Should Christians be hated?

[plaingirly]

Random question! I opened my Bible on Matthew 10 and verse 22 says :

And all nations will hate you because you are my followers. But everyone who endures to the end will be saved.

I think there is another verse similar but can't remember it.

So if someone is really a follower of Jesus will people hate them and if people don't hate them are they not strong enough in their faith?

I don't really want to be hated! Also at work we have to get along with people so having them hate us wouldn't be ideal. Unless the verses are more specific or maybe aimed at the disciples.

If Jesus was god in human form (which is contradictory to the 'son of god' label anyway)

It makes sense to me. Jesus was a human being; like us except with the soul/character of God. God comes to humanity, instead of only humanity coming to God. This fulfils the prophecies in the Old Testament. However, while people were expecting God to come to earth with great pomp and circumstance, he came to us as a baby in a stable. A week before his crucifixion he rode on a donkey while his supporters waved palm leaves, rather than some regal procession.

how are we supposed to know that he actually felt anything

The character of Jesus and his teachings demonstrate consistently that he was a scrupulously honest person. So everything he felt at the crucifixion was real.

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Mat 27:46

when he is supposedly capable of performing miracles at flick of the wrist

Many people taunted and mocked Jesus. A criminal who was being crucified alongside Jesus asked the same thing. "One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: 'Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!'" A sarcastic notice was pinned above him "King of the Jews".

what was the point of the whole display of setting up a crucifixion

It wasn't some kind of theatrical performance. It was how the most good, honest teacher that had ever lived was unfortunately treated by those who didn't want to lose their own power (high priests, Pharisees etc). He was seen as a troublemaker by the authorities.

when all he had to do was forgive man (and he supposedly has the capacity to forgive everyone).

I think this is where free will comes in. It's necessary for us to choose to accept the free gift of forgiveness/salvation.

He took all of the world's sins upon himself .....what does that even mean?

It means that he died in our place, the death that humanity had created for itself by its own sin. As a result, instead of sin and slavery, and separation from God, humans have the option of eternal life.

And what would it mean to an all powerful god? Not much really, since he created the darn world in the first place.

God created humans to have a relationship with him. He chose to give us free will instead of making us puppets. Unfortunately we messed up due to misusing our free will.

The Christian view is that Jesus has acted as a "bridge" to allow people to choose to walk back to God again. The cross can be seen as sacrifice, victory, forgiveness and a moral example.

good post April. You read about him asking God to take away this suffering when he was in the Garden of Gethsemane. Crucifixion was a horrific death and very painful.

Yes he could have come down from the cross or not been there in the first place but we simply can't understand God as humans.

It makes sense to me. Jesus was a human being; like us except with the soul/character of God. God comes to humanity, instead of only humanity coming to God. This fulfils the prophecies in the Old Testament. However, while people were expecting God to come to earth with great pomp and circumstance, he came to us as a baby in a stable. A week before his crucifixion he rode on a donkey while his supporters waved palm leaves, rather than some regal procession.

No, hang on, he's either the son of
God or he is god (or neither), you can't have it both ways.

The character of Jesus and his teachings demonstrate consistently that he was a scrupulously honest person. So everything he felt at the crucifixion was real.

How do you know? For starters all you have to go on is a book which was written with Jesus as the 'hero' so chances of it being accurate in terms of his character are slim at best and secondly, if he's god, I would expect him to be able to put on a good show without letting on to anyone that he actually felt no pain. You can't possibly know this.

Many people taunted and mocked Jesus. A criminal who was being crucified alongside Jesus asked the same thing. "One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: 'Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!'" A sarcastic notice was pinned above him "King of the Jews".

What does that have to do with miracles?

It wasn't some kind of theatrical performance.

How can you possibly know?

It was how the most good, honest teacher that had ever lived was unfortunately treated by those who didn't want to lose their own power (high priests, Pharisees etc). He was seen as a troublemaker by the authorities.

