do we need the Bible?
    1 Peter 4:8 – verse 7 “the end is near”. Verse 6 the gospel was preached so that they might be judged. It says to love, but for the worst possible reason.
    1 John 3:11 – verse 10 talks of dividing children of god and children of the devil. This is love for your own tribe. Choosing sides is the theme of 1 John.
    1 John 3:23 – To believe in the name Jesus, and love one another “as he commanded us”.
    1 John 4:7 – verse 4 “They” are from the world, “We” are from God.
    1 John 4:11,12 – nothing specific in the immediate verses, but look where we’ve come from to get here. Verse 15 says you have to acknowledge Jesus to get this love.
    2 John 5 – This very short letter also talks of obedience, deceivers and the antichrist.

Image Attachments
LoveVerses_sml.png
Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 May 2018 09:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2297
Joined  2016-12-24

Buddy_christ.jpg

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 May 2018 10:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1664
Joined  2012-04-25

Your thread title is off. It should be the REAL Jesus is all about love, not the one spoken about in the bible. I really wish Jesus would come back. He be embarrassed by all the haters that parade around in his name.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 May 2018 03:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  551
Joined  2011-09-13

Thanks but I read the book, every word of it long ago and rejected it but I am fond of what Jefferson did to his.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 May 2018 09:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4508
Joined  2009-10-21
CuthbertJ - 17 May 2018 10:15 AM

Your thread title is off. It should be the REAL Jesus is all about love, not the one spoken about in the bible. I really wish Jesus would come back. He be embarrassed by all the haters that parade around in his name.

The theme of my providing context is that Jesus is not about the love, according to the Bible. So if the Bible got it wrong, what source are you using?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2018 01:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  179
Joined  2017-09-01
Lausten - 17 May 2018 09:22 PM
CuthbertJ - 17 May 2018 10:15 AM

Your thread title is off. It should be the REAL Jesus is all about love, not the one spoken about in the bible. I really wish Jesus would come back. He be embarrassed by all the haters that parade around in his name.

The theme of my providing context is that Jesus is not about the love, according to the Bible. So if the Bible got it wrong, what source are you using?

Religiously ideal Jesus is about love.

Jesus in the Bible and New Testament is described as last living heir to the overthrown dynasty in Jerusalem, who during his life joined quite popular jewish messianic sect led by John the Baptist.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2018 08:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4508
Joined  2009-10-21
Offler - 18 May 2018 01:16 AM
Lausten - 17 May 2018 09:22 PM
CuthbertJ - 17 May 2018 10:15 AM

Your thread title is off. It should be the REAL Jesus is all about love, not the one spoken about in the bible. I really wish Jesus would come back. He be embarrassed by all the haters that parade around in his name.

The theme of my providing context is that Jesus is not about the love, according to the Bible. So if the Bible got it wrong, what source are you using?

Religiously ideal Jesus is about love.

Jesus in the Bible and New Testament is described as last living heir to the overthrown dynasty in Jerusalem, who during his life joined quite popular jewish messianic sect led by John the Baptist.

I guess you could find that explanation in the Bible. But the one you absolutely cannot miss is that Jesus died for our sins. How that actually works might be a little more difficult, well, impossible, seriously, there’s no way you can find a mechanism for salvation, but there is no way to miss that Jesus says that’s why he came here. In Paul’s letters, it seems to happen all in the spirit world, In Mark, the first gospel written, Jesus is kind of annoyed that he had to bother and his followers don’t seem to be hearing him. In the last one, John, he’s calm and giving longer explanations and most of them are listening intently. Then later you get 1 John and Revelations where it gets weird.

When you say “religiously ideal Jesus”, I hear some “general consensus of mainline Christianity”. Throughout history Jesus has been many things, bringing of the end times, judger of all, one who gives power to armies, and sometimes, about love. But we don’t know what the original Jesus thought, or even if there was one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2018 08:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  179
Joined  2017-09-01
Lausten - 18 May 2018 08:10 AM

I guess you could find that explanation in the Bible. But the one you absolutely cannot miss is that Jesus died for our sins. How that actually works might be a little more difficult, well, impossible, seriously, there’s no way you can find a mechanism for salvation, but there is no way to miss that Jesus says that’s why he came here. In Paul’s letters, it seems to happen all in the spirit world, In Mark, the first gospel written, Jesus is kind of annoyed that he had to bother and his followers don’t seem to be hearing him. In the last one, John, he’s calm and giving longer explanations and most of them are listening intently. Then later you get 1 John and Revelations where it gets weird.

When you say “religiously ideal Jesus”, I hear some “general consensus of mainline Christianity”. Throughout history Jesus has been many things, bringing of the end times, judger of all, one who gives power to armies, and sometimes, about love. But we don’t know what the original Jesus thought, or even if there was one.

Well it takes a sort of a different interpretation of some events. As i found out later that interpretation somehow fits the ideas of secular jewish community in my city.

God = King
Assuming that Egyptians held their pharaohs to be gods in similar manner as emperor of Japan, “Son of god” to me sounds like “son of king”. But of course its just an assumption, based on fact that jewish tribes at least inherited parts of their culture from Egyptians before exodus..

“I died for your sins”
In context of being tortured, and nailed to the cross and addressing the crowd in front of you, not long before you was convinced of being “son of king”, while Judea is ruled for some time by the Romans… I think that his cover just blew because his true identity was being shared by his followers. But also he managed to keep in secret true identities of his closest servants.

