[Wondergirl]

Nothing has been misconstrued. This was a very clear statement. Your refusal to simply say you believe what He said also speaks volumes.

So you KNOW which are His exact words.

[jlisenbe]

If you don't believe the NT account is reliable, then you cannot know this is true. "Who acted. He loved/cared/empathized."

Can't have it both ways.

[Wondergirl]

If you don't believe the NT account is reliable, then you cannot know this is true. "Who acted. He loved/cared/empathized."

Can't have it both ways.

We're talking about WORDS said, not account (the overall story).

[jlisenbe]

Both the actions and statements of Christ are related with words. Either those words are reliable or they're not. Can't have it both ways just to suit your preconceived ideas. To suggest His actions are reliably recorded but His words are not is a preposterous idea.

If you ever decide, get back with me.

[Wondergirl]

"Oh, His actions are reliably recorded, but His words are not." It's a preposterous idea.

If you ever decide, get back with me.

Who recorded them, wrote them down, when He said them?

[jlisenbe]

Again, to suggest His actions are reliably recorded but His words are not is a preposterous idea. The same argument you just used for His statements can be used of those who observed His actions. There is no difference. You are only making a distinction because you think His actions support your preconceived notions (they do not) but His words don't. And you are the same person who just weeks ago had her hair on fire trying to suggest that a word He spoke repeatedly (agape) meant unconditional love. But how can you even know He ever used the word??? You say the accounts of His speech are unreliable ("We don't have His exact words, just transcriptions and translations over the centuries."). If so, how can you know He ever used "agape"?

I should tell you that NO ONE tries to advance the argument you are using. NO ONE does. It is sheer foolishness.

[jlisenbe]

Deleted...removed.

[Wondergirl]

When Jesus spoke the word love, especially when He told us to love one another, He meant agape, unconditionally. Of course, He knows we're human, restrained by the bondage of sin, so we can only dream of loving unconditionally. Our flesh -- our ego, our selfness, -- won't allow it, and we can't get beyond philos.

When on the cross, did He really say,“Elí, Elí, lemá sabachtháni?” or is that the cry of despair that the Gospel writers knew Jesus would have uttered as our suffering Savior?

[jlisenbe]

When Jesus spoke the word love, especially when He told us to love one another, He meant agape, unconditionally.

How do you know He ever used the word "agape"? Remember that, according to you, the accounts of the words He spoke are unreliable.

"We don't have His exact words, just transcriptions and translations over the centuries."

Even worse, according to you, "Of course the NT has been added to and changed to suit the ruler or pope or priest in power over the scribes."

So how can you claim to know He ever used "agape"? How can you claim to know what He said???

[Wondergirl]

He spoke Aramaic and Greek. His entire life was one of selfless love -- the agape kind, not eros or philos. Selfless love was the center of His teachings.

[jlisenbe]

His entire life was one of love -- the agape kind, not eros or philos.

But how can you know any of that? Remember that, according to you, the NT text is not reliable. So how can you know these things?

"We don't have His exact words, just transcriptions and translations over the centuries."

"Of course the NT has been added to and changed to suit the ruler or pope or priest in power over the scribes."

[Wondergirl]

But how can you know any of that? Remember that, according to you, the NT text is not reliable. So how can you know these things?

They all agree regarding Jesus as being the perfect example of unconditional love.

[Athos]

Desiring heaven in exchange for loving is just another form of buying and selling.

If I may jump in here for a moment - all Christian denominations accept the hope for a heavenly reward as a valid motivator to live a good life.

I didn't want my original statement to be misleading.

[jlisenbe]

They all agree regarding Jesus as being the perfect example of unconditional love.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it as well. All of the unreliable NT texts (according to you) agreeing on something amounts to nothing. They all agree about a coming day of judgment, but you reject that. It all comes back to a simple guiding principle you use. Any text that agrees with you is great, and any text that disagrees with you is suspect. You inform the Bible rather than the Bible guiding your beliefs.

I think we've talked this to death. You have, it seems to me, such a predictable pattern. Your liberal worldview guides your beliefs, and then you go to the Bible in search of support. But you are always suspicious, so it's always about proof texts, or an unreliable NT text (unless it agrees with you), or someone is a fundie, and on and on it goes. Anything to keep from violating liberal dogma.

[Wondergirl]

I hope you don't rue that upcoming day of judgment -- or maybe you're just getting your own personal unhappiness out. Like we learned in counseling psych grad school, bullying, incivility, intimidation, and other forms of disrespectful behavior chills communication and discussion, undercuts individual contributions to posts, and, in general, undermines morale.

[jlisenbe]

Oh for goodness sake. You have an inconsistent belief. You believe the text of the NT when it seems to describe the Jesus you like, and yet you will not believe that same text when Jesus says what you don't like. It's not my issue. It's yours to deal with. You always want to blame the other person when it's you that needs correcting.

I'll give you the last word. It'll be your chance to explain the strange belief that the NT is reliable where it agrees with you and unreliable where it does not agree with you. Go for it.

[Wondergirl]

Oh for goodness sake. You have an inconsistent belief. You believe the text of the NT when it seems to describe the Jesus you like, and yet you will not believe that same text when Jesus says what you don't like. It's not my issue. It's yours to deal with. You always want to blame the other person when it's you that needs correcting.

I'll give you the last word. It'll be your chance to explain the strange belief that the NT is reliable where it agrees with you and unreliable where it does not agree with you. Go for it.

Your conclusion is totally incorrect. As Athos has said more than once, reading comprehension is not your strong point.

[jlisenbe]

That is such a thoroughly dishonest answer I can't let it go by. It's just another example of your idea that it's always the other guy's fault. This post said it all.

You said, "His entire life was one of love -- the agape kind, not eros or philos."


I replied, "But how can you know any of that? Remember that, according to you, the NT text is not reliable. So how can you know these things?" And I noted two former posts of yours clearly showing that you might have a writing comprehension problem, but reading comprehension is not the issue. They were scarcely a resounding endorsement of the NT's reliability.

"We don't have His exact words, just transcriptions and translations over the centuries."

"Of course the NT has been added to and changed to suit the ruler or pope or priest in power over the scribes."

Dear WG, if the text of the NT is unreliable as you say it is, then none of it can be trusted. Your faith is just emptiness in that case.

[Wondergirl]

I never said the NT text isn't reliable! And we DON'T have Jesus' exact words!

We can't verify the accuracy of Jesus' words. Jesus spoke Aramic and Greek, not English. Matthew and Mark were not at the foot of the cross, yet they wrote Jesus' words that were translated over and over again for centuries. How accurate were they by the time we read them in English?

[jlisenbe]

I never said the NT text isn't reliable! And we DON'T have Jesus' exact words!

Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. The words we have of Christ are not really right, but by George the text sure is reliable! Surely you can see the silliness of that position.

Either we have an accurate account or we don't. If it is accurate, then we can be confident of both the words AND actions of Jesus. If it's not, then it cannot help us. But you cannot hold that it both IS and IS NOT accurate.