No, a god who created all those people who treated him like that and has infinite power to do whatever he wants. It's both illogical and weird.

I think this is where free will comes in. It's necessary for us to choose to accept the free gift of forgiveness/salvation.

What free gift? That doesn't even make sense.

It means that he died in our place, the death that humanity had created for itself by its own sin. As a result, instead of sin and slavery, and separation from God, humans have the option of eternal life.

So how does that make his death harder than anyone else's exactly?

God created humans to have a relationship with him. He chose to give us free will instead of making us puppets. Unfortunately we messed up due to misusing our free will.

He gave us free will.... right..... Can't you that this in itself is not free will? What if I don't want free will? Am I free to choose that?

The Christian view is that Jesus has acted as a "bridge" to allow people to choose to walk back to God again. The cross can be seen as sacrifice, victory, forgiveness and a moral example.

I don't get the bridge thing.... These are just words bundled together to sound good. It's meaningless.

What I do agree with is that it wasn't an ordinary death because he didn't stay dead for long. This alone makes it a non sacrifice.

OK, so why was the resurrection necessary?

The resurrection wasn't for Jesus' sake but for ours. It means death to sin, because just as Jesus was raised with new life, so we aim to end our old lives of sin, and begin a new life. (Obviously we're still human so get it wrong often!)

Romans 6:4, 11: ?We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life"

Christ was ?put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification? (Rom 4:25)

Jesus humbled himself and died out of love and obedience to his Father. It certainly wan't anything to do with showiness, it was a humiliating, painful death.

The resurrection demonstrated that Jesus was indeed the son of God. The first person to see the risen Christ recognised him when he said her name "Mary". Others took more convincing, such as "doubting Thomas" who needed to actually touch Jesus' side to believe who he was. Paul says the resurrection attests to God's power (2 Cor 13:4).

Before his death, Jesus said he had to go away but he would be sending the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles at Pentecost.

"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you."

also Jesus is God in human form. It is the whole point of the Trinity. We can have it both ways as far as I am concerned.

Also christianity is built on trust and belief in God.

The bridge thing is God as a human in Jesus who reaches down to mankind. Jesus said 'I am the way, the truth and the life etc in Johns gospel - the whole crux of christianity.

No, hang on, he's either the son of God or he is god (or neither), you can't have it both ways.

He's God in human form, so that's both.

all you have to go on is a book which was written with Jesus as the 'hero' so chances of it being accurate in terms of his character are slim at best

The Bible is a collection of writings where Jesus is clearly not a hero in everyone's mind. No-one has found any documents or writings which contradict any of the four gospels which were written by different people, in different places, at different times, during the lifetime of the very first disciples.

if he's god, I would expect him to be able to put on a good show without letting on to anyone that he actually felt no pain.

Is that what you think God would be like? Someone who lied in order to "put on a good show"? That's not the God I recognise.

Many people taunted and mocked Jesus. A criminal who was being crucified alongside Jesus asked the same thing. "One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: 'Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!'" A sarcastic notice was pinned above him "King of the Jews".

What does that have to do with miracles?

I'm sure if some of us were in that situation it would be so tempting to perform a miracle to get out of it! Yes, Jesus/God could have saved himself from the cross, but he didn't as he knew what he had to go through was necessary.

Jesus refused to perform miracles if it wasn't in accordance with God's will, no matter how hard it was. In Matthew 4 for example, Jesus was tempted by the devil for 40 days in the desert: "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread!" "If you are Son of God, throw yourself down!" (while Jesus was on the highest point of the temple). ?All this I will give you" (showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world) if you will bow down and worship me.?

No, a god who created all those people who treated him like that and has infinite power to do whatever he wants. It's both illogical and weird.

Why? Do you think God should have created people without free will? Do you think he should have just left us to it seeing as people got it so wrong?

What free gift? That doesn't even make sense.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23)

All we have to do is decide to receive the gift of salvation by faith, as Jesus has already paid the price for our sins. Unlike some other religions, with Christianity you're saved by grace, not by works.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23)

So how does that make his death harder than anyone else's exactly?

