Why I Would Not Like Jesus

[Aunty Jane]

There is NOTHING disrespectful about:

1. Having preferences
2. Stating what those preferences are.

Can I ask what your motive was in even expressing your dissatisfaction with Jesus’ method of teaching?

Does God actually care what you think?
Are you asking that he should rephrase all the things you think are ambiguous or misleading in his teachings? Was there a purpose to the way he taught, seeing as how he knew, (when no other human did) that his teachings would have to travel all the way to the 21st century…..and endure translation into many other languages?

He already told us that “few” would be found on the road to life when he was to return to take his “chosen ones” “home” to be where he was? (Matt 7:13-14; John 14:2) Yet he also said that “the meek will inherit the earth”……so some are heaven bound to act as “kings and priests” for redeemed mankind who will “inherit the earth“. (Rev 20:6; Matt 5:5; Rev 21:2-4)
Do Christ’s teachings do anything but divide people, as he was sent to do. (Matt 10:34-39)
Those who “got it” stayed with him to learn more….those who didn’t, left in frustration. Which category are you in?

Is it that you agree with what he said, but disagree with the way he said it?

He knew that the separation would continue until his return, but he also foretold that “weeds” would infiltrate Christianity and take people off on tangents, based on what men wanted his teachings to say.…and here we are surrounded by a plethora of “churches”, all teaching their own version of what Jesus meant, rather than what he said. So who has the truth?

Your basic position is to say I should not have these preferences and I'm too stupid to understand why I should not have these preferences AND/OR deny the deceptive nature of the words used that forms the basis of my preferences.

Why are your preferences so important anyway? Do they at any time alter Christ’s teachings? Will God alter what is written just because you don’t like it?
This is what I don’t understand….like the Israelites who rebelled against Moses and Aaron because they felt that they were just as important as these men were…..but who appointed Moses and Aaron to lead the people? Through whom did God speak to the people? Complaining against Moses and Aaron, was complaining against God and his choices…..are you complaining against Jesus because you find his illustrative use of language difficult to understand? Are you too complaining against the God who also appointed Christ as his mouthpiece? Who are you to offer such criticism….? That to me betrays a gross lack of humility, and illustrates the point of speaking in illustrative terms…..some get it, and some don’t…..who determines that? (John 6:65)

What is the point of this thread?…..what did you want it to achieve? Did you want to seek out like-minded souls so that you did not feel alone in your criticism? Did you get the support that you sought?

Help me understand Wrangler….I can’t be the only one who is puzzled….

 

[Aunty Jane]

I must have missed this post Wrangler, so let me respond now if I may….

Accuse? He was such a bad teacher that at John 6:66 he asked if he was so deceptive and offensive about what he was saying that he was going to lose his disciples.

What does this Scripture teach us about context?
Jesus had just spoken to Jews about “eating his flesh and drinking his blood”….he was speaking metaphorically of course, but even his apostles were puzzled because of the shocking nature of his statement, if taken literally. Peter’s response shows why they stayed faithful to him, when others reacted with rejection.
John 6:66-69
“Because of this, many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve: “You do not want to go also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

The apostles did not react like the rest…after all, he was the Son of God and taught only what his Father had taught him….where else was there to go?….so they stayed for the explanation, just like they did for other illustrations that were not immediately understood. (Matt 13:24-30, 36-43)

The very idea that him being a bad teacher at these points is an accusation is ridiculous. I guess we have different understandings of what constitutes the highest standard of good and bad, relative to that standard.

We do indeed…..taken from the point of view of the faithful ones, compared to how the unfaithful responded to him, I know which camp I would rather be found in….if I knew he was God’s son appointed to teach his disciples the will of his Father, then I would stay and wait for the explanation rather than go off in a huff blaming Jesus for being a bad teacher. I would blame myself for not getting it….and I would wait for enlightenment, like the apostles did.

Said differently, his teachings were so bad, they got him killed. IF this is not bad, I do sincerely wonder what you would consider a bad teacher other than losing your students and getting killed over what you are teaching? Please state your rejection criteria. What constitutes a bad teacher?

