The Truth, the Whole Truth And. . .

[_JS]

Did the father punish him for his sins?

A judge can dispense justice without hating that a criminal broke the law. For you and Sirs, why must God "hate" sin?

To me hate is a very strong emotion that goes well beyond anger or indignation.

Here is the only reference I find to "hate" in the scripture and interestingly it has nothing to do with sin:

Luke 14:26

If any one comes to me without hating his father 7 and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

The verse is very similar to:

Matthew 10:37

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me

One wonders if the Greek translation of the Hebrew in the negative is not exaggerated by using the verb "to hate."

[Plane]

Did the father punish him for his sins?

A judge can dispense justice without hating that a criminal broke the law. For you and Sirs, why must God "hate" sin?

To me hate is a very strong emotion that goes well beyond anger or indignation.

Here is the only reference I find to "hate" in the scripture and interestingly it has nothing to do with sin:

Luke 14:26

If any one comes to me without hating his father 7 and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

The verse is very similar to:

Matthew 10:37

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me

One wonders if the Greek translation of the Hebrew in the negative is not exaggerated by using the verb "to hate."

The prodigal sons punishment was self inflicted , mostly it was separation from his father.

What he wanted to do , hecould not do in the presence of his father , so away he went.

You say his father loved for him to be doing this?

[Plane]

Proverbs 6...
16 There are six things the LORD hates,
       seven that are detestable to him:

 17 haughty eyes,
       a lying tongue,
       hands that shed innocent blood,

 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
       feet that are quick to rush into evil,

 19 a false witness who pours out lies
       and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%206;&version=31;


Try useing a searchable bible , it takes a lot of the work out of it.

[sirs]

Thanks Plane.  Kinda reinforces how even God turned from Jesus when he was up on the cross, bearing all the sins, of all the world, thru-out all of time.  Yet Js seems to imply we should just be cool with it

[Plane]

Thanks Plane.  Kinda reinforces how even God turned from Jesus when he was up on the cross, bearing all the sins, of all the world, thru-out all of time.  Yet Js seems to imply we should just be cool with it

It is hard work for me , the idea that God loves the sinner and also loves the sin, is hard to understand well enough to argue with it.

[sirs]

Sirs, I hesitate to comment...but consider this: you are suggesting that Christ's death at Golgotha was not an act of love, but actually an act of HATE. Have you considered that? Is that what you really believe?

It was an act of love that went beyond hate.  It was the ultimate Sacrafice, and THE only way any of us were going to heaven.  Point remains though, that sin wasn't something that Christ supported, embraced, or even just kicked back and didn't care about.  It was to be avoided, however possible.  You couldn't make it into God's Kingdom with it.  Simple as that.  and since it was largely impossible for any of us not to sin, in some way, Christ died for us, and absorbed that sin.

[sirs]

Thanks Plane.  Kinda reinforces how even God turned from Jesus when he was up on the cross, bearing all the sins, of all the world, thru-out all of time.  Yet Js seems to imply we should just be cool with it

It is hard work for me , the idea that God loves the sinner and also loves the sin, is hard to understand well enough to argue with it.

I concur

[Xavier_Onassis]

One wonders if the Greek translation of the Hebrew in the negative is not exaggerated by using the verb "to hate."

-====================================
I am guessing that it is NOT a bad translation, because someone would have changed it in other translations, and they haven't done so, have they?

[Plane]

Sirs, I hesitate to comment...but consider this: you are suggesting that Christ's death at Golgotha was not an act of love, but actually an act of HATE. Have you considered that? Is that what you really believe?

It was an act of love that went beyond hate.  It was the ultimate Sacrafice, and THE only way any of us were going to heaven.  Point remains though, that sin wasn't something that Christ supported, embraced, or even just kicked back and didn't care about.  It was to be avoided, however possible.  You couldn't make it into God's Kingdom with it.  Simple as that.  and since it was largely impossible for any of us not to sin, in some way, Christ died for us, and absorbed that sin.

