Knock knock, its God calling

[TrueMacedonian]

It means that people will have conflict with each other like we do on this forum. Those who believe in Jesus will try to spread his word for the benefit of those that don't, and those that don't believe in Jesus will oppose it.

That is your interpretation. Just like the many interpretations and writings in the bible. Here's Luke's version (Luke 14:26 ) http://bible.cc/luke/14-26.htm


New International Version (©2011)
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison--your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.

English Standard Version (©2001)
“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.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"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.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
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.

How's that any different to anything else. What don't you like about it?

Jesus sounds more like a cult leader than the son of God. I think many people don't like these particular passages in the bible. Spreading such a message certainly contradicts the messages of love and sacrafice Jesus preached.

Besides, what does it matter whether you like it or not if that is the reality of existence? Does you not liking it change anything?

It certainly raises eyebrows when you read it from both Matthew and Luke. What is there to like in a message espousing hate?

[lavce pelagonski]

King James version is the only English translation that is accepted by the Orthodox Church the others are too altered an some have books that should not be in there

[Vangelovski]

That is your interpretation. Just like the many interpretations and writings in the bible. Here's Luke's version (Luke 14:26 ) http://bible.cc/luke/14-26.htm


New International Version (©2011)
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison--your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple.

English Standard Version (©2001)
“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.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"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.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
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.




Jesus sounds more like a cult leader than the son of God. I think many people don't like these particular passages in the bible. Spreading such a message certainly contradicts the messages of love and sacrafice Jesus preached.


It certainly raises eyebrows when you read it from both Matthew and Luke. What is there to like in a message espousing hate?

TM, seriously? Please read up on the difference between translation and interpretation and then, most importatntly, literary exegesis. As a historian, this is an absolute must - otherwise, I'm not sure how it is possible that one can competently analyse history from original documents in the original languages.

What you're doing is reading a text written 2,000 years ago completely outside of its context. You need to read it within its historical, cultural, social, political, economic, linguistic and literary context. You need to understand the history, culture, society, politics, economics, language and literary style of the people for whom it was written - not you're understanding of the world 2,000 years later. And you need to stop taking passages out of the context of the chapters they're written in.

This is History 101 and literary exegesis 101. I thought you were a historian?

Every theologist and Biblical scholar, Christian and Atheist, that I have come across interprets that passage the way I said it was interpreted. And the interpretation I provided is not mine - its the interpretation of every serious theologist and Biblical scholar since it was written. You might want to look some of them up.

Besides, Luke is only giving a partial quote here. In this instance, Matthew provides more information. Finally, I see you've ignored the commentaries provided by the source from where you got the verses. If you're genuinely interested in studying the Bible, you might want to start by reading them.

You're also dancing around the pertinent question - So what if you don't like the meaning of these verses? That does not change the reality of God or your salvation. I don't like the fact that I can't fly like Superman, but not liking it does not change the reality of the physical laws we have.

[Vangelovski]

King James version is the only English translation that is accepted by the Orthodox Church the others are too altered an some have books that should not be in there

What books are you referring to Lavce?

Its the Orthodox and Catholic churches that include the apocrypha into their Bibles. They don't claim them to be cannonical, but their inclusion causes confusion among lay readers nontheless.

King James is an old translation in Old English. The new translations are direct translations from original texts, but in modern English. The meaning is the same. The same thing can be said in many different ways.

[TrueMacedonian]

TM, seriously? Please read up on the difference between translation and interpretation and then, most importatntly, literary exegesis. As a historian, this is an absolute must - otherwise, I'm not sure how it is possible that one can competently analyse history from original documents in the original languages.

What you're doing is reading a text written 2,000 years ago completely outside of its context. You need to read it within its historical, cultural, social, political, economic, linguistic and literary context. You need to understand the history, culture, society, politics, economics, language and literary style of the people for whom it was written - not you're understanding of the world 2,000 years later. And you need to stop taking passages out of the context of the chapters they're written in.

This is History 101 and literary exegesis 101. I thought you were a historian?

Every theologist and Biblical scholar, Christian and Atheist, that I have come across interprets that passage the way I said it was interpreted. And the interpretation I provided is not mine - its the interpretation of every serious theologist and Biblical scholar since it was written. You might want to look some of them up.

