> that’s why they felt threatened. Because their religious expertise was supposed to justify their authority at the synagogue. And that’s why they wanted him put to death.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that they felt threatened, but the Gospels don't explain why. What you have said is plausible: Jesus was undermining their authority with the people, and they were losing some social power and religious authority (Mark 11.18).

> The outcome was that Jesus apparently removed any responsibilities

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but from what I think I understand, I disagree with it. Jesus ignored all of their foolish man-made traditions and taught His followers to do the same (Mt. 23 et al.), but Jesus placed greater responsibilities on His followers than the Law even did (Matthew 5-7). They were a completely different set from the traditions of the Pharisees; Jesus's greater responsibilities included consistency between heart and life, intent and behavior, and a life fully devoted to God in all aspects.

> I personally believe this is propaganda to make religion easier and get more people to periodically show up to church more.

Therefore the teachings and expectations of Jesus have absolutely NOTHING to do with making religion easier or to get more people into church. You'll notice in Matthew 5-7 that Jesus made "religion" harder. Religion, according to Jesus, is not just following some list of rules or conforming to certain rituals, but instead a complete devotion of heart, mind, and life to the truth and one's relationship to God. It's much harder than coming on Sunday, doing your ritual thing, and then spending the week doing whatever you want.

> The story made it clear that Jesus being the lamb of god was as trivial as removing animal sacrifice.

Actually the opposite is true. The book of Hebrews is a treatise showing that Jesus removing sin is much more involved and significant than animal sacrifice, and the book is punctuated with warnings if one ignores all the deep teachings written for us. There's nothing trivial about it.

> The more accurate reason for his death was that he knew he would be a myrter because what he believed in was so meaningful he was willing to accept being tortured and die for it.

There is actually nothing accurate about this. The meaning was in the atonement He was providing through redemption. Martyrdom is not an accurate description of either His motive or the motive of his executors. It wasn't that that He believed in was "so meaningful" that he was willing to die for that belief. Instead, His death was necessary to atone for the sins of the world (Matthew 16.21; John 12.27).

And you still haven't shown me a single verse that affirms anything you are claiming.

I think you’re missing the point. When I say core concept, I was talking about the idea that Jesus was educated enough to demonstrate that the Pharasees didn’t represent God. They were just legal scholars, but they were not religious experts. Jesus could prove this and that’s why they felt threatened. Because their religious expertise was supposed to justify their authority at the synagogue. And that’s why they wanted him put to death.

The outcome was that Jesus apparently removed any responsibilities. I personally believe this is propaganda to make religion easier and get more people to periodically show up to church more.

The story made it clear that Jesus being the lamb of god was as trivial as removing animal sacrifice. The more accurate reason for his death was that he knew he would be a myrter because what he believed in was so meaningful he was willing to accept being tortured and die for it.

There is no question that the Pharisee were in conflict with Jesus, but there is no reason to view this conflict as as a core concept, let alone the defining motive for Jesus dying. In the Gospels, it is explicitly NOT the reason Jesus says He is going to die. In the link you attached, the Wikipedia article doesn't say. either, that "The whole point of why Jesus was put to death was because he could demonstrate the Pharasees [sic] were not qualified." That's a distortion of the Bible and a great misunderstanding of His teaching. The "woes of the Pharisees" show that they are in the same class as the ancient wilderness wanderers who grumbled and rejected God. They all died in the wilderness and were not allowed to enter the Promised Land (Heb. 3.11-19; 4.1-13).

I'll show you verses that specifically say why Jesus was put to death. Then you please do the same.

• Romans 3.25: "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness"
• Hebrews 2.17: "For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people."
• Matthew 20.28; Mark 10.45: "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Now please show me the verses where it says Jesus died to demonstrate the Pharisees where not qualified based on their understanding of the Law.

This is very elementary fundamental understanding of Jesus’ story. It’s more or less the core concept. In fact it’s so common that this conflict has its own name.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woes_of_the_Pharisees

> You can’t understand what is contrary to God without understanding God’s will.

I'm not sure this is correct. One can possibly understand what is contrary to God just by knowing the nature of the true God. Since God is truth, I automatically know that all falsehood is contrary to His nature, even though I may know little or nothing about His will. His nature clues me in to what is contrary to God.

> If you follow the letter of the law, then you would be repeating the same faults of the Pharasees

I don't know where this comment came from. We haven't talked about this, yet, and I didn't say anything about following the letter of the law.

