graymouser

I'll admit that I've never studied Hebrew - but that's simply not important in Matt. 10:37 or Lk. 14:26. They were written in koine Greek and Hebrew has nothing whatsoever to do with them. Even the references to the Hebrew Bible tend to rely on the LXX, which gets them into hot water with the whole virgin birth thing (there have been reams written on Isaiah 7:14 and why it was a mistranslation; of modern translations only the RSV and NRSV admit this).

But you still haven't grasped the contextual meaning of this phrase, which has nothing to do with loving one person more or less than another. To put it in blunt terms, what is depicted is Jesus telling his followers that they are to leave their families behind and follow him. Saying that anyone who comes to him and doesn't hate his father and mother, etc., which is in Luke, or who loves his father and mother (etc.) more than Jesus, which is in Matthew, he is clearly not talking about general life priorities. It's a test of faith: are you willing to leave behind and despise your family, give up your possessions, carry your cross and follow Jesus? If not, in his own words, you aren't worthy of him. This is pretty standard in any apocalyptic cult or sect - you have to give up everything, and it doesn't really matter because the end of the world is nigh.

Now, have you given up family and possessions to follow Christ since becoming a Christian? If not, why do you not obey Jesus in this?

Elijah

I was I’m trying to see if you are interpreting it as morality ethical commandment like, love you neighbor as yourself or is the statement meant to be a preparatory statement for the expected martyrdom of those who follow after him, so there is no doubting what is expected of you.

IBelieve seems to be making the case that it is about trying to get his followers to love god more(in an unspecific way) and that is the sole purpose of the statement. He’s not considering the martyrdom and taking that into context of hating your parents and your life. I was trying to see if you were making the same mistake or not.

They’re two totally different interpretations of the passage coming from two totally different understandings of Christ. One is a morality teacher who was wrongfully killed; the other is a messiah, martyring himself and trying to get his followers to do the same. I’m trying to see if you’re on, the side of the morality teacher or the martyr?

andrewcriddle

I'm afraid I don't see the two positions as being as far apart as you do. And neither of them seems entirely correct.

Jesus is not represented in the gospels as encouraging his followers to seek martyrdom, there are in fact sayings pointing in the opposite direction. Jesus warns his followers about the risk of suffering and death and requires his followers to be prepared to face this if necessary, but this is not the same thing as encouragement to seek martyrdom.

On the other hand, Jesus is generally not represented in the synoptic gospels as a teacher of timeless moral truths. Jesus is proclaiming the coming of the kingdom of God and his moral teaching is mostly based upon the implications of the coming of the kingdom. IE it is primarily guidance for how his hearers should live in the particular situation they faced.

(IIUC you feel that the interpretation of the saying as being about loving God in some special way, is not only wrong in the sense that Jesus didn't actually mean that, but is near to nonsense. Could you expand on this or am I misunderstanding you ? )

Andrew Criddle

IBelieveInHymn

FOR the zillionith time! the word SINAI means "hate" but in the flavor as to "love lesser than". JESUS was digging back to his HEBREW roots to make a statement!!!! geez o man

I've already explained this way too many times, I'm not repeating myself.

Elijah

What do you consider the correct interpretation, if the martyrdom angle, nor morality angle is correct?

In the passage you quoted above earlier he is encouraging his followers to seek martyrdom “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” Are you interpreting this symbolically as directing his followers towards asceticism or something similar? Do you think it was a misunderstanding of Stephen, Paul, Peter and all martyrs that followed him to take that literally?

"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13

What kind of kingdom is this and how does that passage relate to the coming of that kingdom?

The loving god more interpretation is nonsense because it’s too vague to really mean anything. Within the context of the story and what he is doing that passage has a particular meaning which relates to what is expected of those who follow after him(martyrdom) and nothing to do with actually loving god more than your parents or hating them.

What exactly do you think it means to love god more than your parents and what’s the point of that in regards to what you think he is trying to accomplish there?

Kapyong

Well,
let's see what most bibles say -


Luke 14:26 (New International Version)
"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 (New American Standard Bible)
"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. "

Luke 14:26 (King James Version)
"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."

Luke 14:26 (English Standard Version)
"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."

Luke 14:26 (New King James Version)
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

Luke 14:26 (American Standard Version)
"If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. "

Luke 14:26 (Young's Literal Translation)
`If any one doth come unto me, and doth not hate his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, and yet even his own life, he is not able to be my disciple'

Luke 14:26 (Wycliffe New Testament)
"If any man cometh to me [If any man come to me], and hateth not his father, and mother, and wife, and sons, and brethren, and sisters, and yet [forsooth] his own life, he may not be my disciple"

Only a few weirdo modern bibles have "love less".


K.

Failte

I thought the word you keep using is sin'ah? And you know that Jesus was 'digging back to his hebrew roots'? You do understand that hebrew and aramaic are not the same thing, right?

Please explain what evidence you have for Jesus speaking hebrew. Please explain what evidence you have that prompts you to back-translate this word into a completely different language than the source materal. Where did you come up with this particular idea and what scholarly documentation can you provide that this is true? You keep saying "jesus said this!", but how do you know?

You haven't so far, because you can't.

The gospel in question is written in greek and is not translated from any earlier document. The greek author wrote the greek word meaning exactly what he wanted it to mean.

"going back" to Hebrew is something you seem to want to do, because it fits what you want it to say - but you haven't provided any evidence for your assertions. Saying it over and over again does not make it true and does not constitute an argument.

graymouser

You've "explained" something that is simply, objectively wrong. The word in the Gospel is μισεω, transliterated as misew, not the Hebrew word "sin'ah." Your invention of a hypothetical original is based on nothing but apologetic need. You have yet to deal with this verse's clear context, which is about abandoning your family and possessions and following Christ in order to be saved, which very few Christians seem to actually do. Have you read the entire pericope this comes from? The apologetic argument doesn't save the idea of "love your family" from Jesus's harsh words; instead it comes off as tremendously shallow.

NoeL

Please show me the word "SINAI" (or Sin'ah) in the original Luke. Please show me the word in any modern translation of Luke. I gurantee you won't find it. You have NO WAY OF KNOWING what Jesus actually said - you are FABRICATING a word. You are MAKING SHIT UP.

Secondly, as has been pointed out many times, Aramaic IS NOT Hebrew! We don't even know if Jesus spoke Hebrew himself, and even if he did it's incredibly unlikely the people he was preaching to knew Hebrew. Do you really think Jesus would deliver his message in a language that nobody could understand?

THIRDLY, if Jesus really DID mean "love lesser than", then there is a ERROR in the Bible. You can't have it both ways.

Iskander

Yes, that is the interpretation of the Catholic Church and the statement-- “love god above all” is the standard ambition in the practise of any religion. Christianity is not different.

The interpretation of the popes is that Jesus Christ advised virginity. Matrimony, then, is second best choice for those inferior humans who cannot resist the less desirable

8------------Our predecessor, Leo XIII of happy memory:[7] "In choosing a state of life there is no doubt but that it is in the power and discretion of each one to prefer one or the other: either to embrace the counsel of virginity given by Jesus Christ, or to bind himself in the bonds of matrimony
CASTI CONNUBII (On Christian Marriage)
Pope Pius XI
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pi...nnubii_en.html



Religions, usually, seek union with god(s) through a lonely sanctifying life that excludes the weakness of marriage.

The life of a celibate monk is the ideal way of life for many professional seekers of the truth.

There is nothing perverse in this.