Besides, Luke is only giving a partial quote here. In this instance, Matthew provides more information. Finally, I see you've ignored the commentaries provided by the source from where you got the verses. If you're genuinely interested in studying the Bible, you might want to start by reading them.

You're also dancing around the pertinent question - So what if you don't like the meaning of these verses? That does not change the reality of God or your salvation. I don't like the fact that I can't fly like Superman, but not liking it does not change the reality of the physical laws we have.

The following is from Hector Avalos' "The End Of Biblical Studies";

Christianity often markets itself as more inclusive and loving than the religion of the Old Testament and Judaism. However, this has required using mistranslations to hide or suppress some of the starker discontinuities between what Jesus taught and what current versions of Christianity want their audiences to think Jesus taught. One of the prime examples is Luke 14:25-26, which the NRSV translates rather accurately as follows:

Now large crowds were travelling with him: and he turned and said to them, "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple."

According to the text Jesus acts more like a cult leader who actively attempts to transfer allegiance from the believer's family to himself. Disciples must hate their parents. This, of course, contradicts the commandment to honor one's parents (Exodus 20:12).

Christian apologists have attempted to annul or lessen the negative connotations of Luke 14:26.

Every theologist and Biblical scholar, Christian and Atheist, that I have come across interprets that passage the way I said it was interpreted. And the interpretation I provided is not mine - its the interpretation of every serious theologist and Biblical scholar since it was written. You might want to look some of them up.

I just found one who says the opposite I guess.

You're also dancing around the pertinent question - So what if you don't like the meaning of these verses? That does not change the reality of God or your salvation. I don't like the fact that I can't fly like Superman, but not liking it does not change the reality of the physical laws we have.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. You can believe everything in the bible if it makes you happy to serve God. The reality you speak of is not the reality of the rest of the population of the world save for Christians whom are as faithful as you.

[George S.]

The end time has not arrived & and that's why god has allowed the devil to roam on this earth.Gods time has not come because it is a time when jesus will rule the earth with love & a lot of things will be accomplished through gods holy spirit.Giving people eternal life is a gift from god.Also the giving of gifts is from god and uless god calls you ,you are none of his.So when you are called by god you will forsake everything ,brother mother etc etc earthly ritches for the glory of the kingdom of god.The kingdom of god is the afterlife made possible by a loving god,the sins paid for by iesus his son dying on the cross.The shedding of jesus's blood on the cross made it posiible for man to become like god,
Man will get everlasting life ,good health,ritches etc if in this life we follow gods commandments accept jesus as our saviour.God will call you & then he will dwell in you with his holy spirit.So man has a glorious future ahead of him provided by a loving father & god.Man will eventually realize his potential when he becomes part of the god family.Infused within by gods ever giving life.It's possible by loving father for his children.Yes the devil is on this earth as its ruler but jesus will come back to banish the devil so that he can't deceive people anymore.People will know then god who is the real ruler of the universe wiil take over.People who have faith need not fear only those who doubt god's written book the bible.These people are deceived in the false beleif that they can doubt god or that god doesn't exist.AThey also want proof they want to test god,they want proof.The only proof they will get is from the bible,the bible intreprets itself.What is said on one passage is intrepreted in another.In the new testament on the mount olivet jesus revealed what the prohecies mean & when the sign of the end will come of his second coming. In revelation it was revealed to john in a vision on the island of patmos but the person revealing it was jesus christ.The reason jesus knows when the end will come and when the signs will be.God told jesus what is to happen in the future.

[Vangelovski]

TM, Avalos is a hack. I wouldn't follow in his footsteps if you want to be taken seriously as a scholar. He hasn't done anything more than what you just did - take one verse out of its context and make an unsubstantiated claim, against the consensus of its meaning. What further argumentation or literary evidence does Avalos provide, other than simply making the claim in the hope that the lay reader will fall for his malicious misrepresentation?

What you and Avalos have done is the same as if one were to take the following passage from Herodotus completely out of its historical, social, political and literary context, disregard any attempt at exegesis and then claim the Macedonians are Greek:

Herodotus' quote of Alexander I:

"Men of Athens... Had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Greece I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself Greek by descent, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery.... If you prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the Greek cause, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am Alexander of Macedon."

