Board index ‹ Jesus

[Marzipan]

The teachings of Jesus often are often interpreted in a manner that is contrary to the word and laws of God

I would argue that many of Jesus's teachings are really misapplied and misunderstood because people don't understand the context of his life.

Jesus was basically a homeless criminal, and objectively his are a very solid means to help ensure that people survive, help the faith survive, even when there is pressure from the people in power who want to destroy you.

This is the issue with Christianity. Jesus wasn't teaching you how society should be run. He teaches you how you should behave when you are powerless, oppressed, and threatened with death by the powers that be.

This becomes a problem when people use the teachings of Jesus as some sort of social framework of governance, which these were not designed to be. These are axioms for personal life when a person is powerless, threatened, and oppressed.

The commandments and laws of God were created to serve the purpose of governance. These are the laws, as commanded by God himself, that God promises will ensure prosperity when followed and blight when ignored.

The entire point of the Old Testament was showing that "The people who forsake the commandments of God are always destroyed." The Bible was never about forgiveness, kindness, or tolerance. It was about condemning, exiling, imprisoning, or executing the the people that forsake the commandments of God because they are a threat to your society.

I argue this point because these practices are actually very harmful to society, objectively. That when you tolerate the practices of the Canaanites in your society, you are tolerating things that objectively destroy your society. It's not that God's sorcery is actually going to strike these people down. It's that these people engage in practices that cause society to collapse without God even having to lift a finger.

This is the issue with "Jesus preaches love and tolerance". Because that's contrary to the entire teachings of the Bible. The Bible commands you not to tolerate and intermingle with these people who forsake the commandments of God. God commands you to destroy the people who forsake him. He says "Those that obey the commandments will prosper, while those that forsake them will suffer."

The entire Old Testament is just the Jews suffering endlessly because they keep forsaking the commandments of God, then getting enslaved or conquered. God a profound number of his own people just for failing to obey the commandments.

One of these commandments is to never tolerate the Canaanites and their rituals. Most all of the Commandments beyond the 10 commandments come from this axiom. "Never tolerate the Canaanites."

Despite this, Christian society is now defined by these exact Canaanite practices that God condemns, explicitly because they cripple and hinder society.

Society is godless and revel in Vice, they worship themselves and their desires while condemning God and morality. Western society is Sodom, and the only reason it still exist is because the life-support of advanced technology keeps them from destroying themselves due to their countless afflictions.

Jesus preaches love and tolerance on the condition that you are powerless, that you are not in a position to actually condemn the heretics that are a threat to your society because you are ruled by these heretics, and to do this would mean certain death. Here, condemning the heretics like God commands would be suicide because they just kill your for your rebellion. This is why love and tolerance is beneficial when one is in the same situation of Jesus, as a powerless individual in a vice-ridden society.

Just a few examples of Canaanite practices would be ritual mixing, child sacrifice, and sodomy. These are incredibly common in the West today.

All contraception is Sodomy, as well as the more historical kinds, yet these are celebrated and enjoyed by society and these practices are taught to children by the government and defended by law.

Ritual mixing is essentially the foundation of America. This is the belief that mixing two things together is a fertility ritual that will always create a greater bounty. The entire melting pot phenomena, the mixture of men and women's gender roles, the mixture of morality and vice, the mixture of Biblical and Canaanite practices.

These are all incredibly prevalent in society, especially considering that abortion, contraception, and sodomy all function as child sacrifice. These are instances where naturally a child would be born, but human interference and deviance has caused a child that should logically be conceived or alive to now be dead.

This is even if you don't want to consider Wars as human sacrifices, which is very easy to argue, considering that the major wars of the 20th century accomplished little more than protecting and defending the Canaanite rituals of these societies and ensuring that Canaanite practices would remain in place, be seen as a human right or unquestionably acceptable.

Look at Ezra 9.

