Choosing a faith

quote:

---

Paulk, some people lack the ability to understand things
if it is not spelled out "step by step" for them.

​

If you believe that I am wrong about the creation week,
it is up to you to show me where I am wrong.
​

---

I am sorry that your mental deficiency renders you incapable of understanding quite simple points.

quote:

---

Correct me if you can with what really happened on each
day.

---

So,you do NOT have Biblical support for your claims. Thanks for admitting that you were lying.

quote:

---

If you have no idea about what happened on each day,
then don't try to correct me

---

If you want to know what the Bible says, you can just read it, it’s quite clear about what God did on the fourth day:Genesis 1:16-17 Note that there is nothing there about clearing the atmosphere of clouds or “debris”

quote:

---

And now the anti-semitism. As I remember, the story says the Romans crucified that dude.

---

He also doesn’t mention Jesus violently disrupting the businesses in the Temple courtyard.

quote:

---

Essentially we should be striving to do whatever we can to benefit ourselves or maybe our own gene pool, and we can best do that by eradicating or enslaving outsiders that we compete with for resources.

---

Still pushing this tired old falsehood?

quote:

---

That is the story of the Gospels. The Jewish authorities and particularly the corrupt leaders of the Temple, (the ones that Jesus declared the Temple to be a "den of thieves), arrested Jesus and then to minimize the backlash from the general population presented Jesus to the Romans as someone who opposes paying taxes to Caesar and claiming to be King, which would mean that Caesar wasn't. So yes the Romans killed Him but it was the Jewish authorities that precipitated and painted a picture of Jesus that made Him a threat to the Romans.

---

You’re still intentionally ignoring Jesus’ own violence reported in the Gospels. And that Mark 12 has Jesus going even further in his rhetoric than you say. And the bias of the Gospels. And the fact that much of the story is not something that the disciples could have witnessed.

quote:

---

Jesus "violence" was justified if He is who He said He was. To Him, hawking T-Shirts in the Temple courts was as bad as hawking them in the innermost court.

---

That’s irrelevant to my point. My point is that the Gospels say that Jesus went much further than simply calling the Temple a “den of thieves” and that GDR is being dishonest in pretending otherwise.

quote:

---

What is it in Mark 12 that you are referring to?

---

Verses 1-12 the Parable of the Tenants.Which may well be a later Christian invention, rather than something Jesus said - but if he was speaking on those lines, I think that the priesthood had sufficient cause to see Jesus as a deadly threat.

Obviously you miss the important fact that it is not your interpretation that matters, it is the way that he priests interpreted it,

quote:

---

Thew parable is clearly an Israel story with the vineyard being Israel. God sent prophets to the Jewish people but they usually killed them and now they were going to do the the same thing to His anointed one the Messiah.

---

First, please support the claim that the Jewish people “usually killed” prophets sent by God.Second, according to verse 12 the “Priests and Elders” knew that they were the ones being talked about.

quote:

---

Jesus is saying that His message on non-violent revolution, as best shown in His call on them to "love their enemy", was being rejected by those in power, and specifically the Jewish authorities". He was saying that a violent revolution would lead to them being destroyed which did happen in 70 AD.

---

Obviously that is your personal interpretation. There is nothing in the text that speaks of the Jews violently rebelling. It simply says that “the owner” (God) will kill the tenants.Coming from someone seen as a potential Messiah, it seems reasonable to interpret it as his intent - to have the priesthood purged and reconstituted. That seems enough of a threat even without the man having a sicarius at his side.

What it says is pretty clear. GDR is the one who got that wrong. So maybe you should be talking to him.

quote:

---

In verse 12 we can see that the priests clearly understood it that way as they understood it to be aimed at them. Also it isn't so much that that they rejected the "son" in the story but in doing that they were also rejecting His message, which along with saying that the priests had made the Temple a den of thieves, but also it meant that His message on non-violence was being rejected with the results of that pictured in vs 9.

---

That’s just assumption on your part.

quote:

---

You are right to the extent that I shouldn't have used the term "usually" as I don't know that to be the case. Put in "often" in place of usually

​

Here is a list from the ancient book "The Lives of the Prophets"

---

I note that you didn’t bother to remove those that weren’t martyred even according to the book. When we remove those and those allegedly martyred by Kings of Israel or unspecified people we are left with one killed by the priests - Amos. And even that may well be untrue.I don’t think that a single example from an unreliable source is nearly enough to support a claim of “often”. Even if you add in the three supposedly killed by Kings it’s not impressive - 4 out of 23 isn’t that many. Did you even bother to read the list?As for the rest, I see nothing to change my mind. If Jesus said anything along those lines - which we can’t know - it is quite plausible that the priests thought him a violent revolutionary who intended to have them all killed.

quote:

---

Maybe, but it pretty reasonable one, although I would agree that they were much more concerned with His anti-temple message.

