We must not be talking about the same book because Jesus was hated by the pharisees up to the point of his crusifixion. I would like to hear more about these very important differences you speak of.

 

yet a fair amount of people have heard about it through the years yes?
heck there has even been people looking for the place. it was only writen once, but word of mouth spread the tale like wild fire.

im just saying, stories can change over the years... just because it was written doesnt mean it is the truthful way it was told in the beginning:hs:

 

human memory is not perfect. not 2000 years ago, not now, probably never. a story - especially one as long and complicated as an entire gospel - passed on by word of mouth cannot be assumed accurate. in generations of passing on a story by word of mouth, it's pretty reasonable to assume that some details were lost, changed, or embellished.

writing it down, copying it, distributing it, etc, could be more accurate, but then the person doing the copying might make mistakes as well. or they could modify it consciously. i'd like to see one biblical scholar who will say that the bible is 100% accurate history. i'd also like to see one historian contend that ancient word of mouth can be taken as 100% accurate history, too.

and, as others have mentioned, the bible as we know it didn't begin as a cohesive literary unit. there was a time when there were multiple versions of each of the gospels, and even more gospels than the moden bible contains. how can we know for certain the ones that made it into the modern-day bible are the right ones?

 

You're putting two of my points together. Yeah, Jesus pissed a lot of people off, and thats in the Gospels.

There's a whole bunch, just google it. Timelines for when Jesus was resurrected, his last words, his family, all sorts of stuff. Its not a huge deal, guys forget shit after 60 years. But it shows how you cannot take things verbatim.

 

i won't say that any of these are "important", but here's a good (long) list of inconsistencies in the bible:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...istencies.html

 

I was looking through that, and this caught my eye.

26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple

WTF? I'm thinking "hate" is the wrong word here?

 

its easy to distort anyones message if taken out of the context it was written. i, myself, as a christian see a lot of these 'inconsistencies' as i read through the bible but dont get too fixed on one verse out of thousands that will add up to paint a much larger picture. im not trying to cop out by simply sayin "you have to read it in context" over and over again, cuz even for me that gets played out. but if you try to understand the larger theme(s) at work, it all makes sense.

i REALLY dont want to come off as someone "preaching" cuz i hate that myself. in terms of the specific passage that was referred just now, it comes down to asking ourselves 'are we willing to lay down everything for the sake of following what God desires, even if it means going against what our familiar loved ones have held on to for so long'.

just a discussion, not meaning to say one person is right or wrong.

 

No, honestly, thats so much better. I was hoping that was what it meant.

 

Jesus Christ

 

The passage you are referring to is Luke 14:26. The word hate here is not in the litteral sense of hating ones mother, father etc... It is meant as a comparison. It is meant that a Christian should love Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, so much that our love for the afore mentioned, would seem as though it is hate.