"After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, “The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. 2 They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.”
3 When I heard this, I tore my tunic and cloak, pulled hair from my head and beard and sat down appalled. 4 Then everyone who trembled at the words of the God of Israel gathered around me because of this unfaithfulness of the exiles. And I sat there appalled until the evening sacrifice.
5 Then, at the evening sacrifice, I rose from my self-abasement, with my tunic and cloak torn, and fell on my knees with my hands spread out to the Lord my God 6 and prayed:
“I am too ashamed and disgraced, my God, to lift up my face to you, because our sins are higher than our heads and our guilt has reached to the heavens. 7 From the days of our ancestors until now, our guilt has been great. Because of our sins, we and our kings and our priests have been subjected to the sword and captivity, to pillage and humiliation at the hand of foreign kings, as it is today.
8 “But now, for a brief moment, the Lord our God has been gracious in leaving us a remnant and giving us a firm place[a] in his sanctuary, and so our God gives light to our eyes and a little relief in our bondage. 9 Though we are slaves, our God has not forsaken us in our bondage. He has shown us kindness in the sight of the kings of Persia: He has granted us new life to rebuild the house of our God and repair its ruins, and he has given us a wall of protection in Judah and Jerusalem.
10 “But now, our God, what can we say after this? For we have forsaken the commands 11 you gave through your servants the prophets when you said: ‘The land you are entering to possess is a land polluted by the corruption of its peoples. By their detestable practices they have filled it with their impurity from one end to the other. 12 Therefore, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it to your children as an everlasting inheritance.’
13 “What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins deserved and have given us a remnant like this. 14 Shall we then break your commands again and intermarry with the peoples who commit such detestable practices? Would you not be angry enough with us to destroy us, leaving us no remnant or survivor? 15 Lord, the God of Israel, you are righteous! We are left this day as a remnant. Here we are before you in our guilt, though because of it not one of us can stand in your presence.”

[jimwalton]

> Jesus was basically a homeless criminal

You're off to a bad start. If this is foundational to your case, you're already wrong. Jesus didn't do anything criminal, nor was he ever convicted of anything criminal. If you want to establish that he was a criminal, you'll have to provide evidence of such (which I already know doesn't exist).

> Jesus wasn't teaching you how society should be run. He teaches you how you should behave when you are powerless, oppressed, and threatened with death by the powers that be.

This is wrong also. Jesus was mostly teaching who he was (God on Earth), how one could come into relationship with Him, and the truths of the kingdom of God. Only a very small sector of his teaching relates to the oppression that people who follow him will experience and how they should behave in such circumstances.

> The commandments and laws of God were created to serve the purpose of governance.

This is wrong also. The commandments and laws of God were given neither as a legal code nor to describe the purpose of ge-nvernance. They are a statement of covenantal policy, of legal wisdom, primarily aimed at constructing an identity as the people of God, mostly in terms of how they are to interact with YHWH and also ow they interact with one another. The Torah was not intended to establish or reflect an ideal society, but how the people are to conduct themselves as the people of God. It is the people who are expected to be transformed, not the shape or structure of society.

> The entire point of the Old Testament was showing that "The people who forsake the commandments of God are always destroyed."

This is wrong also. Instead, the entire point of the OT is to show that YHWH is a covenant God who desires a relationship with His people that will transform the whole world.

> The Bible was never about forgiveness, kindness, or tolerance. It was about condemning, exiling, imprisoning, or executing the the people that forsake the commandments of God because they are a threat to your society.

This is wrong also. The OT teaches that God's people should be holy, righteous, and loving. They should love God and love neighbor as self.

> I argue this point because these practices are actually very harmful to society, objectively.

Of course condemning, exiling, imprisoning, and executing are harmful to society. But that's not what the Bible is about. You've completely misunderstood the Bible, Yahwism, and Christianity.

> This is the issue with "Jesus preaches love and tolerance".

What Jesus mostly preaches is not ethical standards but instead how to be a covenantal participant in the kingdom of God by entering into relationship with Him.

> Most all of the Commandments beyond the 10 commandments come from this axiom. "Never tolerate the Canaanites."

This is wrong also. The 10 Commandments (more technically the "Ten Words", not commandments) are more like a Bill of Rights than a list of apodictic commands, protecting the rights of the next person, teaching the Israelites how to relate to their God and how to relate to each other in the covenant community.

> Despite this, Christian society is now defined by these exact Canaanite practices that God condemns, explicitly because they cripple and hinder society.

