The general consensus seems to be he was executed for sedition, i.e. claiming to be "king of the Jews" and potentially causing some sort of ruckus in the Temple around the time of Passover.
Curious what you mean by "sacrilege" as pretty much all Jews were guilty of not obeying Roman religion and I doubt Pilate would crucify Jesus for blaspheming the god of Israel. Also curious where you heard this was a crime punishable by crucifixion.
The Roman’s where also just kind of going and executing any Jew who they where concerned was causing a raucous. I mean in some ways Jesus wasn’t unique. And I think framing him as a “bag guy” since he was a “convicted criminal” kind of misses a large portion of context where Jews where being actively colonized and subjugated by the Roman’s. I mean it’s kind of a victim blaming perspective to take. Because at that point you’re on the side of the Roman’s who where going around murdering and subjugating the world as colonizing imperialists.
If one would want to they could argue Jesus was “mid” at his job. I mean a lot of the stories cited or called back to on Jesus, from a non Christian perspective come across more like someone not doing their job well. Like prepping a community for a weekly Shabbat tradition and then Shabbat rolls around and there’s nothing prepared for actually taking a rest, or damaging property and flipping tables in a price fixed market catered to lower income and middle class people making pilgrimage.
But in no way does reframing those stories into a Jewish or non Christian context make Jesus an inherent villain.
From my understanding Pontius Pilate didn’t even see the need to kill Jesus. Didn’t he give the Israelites the option of executing Jesus or a murderer?
I’m not a practicing Christian anymore so I’m more speaking in historical context. Even as a non-believer I wouldn’t ever consider Jesus (the person) as a lowly criminal. His crimes were essentially civil disobedience.
Even if he was reluctant he was the one making the final call. He was the one who was in charge of what punishments where metered out.
Also the sourcing of his “relunctance” comes from the gospels. And frankly I don’t know if that would or should be considered a reliable source as there’s a concerted effort in the NT to prove Jews where bad or their covenant ended. I mean it’s part and parcel with the deicide myth.
It makes sense that the Gospels would slant in Jesus’ favor. My takeaway with how the NT presented (from being taught) was that Jesus didn’t necessarily anger the Jews en masse, but more so angered the leaders overall. Obviously some people will read that and walk away thinking (((they))) killed Jesus but I see it as a power struggle involving ideological differences.
Just from my cursory understanding, there really wasn’t a crime he committed that necessitated execution.
I’m not saying I think the Jews weren’t innocent. I’m just speaking on the person Jesus and his specific context. Of course an invading force would bully the less powerful inhabitants. That’s been a common occurrence for forever.
You do understand that the Roman’s killed a lot of innocent Jews for making political waves right?
Him being killed by an occupying colonizing ruler isn’t an indication of him being bad or good. It’s just the historical situation that Jews in Judaea faced at that time.
No, I originally meant to push back on OP’s narrative of Jesus being this criminal. Because given the conditions of the region at the time, a lot of Jews including Jesus where killed for really doing nothing wrong.
I think in OP’s effort to make a point they may have not thought their argument through to its end and what that implies.
So I accidentally clicked your comment instead of responding to OP whom I originally meant to respond to in this thread.
It was legal to have chattel slavery. It was legal to do human sacrifices and eat human flesh . It was legal in many parts of the world you can still own underage sex slaves.
One million percent legality doesn’t equal morality.
Hopefully you’re not comparing Jesus to the contemporary criminal running for president. Two men couldn’t be more opposed in their ideology.
It’s possible to be labeled a criminal and still be a moral man, but Trump is no such thing.
That video of the chud praying to Trump during a traffic stop will always get a laugh out of me lmao. My biggest criticism of Trump to my conservative family is that his lifestyle pretty much until voting day 2016 was the antithesis of the Christian lifestyle and, by extension, Conservative values (extra marital affairs, racist business practices, compulsive lying, pride, idol worship, etc.). Obviously different arguments can (and are, justifiably) be made after his term and the fallout. All he did was reject abortion and the evangelical right fell in line.