Wow!…..you seriously view it that way? You don’t see the method in it? You don’t see the heart response of the many repelled by the teachings of the one God sent to separate out of that faithless nation, those who would be rewarded for their faith? The promise God made to Abraham was fulfilled….he had produced his Messiah but the majority rejected him because the Pharisees made him out to be a fake, getting his powers from the devil. Who would you have believed if you had been there and displayed the same attitude as you do now?…..think about that.

The nation as a whole was about to be rejected on the basis of how they responded to the teachings of the Christ….it was meant to separate the faithful from the unfaithful…..and it did. Those teachings are separating people down to this day. It is not the “many” who travel “the road to life”…it is the hated “few”. (John 15:18-21)

Christ’s teaching were not “so bad“ that they wanted to kill him…they were designed to make a clear cut separation of those who accepted him for who and what he was, compared to those who clung to their comfortable old beliefs that no longer represented their God in any way. (Matt 15:7-9) It divided families and created hostility…it still does. (Matt 10:34-39)

Christ had to die as an innocent man…..so, who was going to gloat over dishing out the “heel“ wound that God foretold in Genesis 3:15? A wound temporarily disabling Jesus, but reversed in his resurrection. Jesus will patiently wait till his kingship has accomplished all of what it was meant to do, and then he will have the satisfaction of dishing out the fatal head wound that satan so deserves….the lake of fire awaits him, but it is already the garbage disposal for the unfaithful who are all too ready to complain about God’s way of doing his own will….neither your will or mine, will ever change a thing.

(And don't confuse the wonderful subject being taught with the person teaching it).

I don’t even know what that means…..who else was going to teach the will of God, but the son who knew him and reflected his personality perfectly? Was God then to blame for sending the wrong teacher…..
good grief!

 

[Wrangler]

Does God actually care what you think?

I care. Hence, this thread.

 

[Wrangler]

Why are your preferences so important anyway?

LOL Why post in threads that you deem unimportant? I doubt many do that.

 

[Wrangler]

Do they at any time alter Christ’s teachings? Will God alter what is written just because you don’t like it?

Will any post you have written alter Christ’s teachings? Your questions are ridiculous, a sad Strawman. Where do you get the idea one can only post threads that will alter Christ’s teachings? Hilarious.

 

[Wrangler]

Help me understand Wrangler

Re-read the OP.

Imagine the focus of a thread stating, ‘I like dogs.’ The difference between this thread and that is the sacred cows involved. It’s really that simple.

I’m making such a simple point. Your response, Yabut does it have metaphysical implications AS IF it has to.

 

[Wrangler]

What does this Scripture teach us about context?
Jesus had just spoken to Jews about “eating his flesh and drinking his blood”….he was speaking metaphorically of course, but even his apostles were puzzled because of the shocking nature of his statement, if taken literally. Peter’s response shows why they stayed faithful to him, when others reacted with rejection

Sadly, your rhetorical question is just a diversion. You ask one question but then what you write has nothing to do with the diversion. It is just a pretext to again revert to deconstruction, supposing the WHY justifies the WHAT, that he was a bad teacher whose students/followers left him precisely because of why I would not like him.

Obviously, your "context" is to focus on students who did NOT leave him. What about the context of those students who did leave them? Who are these others? Other students/disciples. Again, turning attention to the verse cited and not the diversion of other verses in the name of "context." At this point many of his disciples turned away and deserted him.

You deny he was a bad teacher at times precisely for the reason I would not like him but refuse to give your rejection criteria. That's kind of funny. Showing again the sacred cow.

 

[Wrangler]

I would blame myself for not getting it

You keep couching the entire point as being too stupid when it is about preference.

 

[Wrangler]

You don’t see the method in it?

I sure do "see" the method in it sweetie; It's a BAD method. That's the point. And again, you refuse to state your rejection criteria, showing again the rationalization for the sacred cow:

P1. Jesus was not a bad teacher.​

P2. I have no criteria for rejecting a teacher as bad - even though Jesus did; rebuking one who called him a good teacher.​

C. Jesus was a good teacher.​

I get criticized today for saying things that unnecessarily offend people. Jesus over-used and abused metaphors, which is obvious if you have a rejection criteria for what constitutes a bad teacher. To double down and use metaphors that offend, not merely people in general, but your own disciples shows the pattern I do not like.