This is wrong also. The Canaanite community was mostly condemned for their idolatry. Christian society is not defined by idolatry. Christian teaching from Jesus was about how to relate to God and to live as his covenant community. Of course that has consequences to society, but they are beneficial consequences, certainly nothing that explicitly cripples and hinders society.

> Jesus preaches love and tolerance on the condition that you are powerless

This is wrong also. Jesus preaches love and tolerance on the condition that you are human.

> Ritual mixing is essentially the foundation of America.

The ritual mixing decrees of ancient Israel were for Israel in the context of their theocracy. They were intended for Israel as a theocratic state. When Israel/Judah fell (586 BC), the civil law became defunct with it. The civil law was not intended to be carried out by every government in history. It is no longer something secular governments are responsible to carry out. It is no longer something the Church is supposed to carry out. It is not a law or rule for us as Christians.

> These are all incredibly prevalent in society, especially considering that abortion, contraception, and sodomy all function as child sacrifice.

This is a very strange statement. There's nothing wrong with contraception. Sodomy doesn't function as child sacrifice. Abortion is infanticide, not child sacrifice.

It's safe to say at this point that you have missed EVERYTHING. You are wrong about just about everything you've said, you've missed the entire point of the OT and NT, you've misinterpreted YHWH and Jesus, their teachings, their purpose in revelation, and the way Yahwism and Christianity play out in the world. I was looking forward to this conversation, but we have barely a toe to stand on. If you would like to discuss this, I'd be glad to, but first you need to come with a mind to learn, because everything here in your post is incorrect.

[Marzipan]

How could you say everything in here is incorrect? I see how both the post and your reply have strong analytical argument. But I would say it's one sided to say that the entire post is wrong. There is no coalescence between how two people read a text a determine meaning. Two persons could read the same passage and get two completely different ideas from it. I would suggest if an idea is presented to your model of reality that doesn't fit the model, then it isn't the idea that needs revision, but the model that needs revision. Like I said I can see a strong basis for both arguments but when dealing with ancient texts there is no way of being able to determine the authors meaning, especially when we deal with translations after translations from a ancient language that has very little similarity to English. The ancient Hebrew and the Hebrew today are not the same language in essence as it was. Without being able to go back and experience the events and the culture associated there is absolutely no way of knowing what the message the authors were trying to convey, unless of course you're blessed with a Hebrew friend who keeps up with the ancient linguistic traditions and can teach you the rules of that language. I would say that both arguments here are actually very similar in basis and perhaps both of your views are correct.

Of course in that sense than this is not really a debate.

[jimwalton]

> How could you say everything in here is incorrect?

I showed you almost line by line how you are misunderstanding, misinterpreting, mistranslating, and misconstruing the Bible.

> I see how both the post and your reply have strong analytical argument.

I am not making an analytical argument. My post was based on exegesis and hermeneutics.

> There is no coalescence between how two people read a text a determine meaning.

We are not allowed to read a text however we want. We have to understand words as they are normally meant in the era, understand words in their context, understand sentences in the context of the paragraph, the paragraph in the context of the book, and the book in the context of its culture. I can't just read Shakespeare's "To be or not to be," and claim that he's writing about, say, someone's presence on the Internet or someone pondering running for political office. It's illegitimate interpretation. Instead, Hamlet is pondering his suicide. You can't just say, "Well, two people could read the same passage and get two different ideas from it." That's a corruption of the language and how we communicate with meaning.

> I would suggest if an idea is presented to your model of reality that doesn't fit the model, then it isn't the idea that needs revision, but the model that needs revision.

Instead, what is happening here is that you have presented a false model of reality, like "the Earth is flat." It's not that the model needs revision, but instead that you are presenting a false model that needs to be discarded.

> there is no way of being able to determine the authors meaning

Of course there is. We can do literary, grammatical, cultural, historical, and contextual studies and come up with it. It's not a free-for-all, but instead an academic discipline.

> The ancient Hebrew and the Hebrew today are not the same language in essence as it was.

Correct, but that has nothing to do with it. We're talking about the ancient Hebrew and Greek, not their modern versions. There are scholars who are experts at such things. No one is free to make it whatever they want it to be.

> Without being able to go back and experience the events and the culture associated there is absolutely no way of knowing what the message the authors were trying to convey

So you're saying we are unable to understand Tacitus's history of the Roman Emperors, the biographies of Alexander the Great, or Shakespeare's plays? Of course we can know the message the authors were trying to convey. That's what scholarship is all about.