You wouldn't accept that sort of rubbish (and rightly so), so why take one verse out of the Bible, make no attempt to research it and then claim it as something its not? Again, I thought you were a historian TM? What happened to intellectual honesty, critical thinking and exegesis?

Why do you continue to ignore the scholar's and their commentary from the very source that you obtained the Biblical verse in question? Is it a malicious attempt to discredit Christianity (which you will never be able to do) or a desire to remain ignorant on the matter?

In relation to 'reality', I think you have misunderstood the concept. Reality is what actually is, not what someone perceives it to be. If the human race ceased to exist tomorrow, the earth would still revolve around the sun regardless of whether there was anyone to perceive it as revolving around the sun. What you're saying is that if there was no one alive, the entire universe would cease to exist because there would be no one to perceive its existence. That's just esoteric nonsense.

Whether you believe in the existence of God is irrelevant to the reality of the matter. However, its of utmost relevance to your salvation.

You've questioned the existence of God on many occasions, usually through intellectual dishonesty as you have just done in the previous few posts. I'm wondering whether you are confident enough in your own belief system to explain what it is and then defend it honestly to a robust exposition of it?

[Vangelovski]

For the sake of those that are interested in an explanation of this particular verse, within its proper context, see the short article below. There are more extended explanations for anyone interested. Note my explanation was of the first part of the verse from Matthew and not directly related to this particular verse from Luke.

First, we must take this verse in the context of the chapter. Jesus is teaching His disciples, and like any good teacher, He begins with a truth statement that is hard to understand in order to get His students thinking. Then, He clarifies the difficult truth statement with a metaphor. The truth statement is the confusing verse 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." So, if we don't hate our family and our own lives, we can't be His disciple. But does He mean we are to have real hatred for our parents?

Next, Jesus relates a metaphor about a man who builds a house without counting the cost and finds that he cannot follow through with what he set out to do. He leaves the house unfinished because he cannot pay what is required. Jesus is showing us the explanation to His difficult statement—that we must count the cost of discipleship. This is the point of the passage. In order to be a disciple, we must be willing to give up everything for Jesus. Therefore, if our parents will not follow Jesus, or even if they disown us for being Christians, we must still choose Him over them. It is in this sense that we are "hating" our family members who reject the Lord or reject us because of the Lord. This is not easy, and of course it is right that we should love our family members and want our family members to love and follow God. After all, 1 John 4:7-8 says "Beloved, let us love one another for love is from God and everyone that loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God for God is love." And that is only one of many passages commanding us to love others. But despite our love for the people we know, here is the key: if they don't love Jesus, He must still be our first priority. We must esteem Him more highly than the people we love here on earth and we must love Him more than our own lives. In fact, we must love Him so much that our earthly loves pale in comparison, even to the point of seeming like hate.

Second, let's take it in context of other places in the Bible. Matthew 19:29 says, "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life." So, here is the promise: God has required total commitment from His followers, to the point of heart-breaking separation from any natural family members who reject Jesus, but in heaven we will have a hundred times what we lost—an entire family of believers who love Christ and who love us! Even the material things that we had forsaken in order to follow Him will be given back to us in a form a hundred times better than what we lost! So, He is a good God, after all, and, no, He does not want us to literally hate (viciously despise or wish harm to) the members of our family. All we are required to do is choose Jesus over them even if they force us to do so by rejecting Him.

Jesus may have chosen the word "hate" to show us that this is how a mother or father will perceive the actions of a child who chooses the Lord above them. They will see it as disloyal, especially if we try to witness to them. The love of a Christian for a non-Christian is almost always seen as hatred, intolerance, bigotry, etc. But we must be okay with being seen as "hating." After all, our unbelieving relatives are part of the world, and Jesus said, “"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first” (John 15:18).

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/hate-fat...#ixzz2SxrWWhhF

[TrueMacedonian]

TM, Avalos is a hack. I wouldn't follow in his footsteps if you want to be taken seriously as a scholar. He hasn't done anything more than what you just did - take one verse out of its context and make an unsubstantiated claim, against the consensus of its meaning. What further argumentation or literary evidence does Avalos provide, other than simply making the claim in the hope that the lay reader will fall for his malicious misrepresentation?