The Roman’s where murdering colonizing occupiers. Not sure their word means anything as it pertained to Jews. If anything this is a concerning line of thinking as it implies Jews where a bunch of evil criminals as many Jews where condemned to crucifixion for being considered too influential. As in rising up against a colonial yoke.
I would argue if you’re actually willing to make this argument that it strikes me as an antisemitic trope. As Jesus wasn’t the only Jew to face Roman condemnation for making too many waves.
>it strikes me as an antisemitic trope
I think it's more an argument against the modern American idea that Jesus never hurt a fly, committed no crime whatsoever and was "fitted up" by a joint Roman/Jewish conspiracy to murder the messiah.
The Romans were bastards to everybody they conquered, Jesus could have been a Briton or Gaul and still met the same fate at the hands of Roman occupation. OP doesn't seem to have conveyed their point particularly well but I think that was meant to be it.
I think I agree. My point being that as a modern person, if one (as in a person now a days) is looking back and saying Jesus was a criminal and therefore evil, a lot of Jews died because of the Roman’s too. For frankly similar “crimes” of being to disruptive to Roman occupation. So are the other Jews who died also evil? Are they also criminals?
And if you go on that logic it feels like it’s similar to other arguments and tropes I have heard. If anything this whole position comes across as a half baked idea to prove Jesus is bad. But the implication when you actually apply that framework to history creates a problematic lens that unfortunately for OP, creates other implications.
So more of a modern person trying to fit a square peg in a round hole kind of vibe. My position was more to question the logic system and provide OP caution in the way their position is framed.
I think ops point is that Jesus was a bad guy! He was a convicted and executed extremist, terrorist, felon. Christians god is just an evil guy who broke the law and was put to death. They don’t know the real Jesus! (At least, that’s what I *think* he is trying to say)
Another unmoderated r/religion shitstorm of cluelessness. 1. Interpreting things that allegedly happened 2000 years ago in another part of the world by contemporary standards does not work. It is called "presentism." You have to put yourself "there" in historical context to understand the what and why. 2. The Romans considered any religious cult or leader that undermined Roman spiritual culture--which was taken very seriously--as antisocial and, at worst, terrorist activity. The Roman legion exterminated the city's Dionysian cult in a single day. For the most part, the Roman govt did tolerate Christians depending on who was emperor at the time. 3. The historicity of the life and death of Jesus as related in the Gospels is questionable. Separating the myth from the man continues.
Most importantly is that the criminal that evangelical Christians are worshipping is not Jesus but Donald J. Trump. Jesus' supposed crimes against Jewish law were performing (working) healings on the Sabbath and the interjected claim that he was the 'messiah,' Crime against Roman law was attracting a cult following perceived as a threat to Roman rule resulting in civil unrest. Both Jewish and Roman culture also had rules against magic and miracle working--even though lots of people practiced these things behind the scenes. Trump's crimes include election interference, treason, domestic terrorism, and fraud. While adultery and compulsive lying are not crimes, he's mastered them along with the other 7 deadly sins.
If he was preaching that HE IS G-D, as Yeshuites believe he was preaching their present-day theology, then yes, this was a violation of Jewish law, and yes, this was his punishment, and yes, he most certainly knew that.
u/justafanofz
u/BayonetTrenchFighter
For an arrogant son of adultery who, along with his trouble-making cult has defiled, terrorized the sanctity of the Holy Temple and wanted people to worship him? Honestly, yes.
He was so dangerous that (according to their Gospels) we preferred the presence of Barabbas, the actual criminal and thief, rather than him among us.
Yes, I trust what the ancient sages said about him.
There is also no acceptable logical, objective basis for his virgin birth. His mother most certainly committed adultery and for some reason, fortunately for her, she was not punished.
"Most certainly"... Implying rape never happens. But you're also assuming that someone being a "bastard" is a reasonable metric to judge their character by. There's no point in trading any more words with you.
>"Most certainly"... Implying rape never happens.
I am not creating speculation, I am relying on the reported early accounts about him.
When you find evidence of her rape, present it *(I promise I won't be too stubborn in accepting it)*.