Hmmmm...

If the sin can be God loved , what makes the Crucifixion necessary?

[sirs]

Excellent question.  That's why my previous query.....was it just for "show"?

[Plane]

One wonders if the Greek translation of the Hebrew in the negative is not exaggerated by using the verb "to hate."

http://dkizer.blogspot.com/2007/06/questions-answers.html

http://askville.amazon.com/Hebrew-translation-Satan-closer-accuser-hinderer-ideas-combined-idiom/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7115521

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus

Raca
Matthew 5:22

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Raca, or Raka, in the Aramaic of the Talmud means empty one, fool, empty head.

In Aramaic, it could be -------- or ------ which is also its form in Hebrew.


 Mammon
Main article: Mammon
Gospel of Matthew 6:24

No one can serve two masters: for either they will hate the one, and love the other; or else they will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Excellent question.  That's why my previous query.....was it just for "show"?


Every religion in that part of the world demanded some sort of sacrifice, meaning the death, generally by bleeding to death, of some animal: goat, sheep, bull, or chicken. The most impressive sacrifice woud be human, but Christianity one-upped everyone by sacrificing a Deity. Communion involves he parishioners, rather than the priests, eating the sacrificed entity.

Ritual cannibalism and deicide are pretty hard to beat.

To most of us in our modern age it just seems rather dumb to bleed a chicken to death to gain the favor of a God, and then, leave it for the priests' dinner. To people back then, it was expected. You can't be saved without some blood being spilled. See what your nasty sin made us have to do?

[Plane]

Excellent question.  That's why my previous query.....was it just for "show"?


Every religion in that part of the world demanded some sort of sacrifice, meaning the death, generally by bleeding to death, of some animal: goat, sheep, bull, or chicken. The most impressive sacrifice woud be human, but Christianity one-upped everyone by sacrificing a Deity. Communion involves he parishioners, rather than the priests, eating the sacrificed entity.

Ritual cannibalism and deicide are pretty hard to beat.

To most of us in our modern age it just seems rather dumb to bleed a chicken to death to gain the favor of a God, and then, leave it for the priests' dinner. To people back then, it was expected. You can't be saved without some blood being spilled. See what your nasty sin made us have to do?

Leaves what it is "for" unanswered.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Leaves what it is "for" unanswered.


=============================
I think I made this pretty clear. It was "for" convincing the believers in other religions that Christianity was a superior religious product than traditional Judaism, Roman and Germanic and Greek god worship, Baal worship, Egyptian god worship, Mythraism, Zoroastrianism, Manicheaism and I suppose moon and rock worshipping religions of the sort that Mohammad replaced with Islam.

Wow! They killed their GOD and were saved, and now they are going to join him in Heaven!
Jeepers! In our religion, the priests kill a sheep and eat him in secret, but in theirs, they snack on God's Son!
 Lookit! Their god died as a common criminal and came back to life! And they say he's coming back again, soon!

I'd say that is an adequate answer.

If you think God and/or Jesus thought all this all up themselves, you'd have to ask them what their motives were.

[Plane]

Leaves what it is "for" unanswered.


=============================
I think I made this pretty clear. It was "for" convincing the believers in other religions that Christianity was a superior religious product than traditional Judaism, Roman and Germanic and Greek god worship, Baal worship, Egyptian god worship, Mythraism, Zoroastrianism, Manicheaism and I suppose moon and rock worshipping religions of the sort that Mohammad replaced with Islam.

Wow! They killed their GOD and were saved, and now they are going to join him in Heaven!
Jeepers! In our religion, the priests kill a sheep and eat him in secret, but in theirs, they snack on God's Son!
 Lookit! Their god died as a common criminal and came back to life! And they say he's coming back again, soon!

I'd say that is an adequate answer.

If you think God and/or Jesus thought all this all up themselves, you'd have to ask them what their motives were.

When it happened there was no established Christianity , nor for another generation was there any profit in it.