Jump to content

Jesus Deserved To Die


Ouroboros
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just realized something (lets see what path this thought takes), in the Bible it says that unruly kids should be stoned to death, Jesus (supposedly) disobeyed his parents when he was 12 by staying in Jerusalem for 3 days. So by the standards and laws in the Torah he didn't honor his father and mother and deserved to die.

 

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a Christian would say no to that as Jesus was suppose to usher in the "New Covenant" with God (with himself, that is). Meaning that OT rule was made irrevelant.

 

However, I would remind the Christian that was only after Jesus was pinned up to die that his blood satiated his father, God (himself again, that is) and not while he was practicing his alledged ministry.

 

whistle.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hans...I think you are bored. :D:HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just realized something (lets see what path this thought takes), in the Bible it says that unruly kids should be stoned to death, Jesus (supposedly) disobeyed his parents when he was 12 by staying in Jerusalem for 3 days. So by the standards and laws in the Torah he didn't honor his father and mother and deserved to die.

 

What you think?

I think this makes his sinless sacrifice pretty much void. They may as well go empty the churchs. Everyone's going to hell. Good job there Jesus! :fdevil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just realized something (lets see what path this thought takes), in the Bible it says that unruly kids should be stoned to death, Jesus (supposedly) disobeyed his parents when he was 12 by staying in Jerusalem for 3 days. So by the standards and laws in the Torah he didn't honor his father and mother and deserved to die.

 

What you think?

 

You're right and then add this little gem below from the supposed mouth of Jesus (which btw, shows the law is still in effect)

 

Matthew 15

1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"

 

3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8" 'These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

9They worship me in vain;

their teachings are but rules taught by men

 

Funny, this is the scripture that most mainstream Christians use to get out of the whole unclean meat fiasco when clearly what is being discussed is the *man made* hand washing ritual. Jesus is pissed because they put their laws above gods law.

 

I think a Christian would say no to that as Jesus was suppose to usher in the "New Covenant" with God (with himself, that is). Meaning that OT rule was made irrevelant.

 

However, I would remind the Christian that was only after Jesus was pinned up to die that his blood satiated his father, God (himself again, that is) and not while he was practicing his alledged ministry.

 

Yeah, and then factor in that because Jesus hadn't been *sacrificed*(choke, gag, snicker) that the law was in full force meaning that the lamb was indeed blemished and therefore NOT an acceptable sacrafice.....DAMN, why didn't I see that in 3 decades of christianity!!! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF not for disobeying his parents, certainly for being a horse thief...

 

Well, donkey thief anyway .... and there was the small matter of inciting a riot, which was presumably why the Romans allegedly sent the equivalent of a full Infantry Company to arrest him.

Casey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH, Jesus himself wasn't that much of a jerk... if he existed. It's the monsters who follow him who are the problem.

I don't know about that. The whole "No man comes to the father but by me." spiel sounds pretty haughty and arrogant... two traits that, I believe, are clearly jerklike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on my research, it's an Anti-Thomasine interpolation into the Gospel of John. The root John was VERY similar in structure to Thomas, and the gospel of the Thomas basically says 'you don't need clergy, hell you don't even need me.'

 

The John is one of the most modified of texts in a set of heavily edited texts, it vbeing the last codified one. It has been mutilated to address specific 'heresies', albeit not very well at times...

 

and let him without jerkdom cast the first stone! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus supposedly also said "Hate your father and mother", not much of respect there, or that he told a guy that wanted to bury his dead father, and Jesus told him "let the dead bury the dead". Now that really shows how much of a family supporter he was. "Back to the old fashion Biblical core family values... hate your parents, shun them and leave them, and then you can join our mind altering cult!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH, Jesus himself wasn't that much of a jerk... if he existed. It's the monsters who follow him who are the problem.

I don't know about that. The whole "No man comes to the father but by me." spiel sounds pretty haughty and arrogant... two traits that, I believe, are clearly jerklike.

I agree it does sound jerklike, but I believe that the audience he was addressing had been accustomed to listening to temple priests and the like. His message was that the only way they could "know" God was to listen to what he was saying. He wasn't saying he was God, but that by listening to him, they too could "know" God. Maybe in today's language it would sound somthing like, if you don't listen to what I'm saying, you will never feel the presence of God.