>But you're also assuming that someone being a "bastard" is a reasonable metric to judge their character by
I have to! Because he supposedly claimed to be the Moshiach, which is based primarily on a noble lineage that goes to King David and not to an idolatrous Roman soldier *(whether through adultery or rape)*.
I wonder how he could save mankind despite his inability to protect his mother's honor from adultery or rape, and to protect himself from the hands of the Romans.
He never claimed to be the earthly king, he was accused, but he didn’t do it. He even told the Jews to submit to Rome.
And how exactly did he commit sacrilege? And by Christian standards, what you’re doing is sacrilegious, does that make you a criminal?
And Rome had something similar. Each person was able to follow the religion of their choosing and what was sinful in one religion was not necessarily a crime in Rome.
You had to think the emperor was a god, yet the Jews didn’t.
Notice the Jews didn’t accuse Jesus of sacrilege?
Depending on whether or not healing counts as work, Jesus did not keep the Sabbath ([Mark 3:1-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+3%3A1%E2%80%935&version=ESV) , [Luke 13:10-17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+13%3A10-17&version=ESV)), contra [Exodus 20:8-11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020%3A8-11&version=ESV). He also declared all foods clean in [Mark 7:19](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7%3A19&version=ESV), contray to [Leviticus 11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2011&version=NIV).
Finally, Jesus claimed to be the biblical god in [John 10:29-33](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A29-33&version=ESV), which flies in the face of [Exodus 20:3-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A3-5&version=ESV) and [Deuteronomy 6:4-15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+6%3A4-15&version=ESV).
1) he points out the Jews helped heal livestock in danger, showing it’s not work.
2) that’s a translators commentary, as it’s not in other translations.
3) only a sin if he isn’t god.
1. neither the man in Mark's gospel, not the woman in Luke's were in danger, which appears to be the reasonable exception in the Law (i.e. that if it can't wait, then it's permissable. Though I'd appreciate a earned Jewish perspective on this). Both the man and the woman could've come back the next day, or Jesus could've done a house-call first thing in the morning if he so inclined to help them asap.
2. However the intent of the passage Mark 7:14-23 clearly conveys that same point; that no foods can defile the person.
3. To avoid us both butting-heads over differences of belief; if he was god, then it certainly wasn't obvious enough to his audience in the temple to warrant them not upholding what they believed to be right, by the measure of the law. As a hypothetical, if these same temple-folk saw Jesus walk into the holy-of-holies and making-off with the furniture, they would be acting within the bounds of the law to at least stop him for long enough for him to produce clear proof that he was in fact the owner.
Likewise for if they discovered Jesus standing over a lacerated corpse while holding a bloody knife, or eating the sacrifical animals before they hand been sacrificed. Unless the practice of the time was to ensure any potential criminals were not god before prosecuting them for things that only god is permitted to do.
1) same argument can be used for an animal trapped in a well.
2) he’s talking about a different type of defilement. The unclean foods didn’t defile someone, they were ritually unclean, like how in some cultures, wearing shoes in a home defiles it.
3) there’s people where the shape of the earth isn’t “obvious to them.”
1. I'd disagree. An animal in a well can die from stress if left in that situation, and even if it did survive it would be using the well as a latrine which would make the well a hazard to the community.
2. I feel that we have different perspectives of the text here that cannot be reconciled. I can see how you can come to your reading, but to me, my reading seems to be the clear intended understanding.
3. Yet, the human incarnation of the globe is not standing in front of them, wantin them to accept its true shape and having the ability to demonstrate it beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite the signs they may have already seen, but not believed, the hearts of these disbelievers could be moved by the divine being right before them with whatever proof they would have needed.
I sense that no matter what one of us could say to the other, neither of us would be moved in our respective beliefs (which is fine, imo). How about we leave the conversation here, rather than wear ourselves out and wind ourselves up?
It’s not about changing beliefs. It’s about if he’s guilty of a crime.
In all situations, a reasonable defense can be provided, as such, he’s not guilty.
"beliefs" in the sense of "perspectives / interpretations", of the text specifically. From the text as I read it, it appears that he is guilty, and I don't find the defenses to be reasonable.
