How do you explain Jesus angrily overturning tables and whipping/throwing out the tax collectors (jews) from His Father’s temple? You may want to read Ecclesiastes chapter 3 (KJV). It even says there’s a “time to hate”.
In the original wording, there was no explicit statement that “he was angry.” The point was not about a specific person’s emotional state, but about the general difference between acting through clarity and acting through hostility. The contrast between love and hatred was used to illustrate two modes of perception, not to describe an individual’s actual feelings.
Before one understands the nature of perception, hatred may appear useful. It can feel like a form of power or moral certainty. But once clarity is developed, hatred becomes unnecessary and counterproductive. The only “time” for hatred is the period in which a person has not yet learned to see without distortion. After that, hatred is simply a failure to perceive.
John 1:11 - "He came unto his own (the jews), and his own (the jews) received him not."
Romans 2:29 - "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."
According to the Bible, Jesus, the Son of God, hates the Jews. This fact is irrefutable.
No such text.
Here are many texts that don't apply to "the Jews" collectively, followed by all the ones that do, just by doing a simple word study. OP refers to Jesus's treatment of individuals, never of the collective "the Jews". Also, he said the synagogue of satan were not Jews but Gentiles, so he was equal opportunity with his invective.
The fact that the first Christians hated the Jews so much proves that Jesus himself must have hated them.
Not at all, the first 5,000 Christians were all Jewish and there were a million Jews in Christianity that century. Later generations continued to criticize individual Jews like Trypho (Tarphon). Even if the statement were true it's not an "irrefutable" inference because Christians make mistakes.
Nicholas Donin, Johannes Pfefferkorn, and Jacob Brafman, all of whom were Jewish
You admit that Jews converted to Christianity can still be Jewish, but you others deny it of the early church and of Jesus, which is illogical.
Even God hated the Jews so much that he wanted to destroy them all in the desert. God was the first to want to commit genocide against the Jews.
No such text.
God said "Jacob I loved" (i.e. Israel and Judah). He did not say in Deut. 9:12-14 what he wanted but what he would do if left alone, because he wanted Moses to intercede. We know what God wants by what he does and commands. The Hebrew is a conditional that frames an interrogative of whether the hearer agrees with the hypothetical.
You are so much fun to refute on behalf of the lurkers. I also pray that sooner or later you may come to full knowledge of the truth in Jesus, because I appreciate that you sometimes change tack when refuted. If you want to larp as a conservative American in this nationality-privacy zone, you would do well to learn how to accept criticism graciously and acknowledge it and make adjustments as a result; it would do wonders for your earnings and your friends' acceptance of how much outreach you've gotten done.
I think it would be far better for probable Muslims like you if you reached out with how much shariah law is like Christian moral law and Jewish torah. You could emphasize that shariah and torah are the same word. By making the occasional concession about the ahadith that need not be emphasized because they're Muslim-disputed and objectionable, you would gain many concessions from the Christians and Jews about how much their law is like shariah. For instance, if you said no mainstream Muslim really believes Muhammad molested Hasan and Husain and that's only a discredited fringe tradition, then you might get Christians and Jews more comfortable fitting together their sabbaths with the jumu'ah. If your goal is to promote shariah triumphalistically, you would do better to commend it forthrightly rather than to try to drive wedges between Jews and Christians.
You can flush your shit diwn the toilet without having hatred for it.
With love, you can discern a thing properly and deal with it accordingky and bravely.
With anger and hatred you can't see clearly, can't deal with things in the best way and only with boldness, not true bravery.
Angry people are cowards.
Jesus had no hatred
How do you explain Jesus angrily overturning tables and whipping/throwing out the tax collectors (jews) from His Father’s temple? You may want to read Ecclesiastes chapter 3 (KJV). It even says there’s a “time to hate”.
In the original wording, there was no explicit statement that “he was angry.” The point was not about a specific person’s emotional state, but about the general difference between acting through clarity and acting through hostility. The contrast between love and hatred was used to illustrate two modes of perception, not to describe an individual’s actual feelings.
Before one understands the nature of perception, hatred may appear useful. It can feel like a form of power or moral certainty. But once clarity is developed, hatred becomes unnecessary and counterproductive. The only “time” for hatred is the period in which a person has not yet learned to see without distortion. After that, hatred is simply a failure to perceive.
I hope this helps.
Thank you. I needed this take on hatred blinding clarity today.
Anytime.
Jesus is a jew.
Did your last brain cell explode in desperation of your constant lies?
Liar.
How am I a liar?
You think Jesus wasn't a jew?
I know* he wasn't. Not by religion or race.
Wow, wrong again. :D I guess you never read the Bible...
Jesus was a jew by both religion AND race.
I don't know if you realize how stupid you sound... You should've at least asked chatGPT or something...
Source?
John 1:11 - "He came unto his own (the jews), and his own (the jews) received him not."
Romans 2:29 - "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."
Let me know if you need more help.
John 8:44
All these "Jesus wasnt a jew" people apparently fail to see the history of Modern Jew vs Ancient Jew.
Define the term then.
What term?
"jew". As in, what is meant when people say Jesus was one.
Bro keeps trying to preach self-hatred, even to the Son of God. lol
Nope.
No such text.
Here are many texts that don't apply to "the Jews" collectively, followed by all the ones that do, just by doing a simple word study. OP refers to Jesus's treatment of individuals, never of the collective "the Jews". Also, he said the synagogue of satan were not Jews but Gentiles, so he was equal opportunity with his invective.
Not at all, the first 5,000 Christians were all Jewish and there were a million Jews in Christianity that century. Later generations continued to criticize individual Jews like Trypho (Tarphon). Even if the statement were true it's not an "irrefutable" inference because Christians make mistakes.
You admit that Jews converted to Christianity can still be Jewish, but
youothers deny it of the early church and of Jesus, which is illogical.No such text.
God said "Jacob I loved" (i.e. Israel and Judah). He did not say in Deut. 9:12-14 what he wanted but what he would do if left alone, because he wanted Moses to intercede. We know what God wants by what he does and commands. The Hebrew is a conditional that frames an interrogative of whether the hearer agrees with the hypothetical.
You are so much fun to refute on behalf of the lurkers. I also pray that sooner or later you may come to full knowledge of the truth in Jesus, because I appreciate that you sometimes change tack when refuted. If you want to larp as a conservative American in this nationality-privacy zone, you would do well to learn how to accept criticism graciously and acknowledge it and make adjustments as a result; it would do wonders for your earnings and your friends' acceptance of how much outreach you've gotten done.
I think it would be far better for probable Muslims like you if you reached out with how much shariah law is like Christian moral law and Jewish torah. You could emphasize that shariah and torah are the same word. By making the occasional concession about the ahadith that need not be emphasized because they're Muslim-disputed and objectionable, you would gain many concessions from the Christians and Jews about how much their law is like shariah. For instance, if you said no mainstream Muslim really believes Muhammad molested Hasan and Husain and that's only a discredited fringe tradition, then you might get Christians and Jews more comfortable fitting together their sabbaths with the jumu'ah. If your goal is to promote shariah triumphalistically, you would do better to commend it forthrightly rather than to try to drive wedges between Jews and Christians.