“If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love”
…
“You are my friends if you do what I command you.”
That seems pretty conditional to me. And note that he was speaking to his disciples (minus Judas Iscariot), his closest friends.
So it seems that his love is neither universal nor unconditional.
Here’s a roll of Charmin for when you’re done, Molesworth
I didn’t know what “Charmin” was so I googled it and found out that it was a brand of toilet paper.
Thanks for that. I now have some evidence that this particular brand of toilet paper exists.
Still no evidence that there is a “God”, but I’ll keep my fingers crossed for both of us.
This seems pretty clear:
Whether or not one believes the Bible to be true and accurate, it’s a fact that these words appear in it, and they are presented as being the actual voice of God confirming that Jesus is his son.
As far as Jesus claiming his own divinity and his use of the term “son of man”, it’s been my understanding that the term was quoted from the Old Testament (or, rather, the Jewish scriptures), and given that he was speaking to a Jewish audience that would be familiar with the Jewish scriptures, to that audience, calling himself the “son of man” was a pretty unambiguous claim to being God.
As to the specific question in the OP, we have the previously-mentioned John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world…); we can combine this with another verse (and I apologize for not knowing the exact chapter/verse off the top of my head) where Jesus says that he only does what he sees his father doing. Ergo, he sees his father loving the world, and so Jesus does too.
Fair enough, the wording does indeed at first flush seem to indicate a conditional love.
However, in the context of John’s Gospel as a whole, that’s not the correct interpretation. From chapter one, the Incarnation is envisaged as a light shining in the darkness of the world. This is for the sake of saving those in darkness (sin). Even though humanity is in darkness and don’t deserve it, the light comes and shines anyway and invites all to it.
But the light is God himself, which is all goodness. But those who chose evil, do not want to go to the light and have their evil deeds exposed or judged, and so, they vacate the light and stay in the darkness. Thus, their lack of salvation is their own damned (literally) fault because they fled the light.
The love for those who do evil is still there: they are still invited, they will be forgiven… but if they stay in the dark, then they are the ones who rejected the salvation and love.
That is how the conditional ‘ifs’ in the quotes above should be interpreted. Those who remain in the light/love/truth do what light/love/truth requires (or, at least, try to), and thus, enjoy the light/love/truth.
As support of that interpretation, the universality of Jesus’ love which is reflected in the universal offer of salvation… even to sinners… can be found not only the famous Jn 3:17 quoted above (“Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."), but also…*
Luke 5:30 The Pharisees and their scribes were complaining to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” 31 Jesus answered, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; 32 I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.”
Luke 15:30 [The elder son in the story of the Prodigal Son says…] "But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!’ 31 Then the father said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.’”
Mt 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.*
Wait, because the author sums up by mentioning the verse that a great many Christians would say most succinctly encapsulates the gospel - arguably the most popular and most-quoted verse in the Bible, you’re arguing that the Jesus Loves Me song must be based on that verse?
I disagree - for example, verse 2 is clearly based on Matthew 19 (“let the children come to me”), verse 4 has a bit of 2 Peter 1 in it (“God will open wide the gates of heaven for you”) and so on.
The song is an assorted collection of Christian memes and pseudoquotes from all over the place. It’s not especially based on John 3:16 - I think you’re misreading the intent of the history text.
[moderator note]
Molesworth 2, these comments are completely inappropriate for the GQ forum. Feel free to debate religion in GD or gripe about it in the Pit, but not here.
[/moderator note]
I also agree with the assessment that what the historic Jesus, if he existed, said and that Christians say he said, all the way back to Paul are very different.
However, fighting ignorance is another matter. Simply asserting that your interpretation is the only correct one and then providing quote which doesn’t say what you claim they say ironically reminds me of the other side.
As Mangetout says, the author of article you quoted is providing an editorial comment. That is clear from the context and in no way does it say that Susan Warner, author of Say and Seal relied exclusively on John 3:16.
I would be surprised if there were a definitive study of this as it seems Say and Seal was a soon-to-be forgotten novel by a minor author.
An abbreviated google search shows no evidence for this claim. Perhaps you could enlighten us.