Which I understand is frustrating as all heck, but it's where we are at the moment. If my mind changes at some point down the road, in response to another perspective or more information or some such, then I'll let you know.
I don’t hate Jordan Peterson, reading his work made me realize that I’m not and will never be a Christian.
That may come off as snarky and patronizing but I don’t intend it that way, it was genuinely useful to me as someone who grew up in a non-Christian culture and at one point looked at a variety of religions thinking “which one is for me?”
He’s clearly an intelligent theologian, I just wish he stayed more in his lane and didn’t veer into contemporary politics, because while he knows quite a bit about theology, he doesn’t know as much about biology and “hard science” as he thinks he does.
Why would the supposed 'son of god' be bound by eathly laws? If anything it makes his story more heroic and inspiring for its followers-- god's law is above all else they might say.
I didn't call you a Nazi. I said you would have flourished under Nazi rule.
Your worship isn't for sentimentality or conscience or goodness but for LAW. Every evil regime on earth LOVES people like that.
Now if this post was just a half baked thought and you actually DO recognize that law is just an imperfect approximation of what a society (or dictatorial class) thinks is right then - congratulations you are normal and might not flourish under the Nazis.
Please don't:
* Be (intentionally) rude at all.
* Engage in rabble rousing.
* Troll, stalk, or harass others.
* Conduct personal attacks.
* Start a flame war.
* Insult others.
* Engage in illegal activity.
* Post someone's personal information, or post links to personal information.
* Repost deleted/removed information.
Pilate himself said that Jesus was innocent and told the Jews to do it themselves. The mob forced him to crucify Jesus. He even questioned the crowd why they would not choose Jesus to be set free but would prefer a horrible criminal. Pilate was a man of high authority and thus he knew the law of rome so his words hold weight when he says the Jesus had no fault.
Many men went to Jesus and questioned him and he wasn't once arrested by them. The people who took Jesus info custody were the Jews! He was tried by the Jews! He was nowhere near a criminal under the law! The only reason Jesus faced execution is because a large mob was shouting to crucify him, Pilate was facing a unprecedented scenario where he feared the people would revolt if Jesus was not crucified
Rabbis only became a thing after Jesus died due to expulsion. The Pharisees where a precursor. And it’s arguable that Jesus was a member of the Pharisee movement as he was in talks with them and behaving similar to them in terms of reaching out as a community leader to communities in Judaea.
Also the Catholic Church didn’t exist then.
Only if Jesus is not God the Son and resurrected from the dead. Gods laws are above man’s laws. And it is man’s lack of submission to God’s authority that killed Jesus. It just happened to in the form of religion and government. Not coincidentally too I feel.
The general consensus seems to be he was executed for sedition, i.e. claiming to be "king of the Jews" and potentially causing some sort of ruckus in the Temple around the time of Passover. Curious what you mean by "sacrilege" as pretty much all Jews were guilty of not obeying Roman religion and I doubt Pilate would crucify Jesus for blaspheming the god of Israel. Also curious where you heard this was a crime punishable by crucifixion.
The Roman’s where also just kind of going and executing any Jew who they where concerned was causing a raucous. I mean in some ways Jesus wasn’t unique. And I think framing him as a “bag guy” since he was a “convicted criminal” kind of misses a large portion of context where Jews where being actively colonized and subjugated by the Roman’s. I mean it’s kind of a victim blaming perspective to take. Because at that point you’re on the side of the Roman’s who where going around murdering and subjugating the world as colonizing imperialists. If one would want to they could argue Jesus was “mid” at his job. I mean a lot of the stories cited or called back to on Jesus, from a non Christian perspective come across more like someone not doing their job well. Like prepping a community for a weekly Shabbat tradition and then Shabbat rolls around and there’s nothing prepared for actually taking a rest, or damaging property and flipping tables in a price fixed market catered to lower income and middle class people making pilgrimage. But in no way does reframing those stories into a Jewish or non Christian context make Jesus an inherent villain.