---

No, it isn’t reasonable. There’s no allusion to it in this text, and the idea that was Jesus’ message at all seems to be controversial at best, [quote] There was no shortage of revolutionaries floating around which ultimately culminated in the Great War. However, I would agree that by far they were concerned with His anti-Temple rhetoric, that was gaining a following than there were about revolution.
​[/quote[And in those times it would be quite reasonable to think of any would-be messiah as one of them.

quote:

---

AbE We got side-tracked here, but you brought this up as an example of Jesus promoting violence

---

No, I did not. I brought it up as an example of Jesus going further than you claimed in antagonising the Temple authorities. That the other action was actual violence does not mean that this was promoting violence in itself. I read it as something that could reasonably be taken as a threat of violence (although it could potentially lead to violent action from Jesus’ followers).

quote:

---

This is, as I have pointed out not a message of violence, but a comment of what went on in the past and a prediction of what the priests would have done to Him.

---

Openly saying that people deserve to be killed on the basis of accusations that appear to be untrue hardly matches your description. And, of course, you are still intentionally covering up the actual violence which is a far more plausible motive - assuming that the priests had anything to do with Jesus’ death at all. Which we do not and cannot know.

quote:

---

No it wouldn't. Jesus had no army nor was He trying to recruit one.

---

You say that but he was deliberately promoting himself as king.

quote:

---

Aside from Jesus promoting the message of self giving love He had two political messages which He promoted strongly.

​

The first was His message opposing violent revolution and promoting non-violent revolution with such commands as "love your enemy", turn the other cheek", and to "go the extra mile". His followers weren't soldiers but workers from the lower classes.
​
The second was His anti-Temple movement calling it a "sen of thieves" and over turning the tables of the money changers. It is interesting to note the huge similarities between what Jesus was combatting with the corruption of the Temple and what Luther was up against 1500 years later. Part of all that was the Temple getting rich with things like demanding sacrifices to get right with God and the 16th century church using indulgences to curry favour with God.
​

---

The sacrifices were mandated by the Torah, so I hardly see how you can blame the Temple for that. And, of course, we don’t know if Jesus would have extended anti-violence to gentiles.

quote:

---

OK, but I thought that I was pretty clear that Jesus was very much antagonizing the Temple authorities. Ultimately it was primarily them that were the instigators in having Jesus crucified. Jesus' lax attitude to things such as the sabbath laws and other laws would have upset the bulk of the Pharisees but it was the Temp[le authorities who were a more direct target of Jesus' message

---

It is also very clear that Jesus went well beyond simply calling the Temple a “den of thieves”. That didn’t stop you trying to pretend otherwise,

quote:

---

I'm not real clear about your point here. The parable actually said that the messengers were either beaten or killed. Also the landowner has the tenants destroyed, not killed, and the land given to others.
​
It is not a message promoting violence.

---

It sure is. Telling people that the priests are murderers and enemies of God and deserve to die? That is a message promoting violence

quote:

---

As far as the priests are concerned we can see them very involved. When Jesus is arrested Matthew Chapter 26 tells us that there was a large crowd sent by the chief priests and elders.

---

Maybe you haven’t noticed but the Gospels are heavily biased and go out of their way to try to make the Romans look innocent of Jesus death. They simply can’t be trusted on that point.

quote:

---

Yes, but He was never talking about an earthly king such as Herod. John in his Gospel writes this

---

According to the Gisoel of John when Jesus said that it was far too late - he had already been arrested. I guess that’s why you didn’t cite the chapter and verse. Even if Jesus did say it - and it’s entirely likely that the exchange is fictional - it can’t possibly have influenced a decision already made and acted on.

quote:

---

Well, firstly He said that He desired mercy not sacrifice. Secondly He was opposed to the merchants that were getting rich by selling animals to be sacrificed. Read further on in Mark 12, in vs 40 where Jesus said that they were devouring widow's houses,(property). They were in fact scamming the poor with their directives to contribute to the Temple in order to gain favour with Yahweh. (Again, much like the selling of indulgences 1500 years later.)
​

---

Which simply ignores the point. Selling indulgences is not explicitly sanctioned by scripture. The sacrifices are demanded by scripture.

quote:

---

Sure we do. His anti-violence message was to be generally true, but in this case was specifically aimed at the Romans who were gentiles.

---

We don’t and can’t know the details of what Jesus actually taught.

quote:

---

So what? I guess you can call that violence of a sort but I don't see it being close to what you have been inferring.

---

It certainly goes beyond calling the Temple a “den of thieves” and if the priests actually did have Jesus arrested I can’t see how it could not be a more significant reason than those words. [quote] What verse are you referring to here? [quote] The exact same verses you were claiming sewn not a call to violence of course,

quote:

---

Nonsense, they have the Temple authorities initiating His arrest, but it also has the Romans guilty of torturing and then crucifying Him.

---

They also have the claim that Pilate had a custom of releasing a prisoner at the Passover - a custom that is documented nowhere else and seems deeply implausible. In all the Gospels it is the Priests who arrest Jesus and Jesus makes little to no defence of his actions in front of Pilate. Luke really bends over backwards: (NRSVUE). (And it goes on until verse 23)

quote:

---

Nonsense. He taught the disciples to pray: "Thy Kingdom come on Earth as in Heaven". He often refers to Himself as the "son of man" which is an obvious reference to Daniel 7:13-14 where the son of man is to preside over the Kingdom.