Avalos is a hack according to you. However he is a biblical scholar who is taken seriously in his field. I will post pages from the excerpt I already provided so you can see why he holds such a position.

You wouldn't accept that sort of rubbish (and rightly so), so why take one verse out of the Bible, make no attempt to research it and then claim it as something its not? Again, I thought you were a historian TM? What happened to intellectual honesty, critical thinking and exegesis?

I don't think you have fully read through what other scholars have stated about this particular passage. As much as you may not agree with Avalos his position is not based on pure opinion.

I'll take it further with another biblical scholar and his opinion on this particular passage:

Why do you continue to ignore the scholar's and their commentary from the very source that you obtained the Biblical verse in question? Is it a malicious attempt to discredit Christianity (which you will never be able to do) or a desire to remain ignorant on the matter?

This is not a malicious attempt to discredit anything or a desire to remain ignorant. I can leave my emotions at the door when it comes to discussions related to biblical matters. I just happened to find it on a google search to show the many variations of the passage.

In relation to 'reality', I think you have misunderstood the concept. Reality is what actually is, not what someone perceives it to be. If the human race ceased to exist tomorrow, the earth would still revolve around the sun regardless of whether there was anyone to perceive it as revolving around the sun. What you're saying is that if there was no one alive, the entire universe would cease to exist because there would be no one to perceive its existence. That's just esoteric nonsense.

That is not what I said. This is what I said in bold print:

It's all in the eye of the beholder. You can believe everything in the bible if it makes you happy to serve God. The reality you speak of is not the reality of the rest of the population of the world save for Christians whom are as faithful as you.

You believe every word in the Bible. Millions of people around the world do not. That is the reality of things. What you believe to be true (Jesus as the Messiah etc.) is not the reality of millions of people around the globe. Especially for those of non-christian faiths.

Whether you believe in the existence of God is irrelevant to the reality of the matter. However, its of utmost relevance to your salvation.

That is your opinion. An opinion not shared by many others.

You've questioned the existence of God on many occasions, usually through intellectual dishonesty as you have just done in the previous few posts. I'm wondering whether you are confident enough in your own belief system to explain what it is and then defend it honestly to a robust exposition of it?

Intellectual dishonesty? LOL. What you deem dishonest others deem historically (and scientifically) accurate. As for my belief system I don't care to go another 20 pages into another endless religious debate. I barely had time to answer your post as it is. I prefer using my precious time on Macedonian matters.

[Vangelovski]

TM,

Bart Erhman is the hack of all hacks and he's been dealt with thoroughly in a previous thread. He can't even get basic facts right. Anyone that wants to know who Bart Erhman is and the quality of his work can do a simple google search.

In relation to 'reality', reality is what actually is, independently of what people beleive it to be or not be.

TM, are you a trained historian? I'm begining to think not. If not, you should undertake some tertiary training or at least find yourself some good textbooks to understand the theory and methodological approaches. In particular, you should study up on exegesis and then use it in your research. Further, you should try to sustantiate the claims you come across - whether they are in books by scholars or on the net by lay writers - by looking at the FULL range of arguments and evidence available. At the moment, you are only looking at views that already conform to your preconceived ideas and in this particular case, views that are plainly wrong - that is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

The only point that Avalos raises is in relation to the word 'hate', its meaning and usage. The rest is logically inconsistent.

There are people like Avalos, who arn't taken seriously in mainstream theology because he only provides PART OF THE ARGUMENT, who stress the meaning of the word "hate" and insist that the word must be read literally, and that Jesus is truly preaching hate.

The problem is, that the Bible uses almost every literary technique knowing to man, including hyperbolic language, to get its point across.

The "softening" of the word, in this context and others, is correct to do -- and is perfectly in line with the context of the ancient world, and the Jewish culture in particular.

Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 98f) points to the use of "hate" in the Bible as an example of linguistic extreme in an Eastern culture. There is no word, he notes, for "like" in the Arabic tongue. "...[T]o us Orientals the only word which can express any cordial inclination of approval is 'love'."

The word is used even of casual acquaintances. Extreme language is used to express even moderate relationships.

