Solo

Hi Andrew,

I think Matthew was toning down "anti-family" traditions that grew in the foundational stages of the movements, in which the congregations were in effect replacing the family and social support structures of the converts. (see eg. Gerd Thiessen, Rodney Stark) Mark 3:21-35 is by far the most eloquent witness of that. I believe the Jesus "ecstatics" were observed and reacted to by family and friends much the same way as manics in mid-age onset are today. Their "experiences" were disbelieved, they were lectured and ostracized by their kin and former friends, as unsound or devil possessed. The former family and friends would have been trying to shield the visionaries from physical abuse which, as Paul reports directly and Mark through the passion allegory, was the prevalent form of "medicine" to quench the spirit's delusions of grandeur.

I think the Jewish Christians realized, as the judgment day kept getting postponed, that the flagrantly anti-family tenor of the movement could not be sustained. One cannot profess to hate ones parents and remain within Judaism, as such sentiment contradicts the fourth commandment.

Hence the Matthean correction, IMHO.

Best,
Jiri

IBelieveInHymn

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."

It was mount SINAI where GOD showed GREATER love for man, and HATE for his angels.

Don't you see the parallel between the two words?


Jesus spoke Aramaic, yes I agree with you, but he also spoke Hebrew when speaking about the Hebrew God! Pay attention!

There is no error. You just don't understand the word meanings Jesus spoke.

NoeL

How the hell do you know Jesus spoke Hebrew in this verse? Sources - NOW.

I'm not the one who misunderstands, THE AUTHOR OF LUKE MISUNDERSTOOD! (assuming Jesus actually DID say "sinai", which I'm not convinced he did). If you think the word misew is a misinterpretation, THEN THE BIBLE IS WRONG!

IBelieveInHymn

Because Jesus was using his Hebrew roots to define "hate", which was originated by Hebrew text, as God showing his "greater" love for man, and how he "hated" the angels.

Do you know the Commandment is to honor and obey your parents? Why in the world do you think Jesus would teach otherwise? Are you kidding me???

The Greek writers must have not been aware that GOD used the term, "hate" on MT. ""SINAI"" to show how he "loves lesser than and more than!"

Come on man, this isn't rocket science.

I can't believe some of you guys think Jesus totally discarded the Hebrew laws of YHWH.

This is sheer lunacy!!

Dark Virtue

The only lunacy here is your defense.

Why would a perfect God create a perfect work only to allow it to be mistranslated and misinterpreted by the very audience it was created for?

gdeering

N/A


You were asked for a reference, otherwise you are making this up. Hated the angels (?), yes, please a reference.

Perhaps it's part of his new covenant, christians love to point out that Jesus made the OT laws null and void (or rather superseded by his laws somehow. Christians also have to avoid the NT counter scripture). After all Jesus is asking Jews to believe in him even though he did not meet any of God's laws defining the status and achievements of the Messiah (as stated in the OT), so he seems to have a different perspective on the OT from traditional Jews.

LHO!

Gregg

IBelieveInHymn

No, the only lunacy is those atheists who think they have a grip on the bible, but they are not even close.

The audience Jesus was speaking to knew what he was saying. They knew he meant they must love GOD over their own parents. They didn't look at Jesus as saying HATE your parents, or you shall not be my disciple. I've said it once, and I will say it a thousands times. Jesus was digging to his Hebrew roots by expressing "greater love" for him compared to your own parents. The same way God said on Mt. "Sinai" he loves mankind and hates his angels. God is expressing that "hate" means to "Love lesser than."

The Parallel verse is in Matthew where Jesus said, "If you love your parents more than me." By him saying this, he is expressing "greater love" for him over your parents. And the same verse is said in Luke 14, with a different twist on it.

You would have a credible argument if Matthew said, If you don't HATE your parents, you can't be my disciple. But he doesn't. He shows the parallel between Luke and Matthew by expressing more love for him than your parents. Bottom line is, Love God more than your own family.

There is nothing in Matthew that defines emotional hatred for your parents. And the same goes with Luke.

And you said, why would God allow mistranslations in the bible? I find it within reason that words spoken in the first century were well understood.

I wouldn't claim the bible is an error. I think modern civilization has a hard time understanding ancient language, so they assume it's an error.

If I know the difference between "hate" and "love lesser than", then what's your excuse? Christian apologetics will telll you the very same thing I'm telling you. You won't hear a different story from someone else.

IBelieveInHymn

I've posted the reference already. God said on Mt. Sinai that he HATES his angels, but LOVES man. This is where "sin'ah" or "Sinai" originates, meaning "love lesser than."

Jesus said, Don't think I have come to abolish the Laws of Old, but I have come to fulfill them.

Jesus is mentioned throughout the Old Testament.
http://www.fatheralexander.org/bookl...nt_messiah.htm

NoeL

How is the Old Testament a reference to what JESUS SAID??? Do you even know what a reference is?

So the writers of the Bible got something wrong, in your opinion. Therefore the Bible is not inerrant.

So the witnesses knew what Jesus meant, but by the time it was penned the message had been distorted? So the Bible is not inerrant.

For Christ's sake, how thick are you? No one here gives a shit about what Jesus may or may not have ACTUALLY said! You have been arguing that the verse in Luke means "to love lesser than" rather than " to hate". We have been arguing what THE TEXT says - and it says hate. Your problem is with the author of Luke - not us.

WTF? You're the one claiming there's an error! Not us! You're the one claiming that where the Bible says "hate" it really means to say "love lesser than". You are so confused - you have no idea what you're talking about.

IBelieveInHymn

Ok, I will say this only one more time. On Mt. Sinai God said, "he hates his angels." Do you think God HATES his angels? Yes/No?

If not, then why do you apply the same meaning to the word "hate" used in Luke?


No, it's not wrong! You don't understand the words used in the bible. You assume "hate" means emotional hatred or to detest. Because that is the language you learned.


The message wasn't distorted. The message became distorted to modern 21st century english speaking people.


God said He hates his angels.. do you believe God actually expresses hatred for his angels? If you don't see the simliarity between Mt. Sinai and the verse in Luke, then there is no help for you.

I never said it was an error. The word used in Luke was correct and true, but Greek translators used a Hebrew word in their Greek writings. Why? Because they understood Jesus was digging back to his hebrew roots to explain why his disciples should place God before anyone.