 

Here is the verse phrased differently:

 

John 14:6 (Worldwide English (New Testament))

Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)

Copyright © by SOON Educational Publications

 

6Jesus said to him, `I am the way. I am the truth. I give life. No one can come to my Father unless I take him there.

 

Here is another translation from "The Words" site:

 

I tell you now: I am the way, the truth, and the life; no on can recognize the Father, except by my introduction.

 

Yes, it does still sound a little arrogant, but probably for a reason. He was attempting to change a mindset, I think. :shrug: Now whether that mindset was good or bad is a matter of belief. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now whether that mindset was good or bad is a matter of belief.

 

1) there's no evidence it's a saying of Jesus and every evidence it's an interpolation

 

2) Irrespective of what you believe, it's been the justification of Christianity spreading like a blight across the world, usually in blood (not often enough in the blood of those engaged the Great Mission... I always think being skinned by natives as a natural causes' for missionaries... and richly deserved...) And 'by [its] fruit ye shall know'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think Paul was much more of a dick and obsessed with his own views than Jesus was. Especially, if when you read the non-cannon book of Thecla, discounting the miracles.

 

Anyway, she converted when she heard Paul's preaching and refused to marry, remaining a virgin. The only way a woman, in that time could have any independance. Her fiance' drags her before the council demanding they make an example out of her. They attempt to burn her at the stake, but a rain storm prevents it. She escapes and joins Paul.

 

Then on her travels with Paul, she's thown into a pool of sharks, more for being an uppity woman more than her Christianity. Paul abandons her and goes on his merry way. He'd refused to baptise her, and when as she's being thown into the pool of sharks, a lightning bolt strikes the pool and kills the sharks. She then baptizes herself and rejoins Paul.

 

Again, on another trip, she's thrown to the lion's, and Paul take's off abandoning her yet again. What a freaking coward! The female lions lay at her feet and protect her from the male lions. It becomes women against men. All the women in the crowd demand her release and the Empress pardon's Thecla.

 

Is it any wonder why the church left Thecla out of cannon?

 

Taph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think Paul was much more of a dick and obsessed with his own views than Jesus was.

 

Amen sister... If Marcion hadn't had so much power Barnabus' letters and acts would have been canon, not Saul the self loathing Jew. There is a school of thought that Simon Magus is actually a satire of Saul/Paul and then he gained favour. I'm not sure how historical the Thecla stuff is, but it sounds like a Jamesian/Thomasian satire on Paul. Thomas has a less negative view of women (which was, you must remember, embraced by Rome as well as by Judea/wider Palestine...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH, Jesus himself wasn't that much of a jerk... if he existed. It's the monsters who follow him who are the problem.

 

Yeah he was. Jebus was a total asshole. Hell, he may not have existed, and certainly his followers throughout the centuries were real-world assholes whilst he remains strictly fictional, but still, going by the depictions in the Babble, he was a prick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF not for disobeying his parents, certainly for being a horse thief...

 

Well, donkey thief anyway .... and there was the small matter of inciting a riot, which was presumably why the Romans allegedly sent the equivalent of a full Infantry Company to arrest him.

Casey

Since everyone knew where he was all week (the garden opposite the temple) Judas must have come up with something to tell them to round him up... I favour the theft of the animal...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH, Jesus himself wasn't that much of a jerk... if he existed. It's the monsters who follow him who are the problem.

 

Yeah he was. Jebus was a total asshole. Hell, he may not have existed, and certainly his followers throughout the centuries were real-world assholes whilst he remains strictly fictional, but still, going by the depictions in the Babble, he was a prick.

 

I'd refer you Ehrman about textural reliablity... that sounds a later gloss into Mark... Generally things got more Nazi with time, not less...

 

Even then, as prickery goes, the son of man fades into obscurity comparative to those who came later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now whether that mindset was good or bad is a matter of belief.

 

1) there's no evidence it's a saying of Jesus and every evidence it's an interpolation

 

2) Irrespective of what you believe, it's been the justification of Christianity spreading like a blight across the world, usually in blood (not often enough in the blood of those engaged the Great Mission... I always think being skinned by natives as a natural causes' for missionaries... and richly deserved...) And 'by [its] fruit ye shall know'

 

1) There's really no evidence of Jesus.

 

2) No shit? I wonder where I got the idea for "blight" in my screen name? :scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your effect on all you touch? ;)

:HaHa: You are so not funny.

 

Anyway, what I meant when I said 'whether that mindset was good or bad was a matter of belief', I was talking about the Jews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.