Words have meaning. Words have context. If we can't agree on that, then your point has relevance. If we can agree on that, however, then it's not just a shooting match of "make it into whatever you want."

[Mister Doctor]

Jesus tried to plead the fifth by not answering the charges, but the Constitution didn't exist back then so he was convicted and executed by the Romans.

[jimwalton]

I'll assume you're talking about my comment that Jesus was not a criminal.

You're talking about his trial before Pilate. So let's examine your case.

• Matthew 26.59-60 (Mk. 14.55) says that the Sanhedrin had no claims or evidence against Him. There were no charges that held water (Mk. 14.56). Jesus doesn't need to reply to a flood of false accusations. Finally there's an accusation that Jesus claimed he was going to destroy Herod's temple and rebuild it in 3 days. That accusation didn't go anywhere, and Jesus didn't even respond to it.
• Matthew 26.63 (Mk. 14.61; Lk. 22.70) says they questioned Him about being the Messiah. He admits to it (Mt. 26.64; Mk. 14.62: Lk. 22.70) and expands on their comments. Guilty as charged: he did claim to be the messiah. He is accused of blasphemy (Mt. 26.65; Mk. 14.64). There's the charge. There's nothing criminal about claiming to be the Messiah.
• Luke 23.2. The Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of "subverting the nation ... opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar, and claims to be Messiah, a king." The only one there is evidence for is the last one, claiming to be the messiah, a spiritual king (Jn. 18.36).
• There don't seem to be any charges against Jesus for Rome to act upon (Jn. 18.29-30, 35).
• Matthew 27.11 (Mk. 15.2; Lk. 23.3; Jn. 18.33): Pilate asks Jesus if he claims to be king of the Jews. Jesus affirms he is, knowing, of course, that this epithet can be defined more than one way. Jesus refuses to answer the trap-infected accusations of the chief priests, however, since they are trying to have him convicted for treason (Mt. 27.12-14; Mk. 15.3-5), a charge of which he is not guilty. Jesus had a conversation with Pilate (Jn. 18.35-38; 19.10-11). Pilate evaluates that Jesus is not guilty of treason (Mt. 27.18, 23-24; Mk. 15.10, 14; Lk. 23.4; Jn. 18.38; 19.12). There is no evidence of criminality and no basis for a charge against Him (Lk. 23.4, 14, 22; Jn. 18.38; 19.4).

In other words, Jesus was not a criminal. There is no evidence that he had done anything criminal. He was executed for claiming to be God (Jn. 19.7).

I'm convinced it's incorrect to conclude that Jesus tried to plead the 5th so he was convicted and executed. Jesus conversed with the high priest and with Pilate. There was no conviction, only an execution. And that execution was not based on any criminal charge, criminal evidence, or criminal conviction. He was executed because He claimed to be God.

[Marzipan]

> "Jesus didn't do anything criminal, nor was he ever convicted of anything criminal."

What the f***? That's the entire point of bible was that Jesus was executed for being a criminal, next to other f***ing criminals. He was sentenced to death for being a criminal next to the beggar and the thief. They don't just publically execute bastards willy-f***ing-nilly, you usually have to be conviced of a f***ing crime before you're executed in public. It's not like we just go publically hang somebody or give them the guillotine for shits and f***ing giggles.

Jesus committed numerous crimes. He was creating a public disturbance, his band of followers was causing a great commotion in the streets. It's pretty f***ing illegal to claim that you are God when this is contrary to the religion of the people who own you. Even the bible tells you to stone heretics to death, and Jesus was a heretic in the eyes of the Romans.

"Jesus was probably crucified by the Roman authorities, who were governing Israel-Palestine at the time, because he was perceived as a political threat. Someone who causes a ruckus in the Temple, the major focal point of Jewish life and a symbol of Jewish national independence, someone who causes a ruckus there was going to get the attention of the authorities."

Jesus was basically in the same position of Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Osama Bin Laden, Che Guaverra, or plenty of rebel leaders that were very much so loathed by the law. Even if Jesus wasn't a violent criminal, he was still very much so a criminal. Regardless of whatever he was convicted of, he was clearly convicted of something otherwise he woudln't be sentenced to death.

