1213 wrote:I have no reason to think Jesus was hypocrite.
If he wasn't a hypocrite, then the gospel writers are presenting inconsistent stories about him (more on this issue shortly).
Yeah, but I think usually it would be good to look at least whole sentences or paragraphs, when they are connected and explain the matter.
I try to do just that, but problems arise when there's no limit to the text in the context. If I quote a phrase, then you can find something in the sentence you think changes the meaning of the phrase. If I quote the whole sentence, then you can find something in the paragraph you think changes the meaning of the sentence. If I quote the whole paragraph, then you can find something in the chapter you think changes the meaning of the paragraph! And on it goes. I see Christians all the time doing that: they're very adept at finding something, somewhere in the Bible they claim alters the meaning of what I cite. And you did just that: you found a phrase in the chapter
in a different sentence that you say changes the meaning of a phrase I cited. I already corrected you explaining that the phrase "without a cause" applies to anger and not to calling somebody a fool which does not appear in the same sentence!
So why do you continue to cite irrelevant passages to claim I took something out of context? Is it because you're desperate to make Jesus look good?
Firstly, I am sure Bible has only small part of all that happened in the time of Jesus. It would be enormous work to write every single detail that happened then.
Why not make it an "enormous work" to include all the important details? If important details are omitted, then the meaning of what's written will be changed misleading the reader. If I can understand such an important element in writing history, then a perfect god would surely understand that he needs to include all the details.
...if Jesus would not have lived as he preached, I think we would not even have the Bible.
Why not? You don't need a Jesus at all to have a Bible. All you need are some "creative" writers who wanted to write a story not caring if it was a true story but a story that some people would insist was true.
I don’t believe that Jesus was hypocrite, because no evidence for that.
There is another possibility!
If you think John is incompetent historian, because didn’t write everything, then I accept that as your opinion. I think John did good work. Only if Jesus would have not turned other cheek, and John would not have told it, I think it would be bad. But if John didn’t report obvious matters, I think it is not a problem.
That other possibility is this: John does not have Jesus turning the other cheek when Jesus was struck because John never heard of that doctrine! The injunction to turn the other cheek appears only in Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29; it is nowhere to be found in John. In fact, there is no Sermon on the Mount in John. So I think the most likely explanation for Jesus not turning the other cheek in John is because John, like all the other New-Testament writers, was making up his story about Jesus. When different people make up stories, then naturally they won't get all the details right. As a matter of fact, they will get huge chunks of their stories to be inconsistent with the other story tellers.
Of course, this argument won't work for Jesus' command not to call somebody a fool because he commands this in Matthew 5:22 only to act the hypocrite as reported in the same book in Matthew 23:17. Matthew's work of fiction simply isn't consistent because Matthew got sloppy with the plot he was making up.
