Karma reasons for concrete message


Deus ex Machina

    Posts: 3030
  • Darwins +23/-3

No, I am speaking of these Christians:

I've heard many times by Christians that it doesn't change the meaning.
-- as stated in the OP.  Now, since I am speaking about those I've come across, that does not encompass all Christians, since I haven't met them all.

Originally you said "Christians". Then you said "most Christians". Now you're qualifying further and saying it's Christians of your acquaintance.

Unfortunately, that qualification leaves us with little or nothing to discuss, because I know none of these Christians of your acquaintance, I suspect no-one else here does either, and whilst I am fairly confident that the Christians of my acquaintance would say that removing an old metaphor from the text doesn't significantly alter the meaning, in no sense do I recognise as applicable to them your apparent assertion that they would ever have read the line literally in the first place.

Matthew: 10:33

The doctrinal notion that people who don't believe in Jesus go to Hell is hardly some ground-breaking revelation.

Luke 14:36 {...} Loving less is not the same as hating.

The term "hate", however, exists in Luke but not in Matthew. So in this sense, Luke is using the more "violent" language. Whereas in the earlier example, Matthew contains the more "violent" language. So it's not as if one author is consistently more "violent" than the other - at least, in this case. Perhaps the difficulty in translating into modern English from dead languages invariably results in these kinds of situations where one translator will use one word or phrase that another translator doesn't consider appropriate? Perhaps both authors lapsed into passionate or "violent" language from time to time? After all, it's not as if the use of passionate, aggressive or combative language is all that uncommon in contemporary discourse...

If you think they are the same, you're delusional.

... is it?

They all link to each other. One states violence, the other is a watered-down version of that, taking away the violence.

Except that the sword/division difference is Mat/Luke, and the hate/love less difference is Luke/Mat. So did Luke take away one bit of violence, only to add another bit elsewhere?

Changing the meaning.

Or perhaps there was always some ambiguity in the meaning, which translators even today still struggle to resolve and convey. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill in your zeal to take issue with the passage, myself.
Changed Change Reason Date
Nam wrong October 19, 2013, 08:22:53 PM