From my understanding Pontius Pilate didn’t even see the need to kill Jesus. Didn’t he give the Israelites the option of executing Jesus or a murderer? I’m not a practicing Christian anymore so I’m more speaking in historical context. Even as a non-believer I wouldn’t ever consider Jesus (the person) as a lowly criminal. His crimes were essentially civil disobedience.
Pilate's reluctance is anti-Jewish propaganda. The real Pilate of history was eager to execute Jews and Samaritans, even innocent ones
Even if he was reluctant he was the one making the final call. He was the one who was in charge of what punishments where metered out. Also the sourcing of his “relunctance” comes from the gospels. And frankly I don’t know if that would or should be considered a reliable source as there’s a concerted effort in the NT to prove Jews where bad or their covenant ended. I mean it’s part and parcel with the deicide myth.
It makes sense that the Gospels would slant in Jesus’ favor. My takeaway with how the NT presented (from being taught) was that Jesus didn’t necessarily anger the Jews en masse, but more so angered the leaders overall. Obviously some people will read that and walk away thinking (((they))) killed Jesus but I see it as a power struggle involving ideological differences. Just from my cursory understanding, there really wasn’t a crime he committed that necessitated execution.
No. But most Jews who where killed by the Roman’s didn’t either. A lot of Jews died under Roman occupation. A lot committed no crime.
I’m not saying I think the Jews weren’t innocent. I’m just speaking on the person Jesus and his specific context. Of course an invading force would bully the less powerful inhabitants. That’s been a common occurrence for forever.
So then what is your point?
…that’s it. what point are you fishing for?
Not fishing. I’m genuinely confused as to your point. And how it’s relevant to my point.
I mean, to the Romans, Jesus basically did a Jan 6.
Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution, but the Jews definitely stoned blasphemers
They tried multiple times.
You do understand that the Roman’s killed a lot of innocent Jews for making political waves right? Him being killed by an occupying colonizing ruler isn’t an indication of him being bad or good. It’s just the historical situation that Jews in Judaea faced at that time.
What are you responding to? I just said the Jews tried to stone him multiple times.
Whoops. Meant to reply to op.
I was so confused 😆 I see by your tag that you are Jewish, would you want to debate something?
No, I originally meant to push back on OP’s narrative of Jesus being this criminal. Because given the conditions of the region at the time, a lot of Jews including Jesus where killed for really doing nothing wrong. I think in OP’s effort to make a point they may have not thought their argument through to its end and what that implies. So I accidentally clicked your comment instead of responding to OP whom I originally meant to respond to in this thread.
Legality and morality are not the same thing
It was legal to have chattel slavery. It was legal to do human sacrifices and eat human flesh . It was legal in many parts of the world you can still own underage sex slaves. One million percent legality doesn’t equal morality.
Yeah this just feels like someone making a half baked idea and haven’t thought of the implications.
Who said anything about morality? If you break the law, you are a criminal. It doesn't matter if the law is just or not.
What's the point you're trying to make then?
Just what I said in the OP. There's no hidden subtext
Hopefully you’re not comparing Jesus to the contemporary criminal running for president. Two men couldn’t be more opposed in their ideology. It’s possible to be labeled a criminal and still be a moral man, but Trump is no such thing.
Wtf, why is everybody bringing Trump into this?
Good troll sir, good troll.
Have you been living under a rock? Comparing christ to trump is an often used excuse for his criminal behavior.
How dare you compare that criminal to our lord and savior trump!
That video of the chud praying to Trump during a traffic stop will always get a laugh out of me lmao. My biggest criticism of Trump to my conservative family is that his lifestyle pretty much until voting day 2016 was the antithesis of the Christian lifestyle and, by extension, Conservative values (extra marital affairs, racist business practices, compulsive lying, pride, idol worship, etc.). Obviously different arguments can (and are, justifiably) be made after his term and the fallout. All he did was reject abortion and the evangelical right fell in line.
The Roman’s where murdering colonizing occupiers. Not sure their word means anything as it pertained to Jews. If anything this is a concerning line of thinking as it implies Jews where a bunch of evil criminals as many Jews where condemned to crucifixion for being considered too influential. As in rising up against a colonial yoke. I would argue if you’re actually willing to make this argument that it strikes me as an antisemitic trope. As Jesus wasn’t the only Jew to face Roman condemnation for making too many waves.