This wasn't some random lynching. This was a prolong public trial where he was sentenced to death, forced to carry the cross to his place of public execution, and executed by the law. Whatever he was actually convicted of may be lost to time, but regardless, seeing how he didn't work, he was basically the leader of a stray pack of dogs that wanders the streets barking all day and causing a commotion.

> "This is wrong also. Jesus was mostly teaching who he was (God on Earth), how one could come into relationship with Him, and the truths of the kingdom of God. Only a very small sector of his teaching relates to the oppression that people who follow him will experience and how they should behave in such circumstances."

As delightful as this is, there really isn't a solid reason here. There needs to be an objectively valid basis for religion, otherwise it is no longer a religion, it is just superstition. The difference between religion and superstition such as a belief in Ghosts is that religion constricts people's behaviors and has a moral code.

The entire mystical/superstitious element of religion is always entirely irrelevant. It's not that Jesus has ever used his magic to protect people or give them benefits. The purpose of religion is to establish a moral code that in turn allows for the existence of civilization. Anything set of beliefs that does not do this, that does endow the followers with a moral code that ensures the creation of a stable and functional society is not regarded as a religion but instead as a cult.

> "This is wrong also. Instead, the entire point of the OT is to show that YHWH is a covenant God who desires a relationship with His people that will transform the whole world."

This is ridiculous. God says "Do what I tell you to, or I will kill you".

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people

> "Of course condemning, exiling, imprisoning, and executing are harmful to society."

If these are harmful to society then why the f*** does God literally command you to stone people to death? He commands you personally to participate in the public executions of people?

Nehemiah 13 : "23 Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. 24 Half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not know how to speak the language of Judah. 25 I rebuked them and called curses down on them. I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair. I made them take an oath in God’s name and said: “You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves. 26 Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women. 27 Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?”"

This is what God expects his faithful to do.

> "Bill of Rights than a list of apodictic commands" -

I don't understand. They're not a bill of rights at all. They're explcit commandments telling you what to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

I was referring to most of the rest of the commandments, beyond the original 10. Many of these exist just to ensure that Canaanite practices are not tolerated in Society.

By your understanding, it is a "Civil right" to stone gays and adulterers to death in public? I argue this is just the law that is commanded by God, and this is the punishment commanded by god.

This is exhausting. Clearly you live with an entirely superstitious understanding of the bible. You don't see it as the framework of civilization or society, you see it only as some supernatural book that gives you supernatural benefits.

You don't understand that the reason the religion was successful was entirely due to the objective secular benefit that people attained when they abided by the laws of God.

Again. The Canaanites were the arch enemies of the Israelites. They were condmened for their child sacrifice and fertility rituals This was the main reason that homosexuality was condemned. This was because sodomy was a religious ritual in Canaanite temples.

Lev. 19:19 — Not to plant diverse seeds together Lev. 19:19 — Not to crossbreed animals Lev. 18:21 — Not to pass your children through the fire to Molech

These are the major laws against the Canaanites, who again sacrifice human children. Somehow child sacrifice is not condemnable, but only the idolatry.

> "It is no longer something the Church is supposed to carry out. It is not a law or rule for us as Christians."

Then just go ahead and apply this to every other f***king law that God commanded his people to follow. Every other law that God destroyed, cursed, and plauged his own people for failing to enforce. Just throw all of that out the window.

> "Abortion is infanticide, not child sacrifice."

Infanticide tends to exist when a woman is unable to support her child. For whatever reason the child will not survive, so she abandons the child to die.

Human sacrifice is destroying a child that would normally survive. Needlessly killing a child or person that would otherwise be beneficial to society. This is exactly what both contraception and abortion do. They kill children that would otherwise benefit society.

Infanticide victims would have died due to the inherent poverty or social status of the woman.

Clearly this isn't a productive argument. Somehow you've casually forgotten all of the times God killed people due to their forsaking of the commandments, somehow you've casually changed the word commandment into a suggestion, you've thrown out the vast majority of the commandments given by God himself and his vessels, which are now just a civil right that you are given by God, rather than a commandment that God expects you to uphold, including public executions, a contractual obligation commanded by God himself.

