Christians who hate...

[Phinehas2]

wayseer,
If Paul is preaching what he received from Jesus, then Jesus NT teaching is hate what is evil and cling to what is good. You have already been shown this. Furthermore Jesus said one must hate even ones family if it gets in the way of Him.

Now I fully understand the context you are making, God is love so God isnt hate, nonetheless I think we are being a bit pedantic.

 

[wayseer]

wayseer,
If Paul is preaching what he received from Jesus, then Jesus NT teaching is hate what is evil and cling to what is good. You have already been shown this. Furthermore Jesus said one must hate even ones family if it gets in the way of Him.

Now I fully understand the context you are making, God is love so God isnt hate, nonetheless I think we are being a bit pedantic.

Do you 'hate' your family? I don't. I don't think Jesus was talking about 'hating' anything. What he was drawing attention to, in his didactic and confrontational way, was the cost of making a decision to follow God. 'Hate' in this sense is a metaphor for making a decision.

I don't think the manner of the ensuring discussion is 'pedantic' - I think it is cause for some concern. If one accepts that Jesus taught that it is OK to hate then the floodgates are open for all sorts of activity that has a theology of hate as support. I fail to see where such is a 'universal' truth stemming from the lips of Jesus.

 

[Zebra1552]

Not at all - its absolutely fundamental.

Is Jesus the clearest revelation of God, or is are the OT descriptions of God the clearest revelation of Jesus?

If the former, which is absolutely basic to Christianity, then you learn about God by looking at Jesus, not learn about Jesus by looking at OT descriptions of God.

If you don't allow Jesus to overturn all your ideas about God then you are stuck where so many of his 1st century opponents were.

That sounds a lot like modalism to me.

 

[Zebra1552]

Jaws13,
On the contrary ebia's posts are spot on, this is absolutely fundamental. You have just doubted an absolute core fundamental of Christianity. [/color][/size][/font]
from the Nicene Creed...
true God of true God, (John 17: 1-5)
of one essence with the Father, (John 10: 30)

Please prove ANY of what you just claimed. Show me where I'm doubting anything of the sort.

 

[Zebra1552]

You have side stepped my question.

Where does Jesus say he hated anything? I cannot find any reference.

And you just sidestepped my response. Is Jesus not of the same essence as the Father? A member of the Trinity, God from God, light from light?

In fact Jesus says exactly the opposite - that we are to love that which we would otherwise hate - namely our enemies.

I am countering the claim that we are to never hate. Jesus, being God, cannot avoid hating evil. Not unless you want to throw out the OT.

The only solution to your agenda is neatly slip back into OT philosophy. Certainly there are references to God hating evil - but you have avoided elaborating on the 'nature' of that evil. That evil was not loving God - of distancing oneself from God. This was a message to Israel.

And where is THAT in the OT?

The OP is talking about Christians. In what context are Christians taught to hate?

"Hate what is evil, cling to what is good." I can't seem to remember who said that...

 

[Dionysiou]

i dont know bout hating, but i definitely dont like those self righteous arrogant christians, you know the type. They know some verses, have some understanding and prance about like a princess. lol although it is good when you wreck them. Yeh im not gonna lie, there are some pretty annoying christians out there.

 

[ebia]

That sounds a lot like modalism to me.

Not remotely. Just taking the New Testament seriously when it says that Jesus is our clearest revelation of God. That's absolutely fundamental to Christianity; throw it out and you are stuck where so many in Jesus own time were - unable to grasp what Jesus was about because he didn't fit their expections of God. The whole of early Christianity and the New Testament is based on completely rethinking how to read the old story and understand God based on Jesus and his resurrection. If I'm a modalist for doing so, so are Paul, John, Luke, ... (and, I suppose, Jesus for that matter), though I blowed if I can see how "Jesus is the clearest revelation of God" implies modalism.

 

[wayseer]

And you just sidestepped my response. Is Jesus not of the same essence as the Father? A member of the Trinity, God from God, light from light?


I am countering the claim that we are to never hate. Jesus, being God, cannot avoid hating evil. Not unless you want to throw out the OT.

And where is THAT in the OT?


"Hate what is evil, cling to what is good." I can't seem to remember who said that...

You are painting God into a corner. Be aware.

I'm through here. Bye.

 

[Phinehas2]

Interesting when one asks for proof that Jesus said something on a topic before one will accept the possibility of the proposal after having based other proposals on Him not saying anything about a topic.

 

[Zebra1552]

Not remotely. Just taking the New Testament seriously when it says that Jesus is our clearest revelation of God. That's absolutely fundamental to Christianity; throw it out and you are stuck where so many in Jesus own time were - unable to grasp what Jesus was about because he didn't fit their expections of God.

You aren't questioning my Christianity, I hope. Furthermore, I take the entire Bible seriously. All of it, as a whole. Not just the bits I like. Including the part that goes 'hate what is evil, cling to what is good'.