Luke 14:26 falls into a category of "extreme language," the language of absoluteness used to express a preference, and may refer to disattachment, indifference, or nonattachment without any feelings of revulsion involved. The closest example comes from Genesis 29:30-1:

And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

Here, "hated" is clearly used synonymously with one who is loved less. If Jacob hated Leah in a literal way, it is hardly believable that he would consent to take her as his wife at all. (See also Judges 14:16 and Deut. 21:15-17.)

Here is another example from Jesus, Luke 16:13:

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

Such extremes of feeling would be atypical, but the extremes are not meant to be taken literally; the point is that one master will get more dedicated labor than the other. Now let's move into some secular works with the same sort of hyperbolic language. Fitzmeyer's Lukan commentary offers this example from Poimandes 4:6 :

If you do not hate your body first, O child, you will not be able to love yourself.

Would critics suppose that this teaches literal hatred of the physical body? It does not - it emphasizes the need to give preference to the whole self before the body alone. Literal hate of the body would have us cutting it with razors or hitting it with blunt objects - an extreme practiced in some Eastern faiths, but not among the Greeks.
Here is another example from a war song in the Poetae Lyrici Graeci (see James Denney, "The Word 'Hate' in Lk. 14:26," Expository Times 21, 41-42): it is said that in battle, men "must count his own life his enemy for the honor of Sparta" - is this a literal hatred of one's own life being taught? No! It is emphasizing the need to make one's life secondary for Sparta's sake. Here's a final example from Epictetus 3.3.5: "The good is preferable to every intimate relation." This is just a more abstract version of Luke 14:26!
Those who think that Jesus is preaching literal hate in this verse are anachronizing.


Below is a more detailed analysis of the passage in question from Walter Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan, 1983). :

Some claim that Jesus taught his disciples to hate their mother and father. If true, that would obviously make Jesus to be an immoral and unethical teacher, immoral, since one of the Commandments is to honor one's mother and father. Understanding the Jewish background to Jesus' teaching puts an entirely different light on his words.

Jesus' statements in question are:

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.' 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.
Matthew 10:34-37

and

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.
Luke 14:26

There are four things that show the real meaning of Jesus' statements:

1. These sayings of Jesus reflect a common Jewish understanding of the day.

Jewish understanding was that the messianic era would be preceded by a time of disharmony in family and social relationships. By these sayings, Jesus was announcing the messianic age and his own messiahship.

In fact, Jesus was quoting from the Jewish prophet Micah who spoke of the messianic age in these terms:

Do not trust a neighbor; put no confidence in a friend. Even with her who lies in your embrace be careful of your words. For a son dishonors his father, a daughter rises up against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies are the members of his own household.
Micah 7:5-6

Micah had been speaking of judgment that was to come upon Judah because of her corruption and moral failure. This judgment, Micah previously said, would take the form of a siege by an outside enemy. In this context, social relationships would fall apart and even close relatives would no longer trust one another. This social deterioration would be the end result of Judah's immorality and sin. In Second Temple and rabbinic Jewish literature, this same passage and similar descriptions characterize the final "day of the Lord."

Beth Moshe claims that in Micah, "the situation is seen properly as evil and not desirable....Jesus, in contrast, says a sword and dissension are his goals." (Judaism's Truth Answers the Missionaries (New York: Bloch Publishing, 1987), p. 203.) But this fails to recognize the background to Jesus' words in Jewish literature. Jesus is not encouraging hate. Rather, he is saying that social networks will be torn apart because of his words and actions--as the end results of the people's sin, not because his goal is dissension.

So then, in much Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period, the Kingdom of God is preceded by a time of dissension such as Micah portrays. The implication of Jesus' words is that he is about to bring in the Kingdom of God, accompanied by this breakup of personal relationships. This happens not because it was Jesus' goal, but because when the Kingdom comes, sin stands out in sharp relief.