I'm sure many have described the cannibalism that Jesus talked about in John 6 in terms other than cannibalism. And the reason is the realization that non-cannibalistic terms are a more effective method. Don't you see that?

In the example of the "sleeping" girl in Luke 8:52, Jesus was not merely speaking metaphorically, he denied the literal truth. He said, 'She isn’t dead.' Nothing metaphorical about that statement and it is a false statement. She was dead. This is deception in the extreme. Saying something is a metaphor does not make it true. I guess you don't see it because you don't want to see it. Hence, the circular reasoning.

I have little use or tolerance for metaphors. One reason I pushed off reading the Bible for decades. Ever notice many apologists, when faced with Biblical errors, retreat to metaphor? Luke 8:52 does not afford that luxury.

 

[Wynona]

If you are easily offended stop reading now.












I'm not sure what forum this should be in. I put it in the Ethics and Morality forum because the basis of my dislike is grounded in a sacred cow, lying of the Messiah. Of course, no one will admit this is lying because of the sacred cow. What do you call it when you deliberately use words incorrectly, deceptively, unnecessarily and overly figuratively? Politicians are hated for this; speaking with a forked tongue; saying one thing but meaning another.

This pattern is seen throughout the Gospels and Jesus admitted using parables to fulfill prophecy. However, today's devotional reading is no kind of parable and reveals why I would not like Jesus especially concisely. In Matthew 16:11 Jesus asks, "Why can't you understand that I am not talking about bread?"

The simple answer is 'because words have meaning and you are using the word bread.' V12 explains they finally understood he was talking about the deceptiveness (of the teaching of the religious leaders).
A is A.
Bread is bread.
Deceptiveness is deceptiveness.

I was taught a good communication technique is to say what you mean and mean what you say. This is not only effective communication but effective teaching. Jesus may have been a teacher but he obviously was not an effective teacher using any objective standard. Imagine any other teacher whose own students don't understand him and his teachings ended up getting him killed? Enter the sacred cow. Oh but from a spiritual perspective ...

I get it! Jesus is the son of God and was given all authority. That really doesn't change anything about the truth of what I'm saying.

As a writer, I read that its more effective to use simple and direct language.

However, writing rules can be broken effectively and this happens often with good writing. God wrote the rules of creation. Jesus knows how to effectively bend then. Hence, miracles.

 

[Lambano]

I'm sure many have described the cannibalism that Jesus talked about in John 6 in terms other than cannibalism. And the reason is the realization that non-cannibalistic terms are a more effective method. Don't you see that?

Ah, yes, but we remember the cannibalism metaphor better precisely because it DOES stand out in its weirdness.

Think about it. Gear follows mission, they say. What are Jesus's objectives, and how does His choice of communication techniques serve those objectives?

 

[Lambano]

"It wasn't what I thought it was" could be the theme of my Christian experience.

 

[MA2444]

There is NOTHING disrespectful about:

1. Having preferences
2. Stating what those preferences are.

But is calling someone a liar a preference? That's not a preference.

I like red head headed girls.
I like coffee more than Tea.

Those are preferences.

 

[MA2444]

This is seen in Christianity being the only religion that has a man shortage; men don't feel needed, i.e., they are wasting their time, not doing anything, told to be passive, "fight on your knees," etc.

I disagree Brother. Being on your knees praying would be akin to a Radio Operator call in air strike! Just because we dont get to the results of our Prayers in no way makes us passive. Intercessory prayer is one of the strongest forms of spiritual warfare.

 

[MA2444]

Again, words have meaning and ideas have consequences. When you or Jesus use a word, like wine, I can track with you. When you use a word like wine to mean "wine," meaning anything other than wine, now I too am lost.

It's one thing to invoke a saying, like the early bird gets the worm, that is common knowledge. It's another thing to use words to mean anything other than the denotation where there is no reason to expect the audience understands that by wine you really mean "wine."