The whole of early Christianity and the New Testament is based on completely rethinking how to read the old story and understand God based on Jesus and his resurrection. If I'm a modalist for doing so, so are Paul, John, Luke, ... (and, I suppose, Jesus for that matter), though I blowed if I can see how "Jesus is the clearest revelation of God" implies modalism.

You are a modalist if you say that Jesus was only a revelation of God and not God Himself.

 

[Capuano231]

Christians arguing is the last thing I want to see...

 

[ebia]

You are a modalist if you say that Jesus was only a revelation of God and not God Himself.

That would be neither modalism nor what I'm saying (for different reasons).

 

[Zebra1552]

That would be neither modalism nor what I'm saying (for different reasons).

It most certainly would be modalism. Saying that Jesus was a revelation or manifestation of God and not God Himself is Modalism. Because Jesus is God, and God hates evil and injustice, it is not accurate to say that we should never hate anything.

 

[ebia]

It most certainly would be modalism. Saying that Jesus was a revelation or manifestation of God and not God Himself is Modalism.

Leaving the question of what is/is not modalism on one side for a moment, I am not, nor never have been saying "Jesus is not fully God".

Because Jesus is God, and God hates evil and injustice, it is not accurate to say that we should never hate anything.

The whole point of the New Testament understanding of Jesus is that it is in him we see clearly the God whom in the Old Testament we saw dimly. And therefore we rethink everything we think we know about YHWH by looking at Jesus. Not to throw out the Old Testament texts, but to re-read them in the light of Jesus and his death, resurrection and ascension.

What Jesus opponents were stuck on was:

"we [think we] know God from the Old Testament, you don't look like that, therefore you are not 'of God'".
​

The modern version of that in much of Christianity is:

"we [think we] know God from the Old Testament, you don't look like that, therefore we will re-read you until you fit it."

​

The early church's version that you find in Paul, John, Luke, ..... is:

"we thought we knew God from the Old Testament, you don't look like that, therefore we will the Old Testament until it fits you, because you are a clearer revelation of God than the Old Testament - you are God in person where as that was a book about God"
​

 

[ebia]

Modalism:

In Christianity, Sabellianism, (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.

Modalism doesn't deny that Jesus is God, modalism denies the distinction between Father, Son and Spirit. Most of the analogies that people try to use to explain trinity fall into modalism.

 

[Zebra1552]

Leaving the question of what is/is not modalism on one side for a moment, I am not, nor never have been saying "Jesus is not fully God".

You don't need to. See below.

The whole point of the New Testament understanding of Jesus is that it is in him we see clearly the God whom in the Old Testament we saw dimly. And therefore we rethink everything we think we know about YHWH by looking at Jesus. Not to throw out the Old Testament texts, but to re-read them in the light of Jesus and his death, resurrection and ascension.

That is a load of tosh. The point of the NT was to point to Jesus' death and resurrection as a way to God, not as some lens with which you view the OT.

What Jesus opponents were stuck on was:

"we [think we] know God from the Old Testament, you don't look like that, therefore you are not 'of God'".
​

The modern version of that in much of Christianity is:

"we [think we] know God from the Old Testament, you don't look like that, therefore we will re-read you until you fit it."

​

The early church's version that you find in Paul, John, Luke, ..... is:

"we thought we knew God from the Old Testament, you don't look like that, therefore we will the Old Testament until it fits you, because you are a clearer revelation of God than the Old Testament - you are God in person where as that was a book about God"
​

That's nice. But I don't fit into your molds. There is no 'fitting' either testament. Both are just fine the way they are, and they fit just fine with who God is. Changing the Bible is no way to get good theology.

 

[Zebra1552]

Modalism:

In Christianity, Sabellianism, (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.

Modalism doesn't deny that Jesus is God, modalism denies the distinction between Father, Son and Spirit. Most of the analogies that people try to use to explain trinity fall into modalism.

Stop getting your info from Wikipedia. They don't know the first thing about theology:
Modalism | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.
Present day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, and require baptism for salvation. These modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[ebia]

Stop getting your info from Wikipedia. They don't know the first thing about theology:
Modalism | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.
Present day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, and require baptism for salvation. These modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

That's a reasonable discription of Modalism - althought it's a little bit too specific at one point - but its not remotely the same as "Jesus was only a revelation of God and not God Himself".

But that's entirely academic since I was neither supporting "Jesus was only a revelation of God and not God Himself". nor modalism.

 

[ebia]

You don't need to. See below.



That is a load of tosh. The point of the NT was to point to Jesus' death and resurrection as a way to God, not as some lens with which you view the OT.

That's nice. But I don't fit into your molds. There is no 'fitting' either testament. Both are just fine the way they are, and they fit just fine with who God is. Changing the Bible is no way to get good theology.

Yes you have - perhaps without realising it, you've done exactly my second case time and time again in conversations here and other threads. Now we've got to the heart of the issue, I think we're done.

 

[Phinehas2]

I think some of this must be a disputable matter. As the whole point of God is love, God is love, hate might not be part of God's character. Yet how do we describe God's attitude to sin, 'dislike' ? I am not sure dislike is strong enough a word, it doesnt do Christ's loving sacrifice justice.