2. Jesus in fact reiterated the commandment to honor one's mother and father.

Jesus affirmed the commandment to honor parents in word and action:
For God said, "Honor your father and mother," and "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever help you might otherwise have received form me is a gift devoted to God," he is not to "honor his father" with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition."
Matthew 15:4-6

"If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

"Which ones?" the man inquired." Jesus replied, "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself."
Matthew 19:17-19

For Moses said, "Honor your father and your mother," and "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: "Whatever help you might otherwise have received form me is Corban (that is, a gift devoted to God)," then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.
Mark 7:10-13

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to this mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
John 19:25-27

F. F. Bruce, late Rylands Professor of biblical criticism and exegesis, University of Manchester, England, remarked:

Jesus himself censured those theologians who argued that people who had vowed to give God a sum of money which they later discovered could have been used to help their parents in need were not free to divert the money from the religious purposes to which it had been vowed in order to meet a parental need. This, he said, was a violation of the commandment to honour one's father and mother (Mark 7:9-13).
The Hard Sayings of Jesus (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983), pp. 119-20.

3. Jesus' saying not only announced the messianic age but was a reminder that loyalty to God takes precedence over loyalty to family when the two come in conflict.

This principle is found in both the Hebrew Scriptures and in rabbinic writings.

In The Hebrew Scriptures we find the story of Moses and the tribe of Levi. Levi was the tribe from whom came the priests who taught the Law and led in worship. Moses praises this tribe using language that reminds us of Jesus' statements about family:

"He said of his father and mother, 'I have no regard for them.' He did not recognize his brothers or acknowledge his own children, but he watched over your word and guarded your covenant. He teaches your precepts to Jacob and your law to Israel. He offers incense before you and whole burnt offerings on your altar. Bless all his skills, O LORD, and be pleased with the work of his hands. Smite the loins of those who rise up against him; strike his foes till they rise no more".
Deuteronomy 33:9-11

Moses is not saying that the Levites had no concern for their own parents, nor that they literally failed to recognize their siblings. Honor for parents was part of the Law. Yet family bonds did not take precedence over God's requirements. So Moses praises the tribe in hyperbolic terms. The truth is that it takes mature love rather than hatred to show honor to one's mother and father yet to give precedence to God's requirements.

Samuel Tobias Lachs, Professor of History of Religion at Bryn Mawr College, remarked concerning Matthew 10:37. Interestingly, here we see an example of a case from the Talmud where a teacher takes precedence over a father.

On the greater duty to serve the teacher over a parent, note: "If a man went to seek his own lost property and that of his father, his own has priority; if his own and that of his teacher, his own has priority; if that of his father and that of his teacher, his teacher's has priority, for his father brought him into this world, but his teacher, who has taught him wisdom, brings him into the world-to-come."
A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Hoboken: Ktav; New York: Anti-Defamation League, 1987), p. 188, citing Mishnah Baba Metzia 2:11.

4. The word "hate" in the Bible is often used to express priority and preference rather than emotional hatred.

For example, in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 the word refers to a preference rather than an emotional hatred. The same is true of Malachi 1:2-3.
If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love [literally, the hated wife], when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.
Deuteronomy 21:15-17

"I have loved you," says the LORD. "But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."
Malachi 1:2-3

In addition, the same sense of "hate" occurs in rabbinic literature such as Exodus Rabbah 51:8. See Supporting Statements below:

Supporting Statements

Second Temple and rabbinic sayings concerning family strife in the messianic age.

First Enoch 56:7 (in regard to Israel's enemies; ca. 2nd-1st c. BCE)

And they shall begin to fight among themselves; and (by) their own right hands they shall prevail against themselves. A man shall not recognize his brother, nor a son his mother, until there shall be a (significant) number of corpses from among them. Their punishment is (indeed) not in vain.

First Enoch 100:1-2 (in regard to unspecified "sinners"; ca 2nd c. BCE)

(1) In those days, the father will be beaten together with his sons, in one place; and brothers shall fall together with their friends, in death, until a stream shall flow with their blood. (2) For a man shall not be able to withhold his hands from his sons nor from (his) sons' sons in order to fill them. Nor is it possible for the sinner to withhold his hands from his honored brother. From dawn until the sun sets, they shall slay each other.

Jubilees 23:19 (in regard to a sinful generation among Jewish people; ca. 2nd c. BCE)

Some of these will strive with others, youths with old men and old men with youths, the poor with the rich, the lowly with the great, and the beggar with the judge concerning the Law and the Covenant because they have forgotten the commandments and covenant and festivals and months and sabbaths and jubilees and all of the judgments.