Because he took the sin of humanity upon himself.

What if I don't want free will? Am I free to choose that?

No, because if you didn't have free will you wouldn't be able to make any choices, not even that one.

I don't get the bridge thing....

It's to do with humans being separated from God by our sin. Jesus bridges the gap between us and God. He provides the way back to God, so that we can once again have a good relationship with him and eternal life in him.

The final stage is responding to God's call. There's nothing complicated about it, it's just a case of repenting, asking for forgiveness, turning your life over to Jesus and accepting the gift of eternal life.

Very well said April.

He's God in human form, so that's both.

So he's not 'the son of god' then. My son isn't me in small form, he's his own person, you cannot both be someone and their son. So he isn't both

The Bible is a collection of writings where Jesus is clearly not a hero in everyone's mind. No-one has found any documents or writings which contradict any of the four gospels which were written by different people, in different places, at different times, during the lifetime of the very first disciples.

Harry Potter is a collection of books where Harry is clearly not a hero in everyone's mind. No-one has found any documents or writings which contradict any of the Hogwarts teachers. This doesn't make the story true. But in your case, not only is the bible inconsistent with itself, the gospels can't even agree on certain things, so the chance of it being an accurate description of events is actually nil.

Is that what you think God would be like? Someone who lied in order to "put on a good show"? That's not the God I recognise.

Why not? How can you possibly know what god thinks? Do you really think you can say that life is not just all a big ego trip for god? You just cant know that.

I'm sure if some of us were in that situation it would be so tempting to perform a miracle to get out of it! Yes, Jesus/God could have saved himself from the cross, but he didn't as he knew what he had to go through was necessary.

Or maybe he couldn't perform miracles after all and that's why he didn't. Can you prove this?

Jesus refused to perform miracles if it wasn't in accordance with God's will, no matter how hard it was. In Matthew 4 for example, Jesus was tempted by the devil for 40 days in the desert: "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread!" "If you are Son of God, throw yourself down!" (while Jesus was on the highest point of the temple). ?All this I will give you" (showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world) if you will bow down and worship me.?

Again, your evidence comes from a book which in all likelihood is fiction anyway. But again, maybe he simply wasn't able to perform miracles after all. Derren Brown can do some pretty neat tricks, but he couldn't get away from being nailed to a cross.

Do you think God should have created people without free will? Do you think he should have just left us to it seeing as people got it so wrong?

What did people get so wrong? And how would leaving it to us not constitute free will?

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23)

Again, chapter and verse is not a convincing argument, but my free gift is eternal life??? That's weird, because we all die. So we all sinned? In which case, who gets eternal life and where are they now?

All we have to do is decide to receive the gift of salvation by faith, as Jesus has already paid the price for our sins. Unlike some other religions, with Christianity you're saved by grace, not by works.

Oh, so I can refuse the free gift then? How did Jesus die 2000 years ago for a sin I just committed yesterday?

> So how does that make his death harder than anyone else's exactly?
Because he took the sin of humanity upon himself.

Yeah, I've had that answer already, it doesn't mean anything. How exactly was it harder? Especially considering he came back to life again. Doesn't exactly make me feel like he was much of a martyr really.

> What if I don't want free will? Am I free to choose that?
No, because if you didn't have free will you wouldn't be able to make any choices, not even that one.

So if I'm not able to choose to not have free will, then it's not free will is it? And how can something be free will if you are told that you have it? It's nonsense and quite clearly cannot be true.

It's to do with humans being separated from God by our sin. Jesus bridges the gap between us and God. He provides the way back to God, so that we can once again have a good relationship with him and eternal life in him.

But you said he is god. So he's not bridging anything.

The final stage is responding to God's call. There's nothing complicated about it, it's just a case of repenting, asking for forgiveness, turning your life over to Jesus and accepting the gift of eternal life.

