Disciple of Jesus?

[Zzyzx]

.
Disciple of Jesus?

Luke 14:26 (NIV) “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."

Hate seems to be a requirement. Is that statement "interpreted" (changed) to mean something else more convenient?

Does the bible say what it means and mean what it says, or can it NOT be trusted to do so? Are the words of Jesus faithfully recorded by gospel writers (decades or generations later)?

Do those who claim to be disciples actually hate their family and their life? If not, how can they consider themselves disciples when they were specifically rejected?

Is it inconsistent (to say the least) that someone who supposedly taught love would require disciples to be hateful?

[Goose]

Who does the "middle ground" identify as the writer of gospels?

We can debate it here if wish or we could start another thread if you don't want to derail this one. Since this is your thread I'll leave that up to you.

But to quickly answer your query. It would be my contention the reasonable middle ground, so to speak, points towards the traditional authorship of the Gospels. I would base this premise on the argument that the internal and external evidence for the traditional authorship of the Gospels is just as strong as the evidence for other ancient secular texts where authorship is generally not disputed.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 33 by Goose]

Here is an example where the same word is being used.

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.

You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another.

You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.�

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them.

Can any of these passages be interpreted as meaning to love less?

[Goose]

[Replying to post 33 by Goose]

Here is an example where the same word is being used.

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.

You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another.

You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.�

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them.

Can any of these passages be interpreted as meaning to love less?

Along with Luke 14:26 all these passages use the same Greek word - miseō - which is translated as hate. What's your point? And how does it counter my argument in the post you are responding to?

[1213]

.
Disciple of Jesus?

Luke 14:26 (NIV) “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."

Hate seems to be a requirement. Is that statement "interpreted" (changed) to mean something else more convenient?

Does the bible say what it means and mean what it says, or can it NOT be trusted to do so? Are the words of Jesus faithfully recorded by gospel writers (decades or generations later)?

Do those who claim to be disciples actually hate their family and their life? If not, how can they consider themselves disciples when they were specifically rejected?

Is it inconsistent (to say the least) that someone who supposedly taught love would require disciples to be hateful?

Jesus also says:

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just like I have loved you; that you also love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
John 13:34-35

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Mat. 5:44-45

Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Mat. 22:37-39

Love is all around the teachings of Jesus. So what does hate mean? I think it does not mean that disciples should not love other people, because Jesus exhorts to love. I think Jesus teaches that disciples should hate things that are like owned things, because they bind people. Thing that are possessed can make person biased that is why I think those things can be hated. For example, people tend to judge differently, if it is about their own child or about the other parent’s child. And I think it is wrong, if justness depends on does person own the matter or not. Disciples should really love all, not just their own things and because own things easily make it difficult to love equally, they can be hated. But in this case the person is not hated, but the matter, which is something that person owns.

Owned things lead easily away from God (truth and love), if person is too devoted to some earthly matter. Earthly matters don’t last; therefore it is not very vice to cling to them desperately. Earthly matters can make it difficult to remain loyal to God, which is why they can be hated in my opinion. And I think that one reason why Jesus says to hate earthly matters like even persons own life in that Luke 14:26.

[Zzyzx]

.

If there was no Jesus, as you have proposed, what does not matter?

Beginning a reply with a false or incorrect statement of opposition position is not an auspicious start.

I do NOT take the position "no Jesus" but instead acknowledge that someone of that name (or modification) MAY have lived 2000 years ago and MAY have been a wandering Jewish rabbi, (or MAY have been superhuman). I would certainly not debate a position claiming that there WAS such a person, particularly not the "divine" variety; however, I do not debate the position that no such person existed.

It is not uncommon for a Theist debater to attempt to misstate opposition positions into "You say that God (or Jesus) doesn't exist" when no such statement has been made. Perhaps the intent to is to construct a straw man against which they hope to be able to argue.

Clear enough?

The document stands on it's own, as does Socrates' Apology. If you are truly interested in discovering the meaning of a passage, be it of Jesus or Socrates, why reject the standard rules of literary criticism?

Since I am neither a linguist nor a translator, I allow others to do such things professionally. If they produce a well accepted English language book, such as the bible, which clearly states the requirements for being a disciple, I read what the professionals have written with a certain amount of trust.

Should one who is not a linguist or translator second-guess the professionals who translate and edit the bible?

Also, if it is indeed impossible to determine what the writer of an ancient document means, as you have previously stated,why waste the time posting this thread?

I originated this thread to call attention to the contradiction between people referring to themselves or others as "Disciples of Jesus" when they do not meet his stated criteria for disciples.

Could it be that you care for none of this, but merely wish to force people into rejecting ancient wisdom by means of sophistry and not reason?

"Force people?" Where does that come from and what does it mean?

The most that I can do is present ideas for people to consider. If they find them credible and worthwhile in their evaluation they are free to use them – or to dismiss, ignore, or avoid them if that is their preference.

Likewise, Theists are free to present their ideas -- and readers can decide which position is more credible.