>it strikes me as an antisemitic trope I think it's more an argument against the modern American idea that Jesus never hurt a fly, committed no crime whatsoever and was "fitted up" by a joint Roman/Jewish conspiracy to murder the messiah. The Romans were bastards to everybody they conquered, Jesus could have been a Briton or Gaul and still met the same fate at the hands of Roman occupation. OP doesn't seem to have conveyed their point particularly well but I think that was meant to be it.
I think I agree. My point being that as a modern person, if one (as in a person now a days) is looking back and saying Jesus was a criminal and therefore evil, a lot of Jews died because of the Roman’s too. For frankly similar “crimes” of being to disruptive to Roman occupation. So are the other Jews who died also evil? Are they also criminals? And if you go on that logic it feels like it’s similar to other arguments and tropes I have heard. If anything this whole position comes across as a half baked idea to prove Jesus is bad. But the implication when you actually apply that framework to history creates a problematic lens that unfortunately for OP, creates other implications. So more of a modern person trying to fit a square peg in a round hole kind of vibe. My position was more to question the logic system and provide OP caution in the way their position is framed.
I can't disagree with what you say there and it's certainly not the only issue caused by modern hindsight when looking at historical matters.
Too true.
Oh, I think they are pretty well aware. Get ready for it to be brought up any time someone brings up trump is a criminal. “So is Jesus.”
Whats your point exactly? Christians know that Jesus was convicted and found guilty for things he didnt deny and even doubled down on.
I think ops point is that Jesus was a bad guy! He was a convicted and executed extremist, terrorist, felon. Christians god is just an evil guy who broke the law and was put to death. They don’t know the real Jesus! (At least, that’s what I *think* he is trying to say)
Another unmoderated r/religion shitstorm of cluelessness. 1. Interpreting things that allegedly happened 2000 years ago in another part of the world by contemporary standards does not work. It is called "presentism." You have to put yourself "there" in historical context to understand the what and why. 2. The Romans considered any religious cult or leader that undermined Roman spiritual culture--which was taken very seriously--as antisocial and, at worst, terrorist activity. The Roman legion exterminated the city's Dionysian cult in a single day. For the most part, the Roman govt did tolerate Christians depending on who was emperor at the time. 3. The historicity of the life and death of Jesus as related in the Gospels is questionable. Separating the myth from the man continues. Most importantly is that the criminal that evangelical Christians are worshipping is not Jesus but Donald J. Trump. Jesus' supposed crimes against Jewish law were performing (working) healings on the Sabbath and the interjected claim that he was the 'messiah,' Crime against Roman law was attracting a cult following perceived as a threat to Roman rule resulting in civil unrest. Both Jewish and Roman culture also had rules against magic and miracle working--even though lots of people practiced these things behind the scenes. Trump's crimes include election interference, treason, domestic terrorism, and fraud. While adultery and compulsive lying are not crimes, he's mastered them along with the other 7 deadly sins.
Hey! Shitstorms of cluelessness are a time-honoured tradition of this sub! Show some respect!
:-D
It's probably why they like Trump so much!
If the government is bad and has laws against doing what is right, then breaking those laws (and becoming a criminal) would be the right thing to do
Whether it’s lost or not, criminality doesn’t equate ethicality.
Which laws did he break? Be specific please
If he was preaching that HE IS G-D, as Yeshuites believe he was preaching their present-day theology, then yes, this was a violation of Jewish law, and yes, this was his punishment, and yes, he most certainly knew that.
“You have said so” Also, is it a sin for god to say he is god?
u/justafanofz u/BayonetTrenchFighter For an arrogant son of adultery who, along with his trouble-making cult has defiled, terrorized the sanctity of the Holy Temple and wanted people to worship him? Honestly, yes. He was so dangerous that (according to their Gospels) we preferred the presence of Barabbas, the actual criminal and thief, rather than him among us.
That’s really interesting! So even if everything he said was true, he still committed a crime. That’s fascinating.