It is complicated because it's all so contradictory. Why would I turn my life over to Jesus when all he appears to be is a trickster? And I wouldn't want eternal life, how depressing would that be. Have you seen Highlander?

Very well said, Pedro.

Have you seen Highlander?

Yeah, I've had that answer already, it doesn't mean anything. How exactly was it harder? Especially considering he came back to life again. Doesn't exactly make me feel like he was much of a martyr really

Quite. And I'll add to that - surely "taking the world's sin on your shoulders" is only meaningful if you pay the price for that sin? If Jesus is not, in actuality, going to suffer the punishments that we would have had to if he didn't make this "great sacrifice" of his then it's nothing more than an empty gesture.

Depending on how literal you are, the punishment for me if I "sin" (whatever that is) is either the pits of hell or exclusion from Heaven.

Is Jesus in Hell - for eternity?

Or maybe he's just been excluded from Heaven?

I bet none of you believe that either of those things are true - so what price do you think he has paid on our behalf? And if he's not paid any price, then how is it anything but a great, big, utterly pointless empty gesture?

"He suffered the sins of the world" - isn't that how it usually goes? Well, committing a sin doesn't make you suffer (it's usually the opposite, which is why we commit them), it's the consequences that do. Jesus managed to bypass this bit. Nifty.

Hi Pedro you said So he's not 'the son of god' then. My son isn't me in small form, he's his own person, you cannot both be someone and their son. So he isn't both.

I think you were answering someone else and I don't want to jump in and spoil their point, so please excuse me replying, just with my own thoughts! That's where human language makes it very hard to speak about spiritual things. The term son of God refers to Jesus but not in the sense of a human son, who is distinct from their human parent.

This is easier to explain if I borrow someone else's wise words from a website, which I found on line just now! I really cannot vouch for this website, and of course it is Christian. So it is not one I want to say I agree with everything it says etc! Except to say that in this instance it explain things - I think - very well .

christianity.net.au/questions/how_can_jesus_be_both_god_and_gods_son

"So the Bible tells us that Jesus isn?t ?God?s human son?, rather, that Jesus, who is co-eternal with God (that means that like God, he existed forever) became human. Jesus was like God - eternal and perfect - but he became human so that he could enter into our world and die for humans. The Bible treats this as something to marvel at: ... Jesus Christ ?though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.? (Philippians 2:6-8) The actual ?mechanics? of how God had a human son are not explained to us, but we are left in no doubt that Mary?s conception and pregnancy are miraculous - you could read chapter 1 of the gospel of Luke to see the angel tell Mary that she will fall pregnant. The gospel of John, which is written in very symbolic language at the beginning, speaks about ?the word becoming flesh?. ?The word? is Jesus - who was with God in the beginning - and he became flesh - this is what ?incarnate? means - to be made flesh. This makes it clear that Jesus is the eternal God becoming human. So in answer to your second question, it isn?t so much that God had a human son, but that God?s son became human for our sake. "

and also ....

"* We see this distinction / unity when Jesus identifies himself with the Father, saying that he and the Father ?are one? (John 10:38, 17:11,21), and that he is in the Father and vice versa (John 14:11). Jesus does not say that he IS the Father, or that he and the Father are the SAME, but that they are ONE. So they are distinct, yet unified."

I hope this is helpful, yet my suspicion is that you will have more questions! Which I will be delighted to join others in answering as it is so nice to chat to you, and you come up with lots of great questions.

Ellie Yes, I saw Highlander too, and also AI, which was probably the most depressing film I have ever seen! Luckily, I think heaven is going to be way more exciting and fun and great than being Christoph Lambert (lovely and cute as he is ) and i really hope a million times better than being stuck in a pod under the sea like David in AI . But I digress!

Ellie How did Jesus manage to by-pass anything?

Sacrifice is giving something up, in this case Jesus gave up his life. The fact that he was resurrected was great, death could not hold him, we might sing.

Right, so perhaps someone can explain how God and Jesus can be both the same person and also different people?