I disagree. If you want to talk about context, let’s look at the Bible as a whole. The overriding theme is that if you fail to worship God, you are punished for it (or even worse, if the King fails to worship God, the nation is punished for it).
And Jesus only upped the ante. Before he came along, the worst that could happen to you was the Egyptians enslaving you, or the Assyrians killing you, or the Babylonians deporting you, i.e. a finite period of suffering before the oblivion of death. But Jesus said that if you cross him (no pun intended), death is only the beginning of your suffering. Anyone who doesn’t accept his “protection” will regret it – eternally.
“Hey, nice soul you got der. It would be a shame if it burned in hell forevah.”
If I am kind to my wife only when she does whatever I say, and I beat her whenever I think she isn’t properly respectful of my awesomeness, do I love her?
Oops. I stopped right there.
The question posed by the OP is: does the Bible really say Jesus loves me?
If you want to answer that, you look to the parts that include Jesus: Mainly the Gospels and then the other New Testament letters.
Bringing in documents that date to over 500 years before Jesus’ birth, even though they’re bound in the same book as the New Testament, isn’t really going to contextualize the rather obvious ‘yes’ found in the Gospel passages.
But if you have a quote from Leviticus or Numbers or Judges or Ruth that talks as specifically about Jesus’ attitudes toward his followers as the New Testament books do, I’d be happy to look at it.
If you think that Jesus and Yaweh are two completely different entities, I guess you’re entitled to that opinion, but several people in this thread have argued that when the Bible says God loves X (e.g. John 3:16), it’s the same as saying Jesus loves X, through the divine mystery of the Trinity.
And you seem to be agreeing with me, when you talk about “Jesus’ attitudes toward his followers.” If he doesn’t love you till you follow him, then that’s a very conditional love. Do you know who else had affection for his most devoted followers? (Yes, that’s a joke.)
Hello Polycarp.
I agree this is probably best in it’s own GD thread. I don’t have any argument with any faith that chooses to embrace the notion of a Triune God. My point in this thread is that it is unheard of in the bible.
If it was “a fact of their existence”, I would expect that it would be a pervasive part of their writings. But it is not.
More times than I can count I’ve read poignant, flowery analogies that attempt to explain the Trinity because on it’s face it’s ‘a great mystery.’
It is clear to me (who was raised a Trinitarian, btw) that in every instance a belief in the Trinity (from a 1600 year tradition we are taught without question from birth) *precedes * articulation of the Trinity from the bible.
I have never once heard an explanation that proceeds from the texts.
In other words, *we start * with a belief—taught from birth and taken as truth without question-----and then impute meaning to the texts; although the texts never directly or indirectly case a for the Trinity.
Lastly, I would point out that both longevity or popularity don’t impute legitimacy to an incorrect statement. If the expedient, politically made decision rendered by a non-Christian was wrong 1600 years ago, centuries of tradition won’t make it right.
No, I’m saying the opposite. My post above made that very clear. Let me go step by step.
People who do evil and are sinners don’t follow Jesus.
All people are in category referenced in #1 at some point in their lives.
Jesus came to invite them anyway:
[ul]
[li]He seeks out ‘the lost’ anyway. [/li][li]He teaches to love enemies and sinners are enemies of Jesus and Jesus practices what he preaches, so, he loves his enemies (sinners who don’t follow him). [/li][li]He preaches repentance… but you don’t tell the righteous to repent, but sinners… so, he cares about them. [/li][li]On the cross he prayed even for the ones who were actively crucifying him.[/li][/ul]
Therefore, Jesus loves even the sinners who don’t follow him. That is not conditional love. This point is made very, very, very explicit in the New Testament biblical texts. Thus, the OPs question is answered.
Actions speak louder than words, and a “love” that condemns you to burn in hell if you don’t obey him is not unconditional love.
What would you say to my version of unconditional, universal love?