> The whole point of why Jesus was put to death was because he could demonstrate the Pharasees were not qualified based on their understanding of the laws.

I think you're making this up. Can you give me the texts that substantiate this opinion, please? The Bible says Jesus was put to death as an atonement for our sins, a propitiation for redemption. It doesn't say anything about so that he "could demonstrate the Pharisees where not qualified [for leadership] based on their understanding of the laws."

So let's talk about it. Show me the verses to affirm your contention, and then we can have a good discussion.

You can’t understand what is contrary to God without understanding God’s will. If you follow the letter of the law, then you would be repeating the same faults of the Pharasees. The whole point of why Jesus was put to death was because he could demonstrate the Pharasees were not qualified based on their understanding of the laws. the leaders who followed the letter of the law without understanding their history were unqualified to lead because they didn’t have that deep understanding of their holy ancestors that informed the law and people they claimed to have been descendants of.

> But how did God decide what was sinful and what was not?

God did not have to decide. Sin was anything that is contrary to God. It was a matter of reality, not of decision. It's like asking, "What is darkness made of?" Uh, it's not made of anything, it's instead a lack of light. Sin is what is contrary to God. Sin is not an entity.

> I’m sure there was some higher understanding that informed the idea of sin

There was not. Sin is abstract; it's not an entity. Sin became a reality when a sentient being thought and then acted contrary to God. No one informed the idea of sin.

> Jesus definitely thought so

Let's talk about this.

But how did God decide what was sinful and what was not? I’m sure there was some higher understanding that informed the idea of sin. Jesus definitely thought so

> What is that vision?

Jesus's vision is for humans to be delivered from death, freed from sin, and have a relationship with God. Such a relationship will result in right thinking, right morals, and right behavior.

> I think most people who study the Bible seriously accept it’s not 100% accurate nor is it expected to be.

I disagree with this statement.

As for your five, I disagree that they are "big picture" kind of statements in the Bible.

1. Plenty of people challenge God: Abraham, Moses, Elijah, et al. He accepts it when their hearts are in the right place.
2. Nothing is more important than God. True. But it's not true that everyone should spend all their time doing God's work.
3. 4., and 5. In the Bible, God does not dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a “perfect” society, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he does not dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed.

My List: What does God want? Repent of your sins and align yourself with Jesus. Come to Jesus, believe in Jesus and follow him—put his words into practice, love him, allegiance. Follow him, identify with him, and learn from him.

I want you all to consider the arguments Jesus has with the Rabbi’s at the time. The Pharisees and Sadducees were essentially legal scholars. They valued the letter of the law. They did so because of things like plausible deniability and misinterpretations being abused. Jesus argued an understanding of God as a character snd that the letter of the law was informed by more abstract intentions. Christianity today teaches that Moses wrote the law but Jesus was the best interpretation of the vision behind those laws. He understood God’s vision hence why he is the lord and savior. This conflict still exists in law today.

What is that vision? I think most people who study the Bible seriously accept it’s not 100% accurate nor is it expected to be. But we have enough reoccurring themes to draw some conclusions about God’s character even if we accept half of it id inaccurate.

I’m asking you. But I’ll give you my take.

1: Don’t challenge God.

There are countless examples of people being punished by God or at God’s instructions.

2: Nothing is more important than God

Ideally everyone would spend all their time doing God’s work.

Disclaimer! The next 3 I’m about to mention may sound like Marxist theory. People who do not understand political theory will default to imagining historical failures and Soviet Russia. But many of Marx’s ideas were not unique. I believe they began with religion. What DID make Marx unique was his critique of surplus value and how it should have benefited the workers. But ancient people didn’t have surplus value so it’s not a Marxist critique.

3: The abolition of class structure

the most famous prophets in all major religions have experienced 2 extremes of class divide. Even Jesus who was poor became a Rabbi and understood the perspective of people who started as merchants before becoming religious leaders. The book is full of people losing wealth but still being valuable. The common theme appears to be this idea that one human being should never be significantly more valuable than another under any circumstance. Doing so always causes alienation from God and the people.

4: Equitable resource distribution

Another reoccurring theme is to use all excess time and wealth to help those in need. From each according to their ability to each according to their need.

5: Abolition of the commodity form

All goods and services must exist to serve God’s will in an ideal world.

Your turn!