What would make the afterlife less depressing than being Christopher Lambert?

Sacrifice is giving something up, in this case Jesus gave up his life. The fact that he was resurrected was great, death could not hold him, we might sing.

If I sacrificed my life and then came back to life, I would not consider that I had sacrificed my life, because I still have it. (and I wouldn't want anyone singing about it, I'd probably want to keep it quite quiet!)

And of course death couldn't hold him, he's god, or like god, or one with God, or god's son, or..... perhaps death just couldn't work out who he was and sent him back?

Pedro you do make me smile!

It's very irreverent - but I know you don't think so.

God in three persons, I can't explain it to make sense to you, that is not because it is impossible to explain, I am just not a wise enough, please forgive me. Maybe someone else will appear to give guidance. The key bit is that God is not a 'person' like we are people, but we use the term 'God in three persons' to try and explain the mystery of the trinity.

'Death could not hold him' is part of the lyrics of a song. We call Jesus the 'first fruits' because Christians believe that because of his resurrection when we die we too can go to heaven and be with him. But more than that it is part of a wonderful relationship with God.

I believe Jesus died as a man and it was a real death. I am not sure why you think because Jesus was raised it makes the sacrifice less valid.

You speak about you sacrificing your life. I know I have never met you but, with all respect, you are not God and so your comparison is not the same!

Jesus is perfect, which is why he was the only one who could make the sacrifice. In order to understand the concept of sacrifice you probably need to know about the Jewish religion and the sacrifice of animals etc to see the connection - but I suspect you know all about it as you seem to know a lot about religion (not sure, care to say more about that?).

Italian If he was up and walking three days later, then he didn't sacrifice his life. He got it back. At best, he sacrificed three days - which in itself is meaningless if he has eternal life.

Let's say I have £100 and two people I know need it. Person A will be able to pay it back in 3 days, Person B needs it equally but will never be able to pay it back.

If I give it to Person B, I've sacrificed that money. I know I'll never get it back. If I give it to Person A I just have to manage without it for 3 days, so it's not really a sacrifice, is it?

And, don't forget - Jesus/God supposedly existed in Heaven BEFORE incarnating himself on Earth and then went back there when he died. How important is this "life" of his on Earth anyway that the loss of it was a sacrifice of earth shattering importance? He just went home again.

Ellie You are right about the fact Jesus that existed in Heaven before he was incarnate on Earth and yes he went back there after he was raised. The bit we will need to disagree about is the 'just'. It is not to me something of little significance, it is of great significance.

Out of interest what do you think turned those hiding disciples into a fearless force who went out preaching etc after he was raised? They were locked away before that for fear of the Romans!

Gawd. Wrong thread . Reported myself. Sorry all.

Out of interest what do you think turned those hiding disciples into a fearless force who went out preaching etc after he was raised? They were locked away before that for fear of the Romans!

There's no evidence anyone went out preaching after he was "raised". We don't know a) that he was raised at all or b) what happened in the immediate aftermath. The first account we have was written 40 years (at least) later by a foreigner who didn't see any of the events he talks about or spoke to anyone that did.

And even if the above were not true (although it is) so what? How do you explain the followers of L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith - they believe all sorts of nonsense that we know didn't actually happen, but it doesn't stop them telling anyone who'll listen about it. Does this fact alone prove they're telling the truth? Nope. So, it's illogical to assume that just because people were talking about Jesus and his equally unlikely miracles this some how gives it special status of truth that no other band of believers can claim.

Christianity is nowhere near as unique or special as Christians think it is.

:)

Christianity is totally unique and totally special but we will have to disagree!

I will have a think about L Ron and get back to you. Perhaps I will post my comments in the gardening section!

Christians should be loved or hated in the same way as socialists, Manchester United supporters, golfers, hairdressers, Lady Gaga fans and astrologers. IE: is the person nice, or is the person a dickhead? If the person is nice, then the person's preferences, superstitions etc are no big deal to other people who don't share them. If the person's a dickhead then the person would probably be a dickhead whether or not the person has a particular hobby or imaginary friend.