Seldom are the laws civil laws, they are either criminal laws or laws describing what a person must do in order to adhere to the faith.

Deut. 13:1 — Not to add to the Torah commandments or their oral explanations Deut. 13:1 — Not to diminish from the Torah any commandments, in whole or in part Deut. 13:4 — Not to listen to a false prophet Deut. 13:9 — Not to love the idolater Deut. 13:9 — Not to cease hating the idolater Deut. 13:9 — Not to save the idolater Deut. 13:9 — Not to say anything in the idolater's defense Deut. 13:9 — Not to refrain from incriminating the idolater Deut. 13:12 — Not to missionize an individual to idol worship Deut. 13:14 — Not to turn a city to idolatry —> Ex. 23:13 Deut. 13:14 — Not to prophesy in the name of idolatry Deut. 13:15 — Carefully interrogate the witness Deut. 13:17 — To burn a city that has turned to idol worship Deut. 13:17 — Not to rebuild it as a city Deut. 13:18 — Not to derive benefit from it

Objectively your arguments are the antithesis of religion, the secular meaning of religion, because what you've done is taken a sugar coated pill, the medicine of religion. You've just licked all of the sugar off of the pill then spit the medicine right out. The sugar is just there to convince you to swallow the rest of the medicine. People can't seem to understand that.

I mean there's nothing of value in that sort of religion you believe in. It's just a sugar pill, nothing but a placebo that does nothing to protect or ensure the legitimacy or stability of your community, your people, or your nation. It's this sort of faith that caused the America do become the modern incarnation of Sodom.

[jimwalton]

> What the f***? That's the entire point of bible was that Jesus was executed for being a criminal, next to other f***ing criminals.

This is incorrect. He was executed AS a criminal, next to other criminals, but not for BEING a criminal. Reading the Bible itself makes that clear.

[list][*] Matthew 26.59-60 (Mk. 14.55) says that the Sanhedrin had no claims or evidence against Him. There were no charges that held water (Mk. 14.56). Jesus doesn't need to reply to a flood of false accusations. Finally there's an accusation that Jesus claimed he was going to destroy Herod's temple and rebuild it in 3 days. That accusation didn't go anywhere, and Jesus didn't even respond to it.
[*] Matthew 26.63 (Mk. 14.61; Lk. 22.70) says they questioned Him about being the Messiah. He admits to it (Mt. 26.64; Mk. 14.62: Lk. 22.70) and expands on their comments. Guilty as charged: he did claim to be the messiah. He is accused of blasphemy (Mt. 26.65; Mk. 14.64). There's the charge. There's nothing criminal about claiming to be the Messiah.
[*] Luke 23.2. The Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of "subverting the nation ... opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar, and claims to be Messiah, a king." The only one there is evidence for is the last one, claiming to be the messiah, a spiritual king (Jn. 18.36).
[*] There don't seem to be any charges against Jesus for Rome to act upon (Jn. 18.29-30, 35).
[*] Matthew 27.11 (Mk. 15.2; Lk. 23.3; Jn. 18.33): Pilate asks Jesus if he claims to be king of the Jews. Jesus affirms he is, knowing, of course, that this epithet can be defined more than one way. Jesus refuses to answer the trap-infected accusations of the chief priests, however, since they are trying to have him convicted for treason (Mt. 27.12-14; Mk. 15.3-5), a charge of which he is not guilty. Jesus had a conversation with Pilate (Jn. 18.35-38; 19.10-11). Pilate evaluates that Jesus is not guilty of treason (Mt. 27.18, 23-24; Mk. 15.10, 14; Lk. 23.4; Jn. 18.38; 19.12). There is no evidence of criminality and no basis for a charge against Him (Lk. 23.4, 14, 22; Jn. 18.38; 19.4).

> He was sentenced to death for being a criminal next to the beggar and the thief.

No, he was sentenced to death for claiming he was God. Reading the Bible makes this clear.

> They don't just publically execute...

If you want to know the record of what happens, you need to read the record.

> He was creating a public disturbance, his band of followers was causing a great commotion in the streets.

He was never accused, arrested, charged, or indicted for disturbing the peace. When Jesus stirred up the people, it was not a criminal act.

> It's pretty f***ing illegal to claim that you are God when this is contrary to the religion of the people who own you.