>"son of adultery" You don't just hold to the religion of the Tanakh, I see. You hold to a view on people as old as the book.
Yes, I trust what the ancient sages said about him. There is also no acceptable logical, objective basis for his virgin birth. His mother most certainly committed adultery and for some reason, fortunately for her, she was not punished.
"Most certainly"... Implying rape never happens. But you're also assuming that someone being a "bastard" is a reasonable metric to judge their character by. There's no point in trading any more words with you.
>"Most certainly"... Implying rape never happens. I am not creating speculation, I am relying on the reported early accounts about him. When you find evidence of her rape, present it *(I promise I won't be too stubborn in accepting it)*. >But you're also assuming that someone being a "bastard" is a reasonable metric to judge their character by I have to! Because he supposedly claimed to be the Moshiach, which is based primarily on a noble lineage that goes to King David and not to an idolatrous Roman soldier *(whether through adultery or rape)*. I wonder how he could save mankind despite his inability to protect his mother's honor from adultery or rape, and to protect himself from the hands of the Romans.
Would it be a crime, even if it was true?
Sacrilege and sedition. Like I said.
He never claimed to be the earthly king, he was accused, but he didn’t do it. He even told the Jews to submit to Rome. And how exactly did he commit sacrilege? And by Christian standards, what you’re doing is sacrilegious, does that make you a criminal?
No because I live under the first amendment. Jesus had no such protection.
And Rome had something similar. Each person was able to follow the religion of their choosing and what was sinful in one religion was not necessarily a crime in Rome. You had to think the emperor was a god, yet the Jews didn’t. Notice the Jews didn’t accuse Jesus of sacrilege?
Depending on whether or not healing counts as work, Jesus did not keep the Sabbath ([Mark 3:1-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+3%3A1%E2%80%935&version=ESV) , [Luke 13:10-17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+13%3A10-17&version=ESV)), contra [Exodus 20:8-11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020%3A8-11&version=ESV). He also declared all foods clean in [Mark 7:19](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7%3A19&version=ESV), contray to [Leviticus 11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2011&version=NIV). Finally, Jesus claimed to be the biblical god in [John 10:29-33](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A29-33&version=ESV), which flies in the face of [Exodus 20:3-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A3-5&version=ESV) and [Deuteronomy 6:4-15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+6%3A4-15&version=ESV).
1) he points out the Jews helped heal livestock in danger, showing it’s not work. 2) that’s a translators commentary, as it’s not in other translations. 3) only a sin if he isn’t god.
1. neither the man in Mark's gospel, not the woman in Luke's were in danger, which appears to be the reasonable exception in the Law (i.e. that if it can't wait, then it's permissable. Though I'd appreciate a earned Jewish perspective on this). Both the man and the woman could've come back the next day, or Jesus could've done a house-call first thing in the morning if he so inclined to help them asap. 2. However the intent of the passage Mark 7:14-23 clearly conveys that same point; that no foods can defile the person. 3. To avoid us both butting-heads over differences of belief; if he was god, then it certainly wasn't obvious enough to his audience in the temple to warrant them not upholding what they believed to be right, by the measure of the law. As a hypothetical, if these same temple-folk saw Jesus walk into the holy-of-holies and making-off with the furniture, they would be acting within the bounds of the law to at least stop him for long enough for him to produce clear proof that he was in fact the owner. Likewise for if they discovered Jesus standing over a lacerated corpse while holding a bloody knife, or eating the sacrifical animals before they hand been sacrificed. Unless the practice of the time was to ensure any potential criminals were not god before prosecuting them for things that only god is permitted to do.
1) same argument can be used for an animal trapped in a well. 2) he’s talking about a different type of defilement. The unclean foods didn’t defile someone, they were ritually unclean, like how in some cultures, wearing shoes in a home defiles it. 3) there’s people where the shape of the earth isn’t “obvious to them.”