[ul]
[li]As everyone knows, all women are evil, because their slutty bodies tempt men into having bad thoughts[/li]
[li]In my universal love, I invite them into my home anyway. I allow women to serve me by cleaning my house, cooking my meals, earning money to support me in the style I deserve, bearing my children, and just worshiping me in general. If they obey all of my commands, I give them food and shelter adequate to sustain life. [/li]
[li] However, my offer has a time limit. If they continue to reject my offer of unconditional love beyond that limit, I will hunt them down and torture them — forever. Once I start, it’s too late, they can’t change their minds. And the same goes for women who serve me faithfully for many years, but then allow their whorish minds to wander, and leave my service.[/li][/ul]
Of course, a brief synopsis cannot possibly make it clear how wonderful I am, but if you read my book (available at Walgreen’s), the light will dawn. If the light doesn’t dawn, you’re not reading my book correctly, so you should read it some more, until you get your mind right.
If you were the one that created women, then your definition of love would be valid. But instead, you redefine love to be exploitative and enslaving. I quoted above the text where Jesus says he doesn’t call has followers servant, but instead, friends.
But, typically in your arguments, with the exception of pointing out the isolated ‘ifs’, you ignore actual texts for creating philosophical straw men.
And your philosophical straw man is this: you equate the beloved’s rejection of love and going their own way as the lover’s love being conditional. The reality is that if the lover has unconditional love, but the beloved rejects that love and goes their own way, then the lover still has unconditional love.
I might agree if he actually allowed the “beloved” to go her own way, but he doesn’t. He follows her beyond the grave, and condemns her to eternal torture – a torture that Jesus apparently invented, because of all the threats God made against sinners in the 4000 years between Adam and Jesus (and he made many, many threats), that wasn’t one of them.
Can you really not see that if someone is dead, the neutral attitude toward them is to leave them dead? Can you really not see that it requires a conscious, deliberate act to revive them and torture them for eternity?
You guys are venturing way beyond General Questions territory, here.
The threats of burning in Gehenna were indeed threats, but, they there is no text that says it was carried out. You don’t have the resurrected Christ telling his disciples, “While I was in the land of the dead, I really torched the heck out of them awful folk.”
Furthermore, Gehenna was a burning garbage heap, not another name for “Hell” which was a Nordic transformation of “Hades” which is only mentioned in the NT Letters. Just like the bible presents us with conflicting images of heaven as feast, land of rest, and eternal worship service, so too is any description of what ‘hell’ is like metaphorical. Additionally, the idea of hunting down and eternally and personally torturing sinners is a latter construct of the Christians and not found in the Gospels.
Since we’re answering the OPs question about the bible (and avoiding GD territory), and not later theology, you shouldn’t be projecting that baggage onto the original texts. In many Christian circles (including the teachings of Pope John Paul II) hell is not a place of torture, but a state of being of being separated from God, which is, again, the person’s fault for choosing that separation.
See? You can’t take your definition of Hell and your surety that people are being tortured there or your claim that that is the notion of all Christians and project that onto the Gospel texts. You claims of “Hell is torture! Hell is torture!” is absurd when you look at the actual Gospel texts.
The fact that Jesus is trying to keep people away from an unhappy state of separation from God shows his love for them. His willingness to die for that mission, also a sign.
If people choose to be separated from God, from the point of view of God, that is choosing a state of unhappiness. God allows that choice. Did you not say above that forcing a choice isn’t unconditional love, but conditional love? God allows the choice. If people choose separation from God, they can. But since separation from God is necessarily unhappiness, then that’s their own fault.
You want a world where people can chose to do evil and separate themselves from God, and at the same time be eternally happy. God didn’t make us that way. And if you want to call the metaphysical limits of existence a conditional state, then so be it.
I have cited nothing later than the New Testament. In fact, your earlier complaint was that I was citing texts from 500 years before the NT.
No, it isn’t. Matthew 25, emphasis added:
And lest you think the punishment he refers to is merely separation from God, and not hellfire, you need only look a few lines up:
Sorry, but that is the “actual Gospel text.” You’re the one who is introducing the revisionist, extremely late theology of a 20th century Pope.
I brought up modern theology to show not all Christians interpret the firey punishment text literally. Not all texts in the Gospels can be taken literally, which you are doing.