Fourth Ezra 6:24 (in regard to "the end of the age"; ca. 1st-2nd c. CE)

At that time friends shall make war on friends like enemies, and the earth and those who inhabit it shall be terrified, and the springs of the fountains shall stand still, so that for three hours they shall not flow.

Commentator Max Margolis on Micah 7:6 (20th c.)

In the Mishnah (Sotah ix.15) our verse is embodied in a passage descriptive of the conditions which are to obtain in the period immediately preceding the advent of the Messiah (comp. also Matthew x. 35f.; Luke xii.53). Similar thoughts and phraseology occur in the apocalyptic writings (Baruch lxx.3 ff.; IV Ezra v.9; vi.24; Enoch ii) and in the Midrashim (Sifre on Deut. xxxii.36; Pesikta rabbeti, p.4b: 75a, and elsewhere; Derek eres zutta, ch. x; Cant. rabba, ch. ii; comp. also Sanhedrin 97a ff.). The idea underlying these expectations is that evil must have run its course before the good can come. The hope in the triumphant advent of the Kingdom of God is intensified by the very contemplation of the evil as it exists. When the moral corruption is greatest, salvation is surest; or, as the rabbis says, "out of distress cometh relief" (Midrash Shoher Tob on Ps. xxii; Jer. xxx.7 is appositely quoted).

--Margolis, Max L. The Holy Scriptures with Commentary: Micah (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1908).
Samuel Tobias Lachs, Professor of History of Religion at Bryn Mawr College, on Matthew 10:21

Family problems were to be characteristic of the Last Days. . . .It is a very common motif in the apocalyptic literature. E.g., "In that generation the sons will convict their fathers and their elders of sin and unrighteousness . . . and they will strive one with another, the young with the old, the old with the young." "And they shall hate one another, and provoke one another to fight, and the mean shall rule over the honorable, and those of low degree shall be extolled above the famous."

--A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Hoboken: Ktav; New York: Anti-Defamation League, 1987), p. 183, citing Jubilees 23:19 and 2 Baruch 70:3.

Lachs on Matthew 10:34:

The spirit of this deterioration of family relationships is reflected in rabbinic treatment of Micah 7:6, where it is explained as prelude to the messianic coming: "With the footprints of the Messiah presumption shall increase and death reach its height . . . children shall shame the elders and the elders shall rise up before the children, for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man's enemies are the men of his own house. The face of this generation is as the face of a dog, and the son will not be put to shame by his father." Similarly, "And in that generation the sons will convict their fathers and their elders of sin and unrighteousness . . . and they will strive with one another, the young with the old and the old with the young."

--Ibid., p. 186

Craig Keener, Professor of New Testament, Hood Theological Seminary, on Matthew 10:35-36:

The context of Micah 7:6, cited here, describes the awful evils in the land and the untrustworthiness of even the closest relatives and friends that would continue until the Lord would come to vindicate those who hoped in him. Given the belief held by many Jewish people that a time of sufferings would preceded the end, the disciples would probably have understood this saying as suggesting that they were already experiencing the sufferings of that time.

--The IVP Bible Background Commentary (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p. 75.

The word "hate" in the Bible and Rabbinic Literature

F. F. Bruce, late Rylands Professor of biblical criticism and exegesis, University of Manchester, England:

We know that in biblical idiom to hate can mean to love less. When, for example, regulations are laid down in the Old Testament law for a man who has two wives, "one beloved and the other hated" (Deut. 21:15), it is not necessary to suppose that he positively hates the latter wife; all that need be meant is that he loves her less than the other and must be prevented from showing favouritism to the other's son when he allocates his property among his heirs. The RSV indicates that positive hatred is not intended by speaking of the one wife as "the loved" and the other as "the disliked," but the Hebrew word used is that which regularly means "hated," and it is so rendered in the AV.

That hating in this saying of Jesus means loving less is shown by the parallel saying in Matthew 10:37 - "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." In Matthew's Gospel these words are followed by the saying about taking up the cross and following Jesus: the implication of this sequence is that giving one's family second place to the kingdom of God is one way of taking up the cross."

--The Hard Sayings of Jesus (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983), p. 120.