---

You may call it “nonsense” but the fact is that your quote comes from John 18:36 and is said to Pilate - after Jesus’ arrest just as I said. And nothing you say above contradicts that.Funnier still the Kimgdom of Daniel 7:37 is an Earthly Kingdom.

quote:

---

Firstly Jesus denounced the sacrifices saying that He desires mercy not sacrifice. But the problem wasn't the sacrifices themselves, but the fact that the Temple authorities were getting rich on the backs of the poor

---

None of which answers my point that the sacrifices are required by scripture. Which cannot be said for indulgences.

quote:

---

Maybe, but it is a consistent message throughout all the Gospels and into Acts. One simple phrase that somewhat covers it is Jesus saying that "those who live by the sword, die by the sword".
​

---

Aside from the undertones of violence in the teachings attributed to Jesus, it is not as consistent as you think.Matthew 10:34 Luke 22:36

quote:

---

OK So you equate turning over the tables of the money changers to the faction advocating violent revolution. I just don't quite see it that way to say the least.

---

I do not. I do see it as something more significant than merely calling the Temple a “den of thieves” and far more likely to cause the Temple authorities to have Jesus arrested. As I have explicitly said. And that is what you are disagreeing with.

quote:

---

It is part of all 4 Gospel narratives and in my view does make sense.

---

You are going to have to explain how it makes sense that a Roman official would customarily release a prisoner condemned to crucifixion, just on the word of the crowd. Especially an official known for insensitivity and brutality.Then you are going to have to explain why it is never mentioned by anyone else. Especially Josephus.

quote:

---

The Romans to a great degree governed using local puppet leaders, (in this case Herod), to maintain control over the populace.

---

You’re talking nonsense again. Judaea was under direct Roman rule and had been since Archelaus was deposed in 6 AD.

quote:

---

That's a little hard to refute as there is no such verse.
However, The Kingdom in Daniel 7:13-14 is clearly a Kingdom that is Kingdom from God's heavenly dimension for us on Earth, that extends infinitely and is made up of those who follows Christ's message of love, peace and forgiveness. Sure it's all wrapped up in early Jewish apocryphal language but it gives us a metaphorical picture of what God is doing through Jesus.

---

It is also clearly when the Jews will be the dominant people on the Earth. Daniel 7:13-14 is part of a symbolic vision explained in the second half of the chapter. 7:27 is the relevant verse.

quote:

---

The problem wasn't the sacrifices themselves. The problem was how the Temple authorities and the money changers were using the sacrifices as a tool to extract money from those that were already poor, like the widows that Jesus mentions. You do like to go down rabbit trails don't you.

---

So inconvenient facts are “rabbit trails” now. Nevertheless even if there were abuses there is a distinction between a required observance and simply selling blessings for money.

quote:

---

The undertones of violence come from understanding the Scriptures with a 21st century understanding as opposed to how the original target audience would understand it.

---

I’d say that the opposite is the case. There is certainly no effort on your part to understand things as they would have been understood by a 1st Century Jew. As demonstrated by - among other things - your use of Daniel 7:13-14 imposing your own interpretation upon it.

quote:

---

His anti-violence message was primarily aimed at those who were promoting a militant revolution. He all denounced the public stoning of the woman caught in adultery.

---

A story known to be a late addition to the last Gospel written. I don’t see how you can count that as a core part of Jesus’ message

quote:

---

This was again about His message opposing violent revolution. It wasn't about a literal sword but about the deep cleavage in the population that would result from His message of non-violence

---

Again you are imposing your own interpretation on a verse which says that violence is the intended outcome of Jesus’ ministry.

quote:

---

However, right after that when they say between the whole group that they have two swords Jesus say that's sufficient. He isn't saying that they should all carry a sword.

---

People who have renounced violence do not need a weapon made for fighting.

quote:

---

I understood you to be using this as an example of Jesus promoting violence.

---

Then maybe you should learn to read more carefully.

quote:

---

With all of the people crucified by the Romans over the years it is a pretty trivial thing and Josephus' book is pretty long as it is

---

If it was a custom unique to Judaea it would be of considerable interest - an indication of Roman respect for Judaism. So no, it would only be trivial if it were normal for Roman officials to allow heinous criminals to be released on occasion - and to allow a subject people to choose which of them should be released. No, it is in all likelihood fiction.

quote:

---

Yes, but Herod had influence as well, but it was the Romans that kept him in his position as he would do as instructed.

---

Which Herod had what influence? And how is it relevant?

The original point I was trying to make is that your assertion that the Priests had Jesus arrested for merely calling the Temple a “den of thieves” was completely untenable - and you have no excuse for not knowing that.There is no way you could be unaware that all the Gospels state that Jesus violently attacked the businesses operating in the Temple courtyard - it is a very well-known story. Yet you simply pushed it under the rug.

Why would it matter? Whatever answer you prefer, GDR was still wrong to try and sweep it under the carpet.