SGB, exactly. Terrific, non-bigoted answer.

Ellie, interesting on how 'special' Christianity is... maybe Apollonius of Tyana is a more relevant example than L Ron Hubbard, because L Ron deliberately set up a religion and Jesus didn't... Apollonius of Tyana also claimed to heal and raise the dead... and our main source for him is on the late side, and might actually be influenced by stories about Jesus. But what makes Apollonius different is his moral teaching - he was a neopythagorean, pretty much in keeping with his predecessors; it was all fasting and abstinence to become pure nous. He didn't have Jesus' apparent moral originality, or the radicalism which so worried the emperors.

As well, there are many cults of dying and resurrected gods before Christ in the ancient world - Dionysos and Adonis, for instance. Gods in which various different aspects are both separate and the same are also not unusual. I'm RC and I don't find these figures a barrier to belief.

Obviously - doh - Christianity is not special if you have already rejected its claims to truth.

Jesus didn't set up a religion, true - his followers did some decades later. And we have to rely on them to know what Jesus actually did or didn't say. And that becomes very problematic. I'm not sure why you think Jesus worried "the emperors". The historical record doesn't reflect him being a worry to anyone - they don't seem to have heard of him.

Apollonius is interesting - I was reading about him the other day, actually. Although I can't really remember what I actually read now as I wasn't paying all that much attention. I shall review.

You're perfectly right, of course, about the mystery cults. I'm iffy about how much attention should be paid to them with regards to Jesus. It annoys me when atheists say "Oh, Mithras was identical to Jesus" blah de blah. No, he wasn't. But that parallels exist throughout the myths, legends and cults is without question.

I only reject claims to "truth" when no one can demonstrate to me that they're actually true. If I have to accept that they're true before I can truly understand how true they are (which is how religion seems to work) - I have a problem!

Anyway - most of this will emerge on the Jesus thread if the others come back, I expect.

Thought I might set up our Stalin/Marxism/Atheism thread tomorrow. Now that I've dealt with a certain YEC .

Ah - Mumsnet!

"LizzyDay Fri 05-Apr-13 23:21:10

"And all nations will hate you because you are my followers. But everyone who endures to the end will be saved."

If you heard a complete stranger say this to a group of people in a pub, say, what would you think?"

Good question. It screams CULT!!! to me.

Looking forward to that thread, Ellie.

And also agree about Mithras - no, indeed he wasn't the same, and nor were the other dying gods identical, but there are some similar motifs.

On Jesus, I know you say you aren't sure if he existed - but maybe we can agree that IF he did, he wasn't setting up a feather-his-own-nest cult like Ming Moon and L Ron... and if his early followers were trying to do that then they must have been miserably disappointed - 'Just hang on for another thousand years, lads, you'll be sitting pretty..'

The emperors - there's a lot of evidence of the persecution of Christians from Nero onwards... and I'm sure you know this...Anyone who doesn't could look at Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians...

On Jesus, I know you say you aren't sure if he existed - but maybe we can agree that IF he did, he wasn't setting up a feather-his-own-nest cult like Ming Moon and L Ron... and if his early followers were trying to do that then they must have been miserably disappointed

IF Jesus did exist, then no - there's no suggestion that he was deliberately setting up some cult for nefarious purposes. IF he existed at all, and the gospels give us a flavour of who he was, then I think we can at least conclude that he was a decent man with moral backbone. So not analogous to Smith or Hubbard in that respect.

Yes - there's evidence that the Christians were being persecuted in early centuries, but most cults were. And there's no historical evidence that the fire Nero blamed on the Christians (which he supposedly set himself) actually happened - so it's not nearly so clear cut as it might seem. But this is Christians, not Jesus - who was long dead by then. And the simple existence of Christians does not, in and of itself, prove anything at all about Jesus the man - including whether or not he genuinely existed.