Exodus Rabbah 51:8

By three names is this mount known: The mountain of God, 'Mount Horeb' and Mount Sinai. . . .Why 'The mountain of God'? (Exod. 18:5). Because it was there that God manifested His Godhead. And Sinai? Because [it was on that mount] that God showed that He hates (sane) the angels and loves mankind.

In Hebrew there is a play on words between Sinai and the word for "hate" which is sane'. The footnote in the Soncino edition explains the saying that God hates the angels and loves mankind: "By giving them His Torah, though the angels desired it.--'Hates' is not meant literally, but simply implies that He showed greater love for man."

--Soncino Exodus Rabbah, p. 571.

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Colman M. Mockler Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts:

But these antonyms, ahavah ("love") and sin'ah ("hate"), are also used with a special flavor in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 as meaning the loved one and the hated, that is, the less-loved one. In Greek, the same Semitisms are carried over in the antonymic use of agapan/misein with the same special flavor in Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 "where, in dependence on Dt. 21:15-17 and Ex. r., 51(104) [footnote--on Ex. 38:21 'Why is the mount of the Law called Sinai? Because God disregarded (sane') the lofty and loved (ahav) the lowly'] they mean 'to prefer' ('to be faithful to') and 'to slight' ('to despise'). We have here a Hebraism, as in the requirement for discipleship." This last reference is to the two parallel lists of requirements for discipleship; Matthew 10:37 uses the formula ho philon huper eme, "He who loves . . . more than me," while Luke 14:26 simply parallels it by saying kai ou misei "If any one comes to me and does not hate. . . "

The reference to Esau, father, mother, wife, children, brothers, or sisters is not one of psychological hatred, but one of preference, temporary disregard for higher purposes, and exclusive separation.

In the case of Jacob and Esau, the love of God signaled an election and call for service ("To be a blessing to all the nations") that had not come to Esau. But Esau was not hated as God held evil in contempt, for Esau was the object of deliverance in the end times in Amos 9:12 and Obadiah 19-21.

TM, unless you are prepared to discuss you own views and have them tested, then your intellectually dishonest attacks on Christianity can only be taken as malicious. Further, I don't believe for a second that you would rather focus on Macedonian matters - you always get involved in the whole theism vs atheism debates and on average, you provide much more commentry than you do on Macedonian matters.

Ultimatley, you still have not been able to address the core issue - Even if Jesus was teaching something that you don't like, so what? The reality is (and reality is what actually is, not what is percieved to be) that He is God and He is the only way to salvation. You misconceiving something or not liking something is no excuse for rejecting Him. In fact, there is no excuse full stop - you won't be able to argue your way out of Hell once you have chosen that destination for yourself. So choose wisely now.

[Tomche Makedonche]

Here's a couple alternate perspectives on the way events unfolded... (for those who think religion is capable of having a slight tolerance for humor)

Family Guy - How God made asians - YouTube

Family guy God calls a country Nepal ! - YouTube

Family Guy - first Joseph night (s07e04) - YouTube

Family Guy - How the Universe was made - YouTube

[TrueMacedonian]

Further, I don't believe for a second that you would rather focus on Macedonian matters - you always get involved in the whole theism vs atheism debates and on average, you provide much more commentry than you do on Macedonian matters.

Vangelovski you are a liar. And I challenge anyone on this forum to prove your lies right! ANYONE! Show me where I put religious debate in front of Macedonian matters. The History section and Exposing propaganda section are loaded with my posts by majority.

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski you are a liar. And I challenge anyone on this forum to prove your lies right! ANYONE! Show me where I put religious debate in front of Macedonian matters. The History section and Exposing propaganda section are loaded with my posts by majority.

My comments were referring to the length of your posts in religion vs anything Macedonian, not how many in total.

If anyone's loose with the truth, its you, claiming you have no time or interest in the religion threads or an agenda, when clearly you always post in them, providing half-stories, partial evidence and ill-researched views.

[lavce pelagonski]

TrueMacedonian do you believe in the Orthodox faith and God, I as this as I am getting confused with your avatar.

[George S.]

the christan calling is supposed to be god calling & knocking on your door.If you accept by faith you will be saved.It's very simple.Remember the doubting thomas he wanted real proof before he could accept jesus.