Mithrae wrote:
None of which changes the obvious and unequivocal fact that Jesus did clearly and repeatedly say that it's important for his hearers to believe in him and his words... including in the very passages cherry-picked as proof texts to the contrary!
That's simply not true.
To begin with no one is "cherry picking". That is something that believers do. A non-believer has no need to cherry pick.
Why? Because if you don't like the verse I pointed out because it conflicts with other parts of the same religious dogma, then all this says is that the dogma is self-contradictory.
If John 12:47 is a lie, then either John misquoted Jesus and the Gospels cannot be trusted to contain truth. Or Jesus lied.
There's no other way around it.
You see, the problem lies with the theists, not with the non-theists.
For me, as a non-believer there is no problem if the Bible has Jesus contradicting himself. I'm already convinced that the Bible is nothing more than greatly exaggerated superstitious rumors. I have no reason to even remotely suspect that everything written in the Gospels is true. Therefore the fact that the Gospels are filled with contradictions is not a problem for me.
But for a theist this is paramount. Jesus is telling us that we don't need to believe in him or in his words. If he is quoted as saying otherwise elsewhere in the Gospel rumors, then this is a problem for the theists, not for the non-believers.
Also, how can you deny the contradictions?
Luke 6:37 has Jesus telling us that if we don't condemn others we won't be condemned. So there we have a path to eternal life right there that is independent of anything other than our own behavior. No need for Jesus as our savior. Unless of course we don't qualify for Luke 6:37.
In the meantime if Jesus speaks the the truth, I cannot be condemned because I do qualify for Luke 6:37.
We can't go back and rewrite the Gospels in the hope of repairing these obvious contradictions. It's too late for that now. This is an extreme problem for theists, and preachers. And this is why I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. They can't repair a broken theology. And besides, why would you argue against the good things the Gospels have Jesus saying in favor of more dismal and negative things? What sense does that make?
That I don't understand at all. If you're going to argue that this is in conflict with other things attributed to Jesus then all you've managed to do there is confirm that the Gospels are self-contradictory and cannot be trusted to speak the truth.
So your"
cherry-picking" charge doesn't hold water. You'll have to take that up with the authors of the New Testament. They shouldn't have written these things if they weren't true. If you can "cherry pick" things from the Bible that contradict things it says in other places, then all you've done is prove that the Bible cannot be trusted to always speak the truth.
I'm not claiming what Jesus stood for overall. I'm simply pointing out what has been attributed to him by the Gospels. If the Gospels are wrong don't look at me. I didn't write them.
