Did Jesus respect other people's beliefs?

Post Reply New Topic

Another contradiction of the modern notion of Jesus being a universal pacifist and a promoter of same
is his words in Matt 10:34-27:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Pretty harsh.

Is this accurate to how you've come to think of Jesus?
Or does this contradict your conceptions of Him?

Also, Jesus did not get Himself beaten, spat upon, and crucified, by being tolerant of people's beliefs.
So, this modern notion that Jesus was some kind of pacifist hippie is revisionist in the extreme!

Last edited by Ragtime on 30 May 2008, 1:10 pm, edited 6 times in total.

So Christianity is a religion of violence? And Christianity is anti-family?

What about people that love their country or political movement more than him?

Go back and read the Sermon on the Mount, which pretty much outlines the core beliefs of Christianity.

I think the "sword" in the quote is meant to be interpreted as the dividing force separating the faithful from the unfaithful. Jesus intended to do that with a symbolic cleaving sword. Taken literally, it makes no sense. If we interpret "sword" to be an instrument of violence and death, and families turning against each other in dire combat ... It simply could not be Jesus speaking these words.

In this quotataion, Jesus is foretelling the profound and negative influence his teachings will have on future generartions. Could Jesus know this? I believe so, given the other supernatural abilities he demonstrated while on earth.

No. The sword is a metaphor here, for extreme argument (such as seems to follow me),
and nowhere does Jesus advocate violence.
And regarding families, it is true that extreme -- particularly religious -- arguments often divide families.
Often, those divisions center around doctrines about Christ.
He is one of the most contraversial figures in history -- I would say the most.



I think the tone of the passage clearly indicates that those people are not worthy of Him either.

If we accept Jesus' teaching that the whole law boils down to loving mankind and loving God, I don't see the need for worshiping Jesus.

If He claimed to be God, and he is moral, then He is God.
In that case, why would one wish to not worship Him?

1) Because it is not clear that he was in fact God*
2) Because the ideas of loving God and loving man can be arrived at independent of doctrines and dogma, and following them will not lead a person astray. Worshiping a person that lived 2000 years ago based on faith and apocryphal scripture is more problematic.


* - a prophet? Yes. The Messiah? Maybe. The idea that men can be God is not really part of the 'old' testament - I think it is an invention of the followers of Jesus. They first thought he would be the messiah to lead with power and glory, and that didn't happen. So the Greeks among them pulled out their doctrine of the Trinity, and retrofitted it to be consistent with the life of Jesus.

After I have shown His words, and you do not deny Jesus' morality,
please explain for me in what way it is not clear that He is God?
He claimed on several occasions that He is God, before witnesses whom
He prophesied would have Him put to death for it.

And He was not a liar --
and blasphemy was the most major and evil lie one could tell in that time,
so if He blasphemed, He was a very immoral person.
Also, do not forget that some of Jesus' apostles died at the hands of those who
torturously executed them for refusing to deny Christ's devinity, and
this is historically documented by extra-biblical sources.
All they had to do to save their own lives, and prevent themselves from
long, excruciating deaths, was to verbally say that Jesus was not God -- and yet they refused.
Could it be that they remembered His saying, "He who denies me before men, I will deny
him to my Father in Heaven"?
My point is, clearly they believed He was divine, they believed it to the point of death,
and they were the ones who knew Him better than anyone else did.

Furthermore, they all saw, and talked with Him after He was raised from the dead.



Following those precepts will lead one to do good things, indeed, but it will not pay for one's sin.
Genesis 8:21 has God saying, "For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth."
And Jesus said in Matt 15:19, "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies."
And finally, Jeremiah 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"


It really isn't if you know Him presently, personally, and spiritually, as I and many others do.

When Jesus was asked what to do, he did not say "worship me as God" - he simply said "love God, love mankind". That is something that has been universally available to all people at all times and places. It doesn't depend on hearing and accepting a particular set of words about someone who lived long ago and far away.

That's it. You don't have to have the same exact ideas about God as someone else - no human can understand God anyway. You don't need to be washed of your sins by faith and worship of Jesus man as God. The doctrine of original sin is nonsense. Yes, people can be foolish, hateful, violent and wicked. But if they follow the 2 simple instructions, God will transform them.

Last edited by monty on 30 May 2008, 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
"Immanuel" means "God with us."

And Jesus Himself quoted and explained many Old Testament messianic prophecies partaining to Himself.
For instance, "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool" (Psalm 110:1).

Jesus brings up that passage here:
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?" They say unto him, "The son of David." He saith unto them, "How then doth David in spirit call him 'Lord', saying, 'The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?' If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?" And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
(Matt 22:41-46)

Being both God and man, he chose to speak as a man most times.
Other times, when asked directly whether He was Christ, He said not only that He was, but
that He was God as well.

All the more reason to disagree with him then

Did Mary name him Immanuel? No, she chose the name Yeshua. Is Immanuel Kant an incarnation of God? Don't think so.

And how do we know that Mary was in fact a virgin? Why would God demand that we believe in a series of dubious, unproven (and unprovable) miracles in order to have access to salvation? Anyone, anywhere can tune into the spirit of what Jesus said about salvation, even if they never heard a translation of that passage.

No, that is when Jesus judges the nations, based on their works as nations:

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. (Matt 25:31-33)

Germany might not fair too well, for instance:
"'For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.' Then shall they also answer him, saying, 'Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?' Then shall he answer them, saying, 'Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.' And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (Matt 25:42-26) Think: Holocaust.


And, once again, Jesus is shown to be very Godlike indeed, wouldn't you agree? "holy angels", "throne of glory", and judging all the nations singlehandedly? Where's God in the judgment process? Doesn't GOD judge all people? Yes, He does, and He is sitting on Jesus' throne as mentioned in the passage, because they are one and the same. Indeed, Jesus says in John 10:30:
"I and the Father are one." Then, the following verse: "Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him...", so, again, Jesus was not speaking of any casual or metaphorical "oneness". He was saying: I am God.



Since the quote mentions "Jesus' precise response", let's look at Jesus' precise response:

"And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." (Luke 10:27)

Can you love the Lord with ALL your heart, ALL your soul, ALL your strength, and ALL your might?
In other words, with your entire being at all times?
I can't!
If you can you this, you are fully righteous.*

*No man can fully keep the first commandment, therefore no one can earn Salvation.

Last edited by Ragtime on 30 May 2008, 2:37 pm, edited 10 times in total.

well he pissed a lot of people off
you don't go around telling people they're wrong without getting hurt