So when Jesus said drink this it is my blood of the new covenant and He used wine as a symbol so we can relate to what He is saying...it was a lie?

Should the Lord talk to us in a way that we can relate to (the material realm), or should He speak above us of the spiritual realm knowing that we could not understand? How do you know what takes place in the spiritual realm when you take Communion? All of our actions i the flesh have an impact in the spiritual realm. Jesus has to talk to us in a way that we can relate to because we cant see the spiritual realm!

Yeah some of the people around Jesus still didnt get it and left when Jesus said you must drink my blood and eat my flesh. They said Whaa! And walked away! But it was they that were simply being short sighter, can you not see that?

 

[amadeus]

1co 1:18	For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1co 1:19	For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1co 1:20	Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1co 1:21	For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1co 1:22	For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1co 1:23	But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

 

[Wrangler]

So when Jesus said drink this it is my blood of the new covenant and He used wine as a symbol so we can relate to what He is saying...it was a lie?

Should the Lord talk to us in a way that we can relate to (the material realm), or should He speak above us of the spiritual realm knowing that we could not understand? How do you know what takes place in the spiritual realm when you take Communion? All of our actions i the flesh have an impact in the spiritual realm. Jesus has to talk to us in a way that we can relate to because we cant see the spiritual realm!

Yeah some of the people around Jesus still didnt get it and left when Jesus said you must drink my blood and eat my flesh. They said Whaa! And walked away! But it was they that were simply being short sighter, can you not see that?

Asking a bunch of questions changes nothing in terms of the validity of what I'm saying. Not every use of a metaphor by Jesus is a lie. However, you ask a question with a false premise, presuming we lack understanding is explained in direct language. Try explaining things without using metaphors about spiritual things and other things. Are you saying the only way to explain spiritual things is to use offensive cannibalistic metaphors?

(Obviously, this question is a trap as the implied premise is you KNOW the spiritual things in question that you earlier said we cannot understand).

Another one asking me if I "see" AS I complain and object to the abuse of metaphors showing how it frustrates people! What a revealing and ongoing failure to communicate effectively. The 10 Commandments are not figurative. This shows how it is possible to talk about Spiritual things in a way OTHER than offensive cannibalistic metaphors.

 

[MA2444]

(Obviously, this question is a trap as the implied premise is you KNOW the spiritual things in question that you earlier said we cannot understand).

Another one asking me if I "see" AS I complain and object to the abuse of metaphors showing how it frustrates people! What a revealing and ongoing failure to communicate effectively. The 10 Commandments are not figurative. This shows how it is possible to talk about Spiritual things in a way OTHER than offensive cannibalistic metaphors.

Lol! Right. Because His thoughts and ways are above our thoughts and ways. But that's how God talks, so what's a guy 'posed to do? Lol. He talks like that in real life too. I duno, to me, He always says things in just the right way. In a provocative way which makes me think. I dont always like it what He says but I learned my lesson about questioning Him. I felt the terror of God and it almost felt like lightning! But when He talks to us, He doesnt talk down to us. Sometimes He talks above me/us.

I heard a guys tesimony one time, long time ago. I forget what the testimony was about exactly but He said God came into the room and I think he was on his knees praying and he said the Lord pinned him to the floor and schooch him along a few incehes at a time and repeat to Him, I'M God, and you;re Not, I'M God, and your not. It sounds funny but I bet it made him terrified. Not sure what it was about.

 

[Wrangler]

But that's how God talks, so what's a guy 'posed to do? Lol.

In case you did not catch on, I have parsed the way God talks, such as in the 10-Commandments, from the way his son talks, such as with using metaphors to much that both he and his audience are frustrated at the lack of communication. But by rule, we are not allowed to talk about this in detail.

 

[MA2444]

In case you did not catch on, I have parsed the way God talks, such as in the 10-Commandments, from the way his son talks, such as with using metaphors to much that both he and his audience are frustrated at the lack of communication. But by rule, we are not allowed to talk about this in detail.

Yeah, I'm not fond of doing that. Any frustration that I may experience has to be mine own. Is God come, that we may learn of Him and His ways? or is God come to learn our ways? We are they which have no clarity of thoughts, not God.