New Testament makes a lot more sense when read from such perspective, while you have to remember that he was also a religious leader - regardless he was not the Messiah Emanuel as prophetized.

But first… there has to be made an assumption that its literature of fact, not work of fiction, nor work of religious followers who worked hard to make the story a fairytale. Hearsay of a hearsay… Neverheless I would like to have the opportunity to ask King James, if he was aware about status of Egyptian pharaohs…

[ Edited: 18 May 2018 08:50 AM by Offler ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2018 11:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1664
Joined  2012-04-25
Lausten - 17 May 2018 09:22 PM
CuthbertJ - 17 May 2018 10:15 AM

Your thread title is off. It should be the REAL Jesus is all about love, not the one spoken about in the bible. I really wish Jesus would come back. He be embarrassed by all the haters that parade around in his name.

The theme of my providing context is that Jesus is not about the love, according to the Bible. So if the Bible got it wrong, what source are you using?

Biblical scholars such as Bart Erhman. Most of them agree there really was a person who later was referred to as Jesus. And they’ve even extracted the most likely passages that can be attributed to him. Based on that his message was about love. Of course him actually existing and preaching love has nothing to do with there being a god, etc. At best he was a nice guy who had a mostly positive message.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 May 2018 11:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4508
Joined  2009-10-21
CuthbertJ - 18 May 2018 11:13 AM
Lausten - 17 May 2018 09:22 PM
CuthbertJ - 17 May 2018 10:15 AM

Your thread title is off. It should be the REAL Jesus is all about love, not the one spoken about in the bible. I really wish Jesus would come back. He be embarrassed by all the haters that parade around in his name.

The theme of my providing context is that Jesus is not about the love, according to the Bible. So if the Bible got it wrong, what source are you using?

Biblical scholars such as Bart Erhman. Most of them agree there really was a person who later was referred to as Jesus. And they’ve even extracted the most likely passages that can be attributed to him. Based on that his message was about love. Of course him actually existing and preaching love has nothing to do with there being a god, etc. At best he was a nice guy who had a mostly positive message.

You are making up facts. The consensus is that Jesus existed, you got that right. But you, like most people make this mistake, that is almost the full extent of the consensus. Whether he was a real rabbi, or just someone who taught something is disputed. Where he was born, who his mother was, his family structure, how he got started, nothing is known historically and there is no consensus. The only list of agreements on most likely were his words are completely useless phrases that happen to appear in all gospels. Those are not widely published, because no one cares. He might have been crucified, but so what, a lot of people were.

The most important thing about the consensus is that the Jesus depicted in the Bible is not the Jesus that actually existed. More important, the Jesus that is preached about is even further from that Biblical Jesus. You have no basis for saying anything about his personality or his message. If you do have it, please provide references. Or just one reference.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2018 07:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2297
Joined  2016-12-24

The consensus is that Jesus existed,

I guess one ought to expect people who invest large portions of their own energy and careers studying and discussing the Bible and Jesus - would have a base assumption that ‘Jesus’ had to have really lived.  The details are secondary. 
Of course he lived !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And yes, of course, it’s turtles all the way down. 

Obviously.    grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2018 02:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  179
Joined  2017-09-01

From point of christian religions, there might be such consensus.

But even historians, who are by chance christians are bit desperate when it comes to proving historical existence of a person we call Jesus.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 May 2018 02:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2297
Joined  2016-12-24
Offler - 19 May 2018 02:34 PM

From point of christian religions, there might be such consensus.

But even historians, who are by chance christians are bit desperate when it comes to proving historical existence of a person we call Jesus.

That’s a nicer way of saying it.

I’m such a grumpy old shit.  Excuse me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2018 07:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4508
Joined  2009-10-21
Offler - 19 May 2018 02:34 PM

From point of christian religions, there might be such consensus.

But even historians, who are by chance christians are bit desperate when it comes to proving historical existence of a person we call Jesus.

I think I’ve mentioned before, in David Fitzgerald’s work on the historical Jesus, he surveyed exactly who is supporting the consensus. He found the vast majority are people who work somewhere that requires a faith statement, like a religious college. In other words, if they said Jesus never existed, they could lose their jobs. Yet this consensus is trusted as if these are independent scientists.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2018 08:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  179
Joined  2017-09-01

I see…

Well I meant it in a way that there is a difference between “religious consensus” and “historical consensus”.

But yeah, when there is a question posed “Was there any Jesus” without adding any other context, people tend to agree on that, while they automatically assume the religious context. Much less people would assume the scientifically historical context.

When it comes to religious colleges or “Museums of Creationism”, the answer has to be understood in such context. Partialy they are required to say that, but also i would understand when they would believe it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 May 2018 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4508
Joined  2009-10-21
Offler - 20 May 2018 08:11 AM

I see…

Well I meant it in a way that there is a difference between “religious consensus” and “historical consensus”.

But yeah, when there is a question posed “Was there any Jesus” without adding any other context, people tend to agree on that, while they automatically assume the religious context. Much less people would assume the scientifically historical context.

When it comes to religious colleges or “Museums of Creationism”, the answer has to be understood in such context. Partially they are required to say that, but also i would understand when they would believe it.

That’s what I described in the “Don’t Even” thread, and also the “Simple Fact” post. This so-called consensus is thrown around and abused. On the slightest examination, it is either limited in scope or a complete joke. But it is brought up, presented as evidence, then used to claim that Jesus said and did most of the things in the gospels.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1