1. I'd disagree. An animal in a well can die from stress if left in that situation, and even if it did survive it would be using the well as a latrine which would make the well a hazard to the community. 2. I feel that we have different perspectives of the text here that cannot be reconciled. I can see how you can come to your reading, but to me, my reading seems to be the clear intended understanding. 3. Yet, the human incarnation of the globe is not standing in front of them, wantin them to accept its true shape and having the ability to demonstrate it beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite the signs they may have already seen, but not believed, the hearts of these disbelievers could be moved by the divine being right before them with whatever proof they would have needed. I sense that no matter what one of us could say to the other, neither of us would be moved in our respective beliefs (which is fine, imo). How about we leave the conversation here, rather than wear ourselves out and wind ourselves up?
It’s not about changing beliefs. It’s about if he’s guilty of a crime. In all situations, a reasonable defense can be provided, as such, he’s not guilty.
"beliefs" in the sense of "perspectives / interpretations", of the text specifically. From the text as I read it, it appears that he is guilty, and I don't find the defenses to be reasonable. Which I understand is frustrating as all heck, but it's where we are at the moment. If my mind changes at some point down the road, in response to another perspective or more information or some such, then I'll let you know.
I think Jordan Peterson (I know everyone here hates him) [talked](https://youtu.be/Gzif0afjN5A?si=1mkbxz5wqOAlqDhF) about it pretty well.
I don’t hate Jordan Peterson, reading his work made me realize that I’m not and will never be a Christian. That may come off as snarky and patronizing but I don’t intend it that way, it was genuinely useful to me as someone who grew up in a non-Christian culture and at one point looked at a variety of religions thinking “which one is for me?” He’s clearly an intelligent theologian, I just wish he stayed more in his lane and didn’t veer into contemporary politics, because while he knows quite a bit about theology, he doesn’t know as much about biology and “hard science” as he thinks he does.
I sometimes wonder how much he drifted to those places on his own, vs being pulled in a certain direction by the government and his fans
Why would the supposed 'son of god' be bound by eathly laws? If anything it makes his story more heroic and inspiring for its followers-- god's law is above all else they might say.
[удалено]
What a strange thing to call me a Nazi for
I didn't call you a Nazi. I said you would have flourished under Nazi rule. Your worship isn't for sentimentality or conscience or goodness but for LAW. Every evil regime on earth LOVES people like that. Now if this post was just a half baked thought and you actually DO recognize that law is just an imperfect approximation of what a society (or dictatorial class) thinks is right then - congratulations you are normal and might not flourish under the Nazis.
Please don't: * Be (intentionally) rude at all. * Engage in rabble rousing. * Troll, stalk, or harass others. * Conduct personal attacks. * Start a flame war. * Insult others. * Engage in illegal activity. * Post someone's personal information, or post links to personal information. * Repost deleted/removed information.
Where does it say that Jesus was legitimately condemned?
Pilate himself said that Jesus was innocent and told the Jews to do it themselves. The mob forced him to crucify Jesus. He even questioned the crowd why they would not choose Jesus to be set free but would prefer a horrible criminal. Pilate was a man of high authority and thus he knew the law of rome so his words hold weight when he says the Jesus had no fault. Many men went to Jesus and questioned him and he wasn't once arrested by them. The people who took Jesus info custody were the Jews! He was tried by the Jews! He was nowhere near a criminal under the law! The only reason Jesus faced execution is because a large mob was shouting to crucify him, Pilate was facing a unprecedented scenario where he feared the people would revolt if Jesus was not crucified
This is the part Christians don't talk about. i think he killed a jewish rabbi & the Catholic church covered it up
Rabbis only became a thing after Jesus died due to expulsion. The Pharisees where a precursor. And it’s arguable that Jesus was a member of the Pharisee movement as he was in talks with them and behaving similar to them in terms of reaching out as a community leader to communities in Judaea. Also the Catholic Church didn’t exist then.
Jesus being executed for crimes is like, the thing Christians talk about **the most** lol
[удалено]
Huh?
You are completely right. I totally misunderstood your post. Sorry about that
Only if Jesus is not God the Son and resurrected from the dead. Gods laws are above man’s laws. And it is man’s lack of submission to God’s authority that killed Jesus. It just happened to in the form of religion and government. Not coincidentally too I feel.