It was not illegal to claim you are God. In the eyes of the Jewish leadership, it was blasphemous, but it was not illegal, especially in the eyes of Rome.

> Even the bible tells you to stone heretics to death, and Jesus was a heretic in the eyes of the Romans.

This is also not true. If you can find evidence of it, I'll be glad to read it.

> "Jesus was probably crucified by the Roman authorities ... because he was perceived as a political threat."

I don't know where you got this quote, but it's also not true. The "probably" is the key word to show this is a person's opinion, not any documented fact.

> Jesus was basically in the same position of Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Osama Bin Laden, Che Guaverra, or plenty of rebel leaders that were very much so loathed by the law.

It's pretty rash to put MLK and bin Laden in the same category. Jesus was certainly loathed by the Jewish religious leadership, but there's no such indication that he was regarded so by Rome. Herod, the Bible tells us, had been anxious to meet him (Lk. 23.8). Pilate, when he met Jesus, didn't seem to know who Jesus was. There's no evidence that Rome loathed Jesus. They couldn't have cared less.

> Whatever he was actually convicted of may be lost to time

First of all, if it's lost to time, you can't claim to know that it was for criminal activity. Secondly, it's not lost to time: Jesus was killed for claiming to be God.

> There needs to be an objectively valid basis for religion, otherwise it is no longer a religion, it is just superstition.

There is an objectively valid basis for Christianity, but that's not our discussion here, which is why I didn't go into it. The point of the conversation is why Jesus was crucified.

> The entire mystical/superstitious element of religion is always entirely irrelevant.

Yes, I hear loud and clear that this is your opinion and bias.

> It's not that Jesus has ever used his magic to protect people or give them benefits.

First, it wasn't magic. Second of all, of course he did. He healed people by the hundreds, if not thousands.

> The purpose of religion is to establish a moral code that in turn allows for the existence of civilization.

I hear loud and clear that this is your opinion and bias, but don't accuse the Bible of this because it simply is not true, as per my previous post. I can only tell you the truth about what the Bible is and says. Anything else, like the things you are saying, is just opinion. You are welcome to your own opinion, but it's illegitimate to make up your own "facts."

> God says "Do what I tell you to, or I will kill you".

Yes, there are a few places where God judges people for the sin. That's what a good judge does.

> If these are harmful to society then why the f*** does God literally command you to stone people to death?

Because governments have a right to enforce the law even to the point of capital punishment.

> Nehemiah 13

This Israelites had brought so many harmful elements into society they were in danger of extinction. Suppose a group of pacifists start marrying Antica radicals. How long do you think their lifestyle of pacifism will last?

> I don't understand. [The 10 Commandments are] not a bill of rights at all. They're explcit commandments telling you what to do.

They are in the form of commands, but you'll notice that only 2 of them are expressed in a form that is even remotely enforceable by a court of law (Don't murder; don't commit adultery). The others are so general as to be virtually unenforceable through any judicial system. These are laws at all.

> I was referring to most of the rest of the commandments, beyond the original 10. Many of these exist just to ensure that Canaanite practices are not tolerated in Society.

As I mentioned, they are given to define Israel as the people of God. It's about their identity as a covenant people, not rules of political structure.

>This is exhausting. Clearly you live with an entirely superstitious understanding of the bible.

Instead, I've actually read the Bible and I study it carefully and deeply. We can discuss whatever of it you want.

> You don't see it as the framework of civilization or society, you see it only as some supernatural book that gives you supernatural benefits.

Then you didn't read what I said. I most certainly didn't say it was a supernatural book that gives supernatural benefits. That hasn't been our discussion. What I said was that the Bible is given to us to reveal God and to tell us how to live in relationship with Him. It's assuredly NOT to "serve the purposes of governance."

> You don't understand that the reason the religion was successful was entirely due to the objective secular benefit that people attained when they abided by the laws of God.

I don't know where you get this, but I assume it's your own bias and opinion. There's no substantiation for this.

> The Canaanites were the arch enemies of the Israelites.

No they weren't. Have you read the Bible? The Canaanites were in the land that belonged to the Israelites. The quest of the Israelites was to drive them out of the land (Ex. 23.28-31; 33.2; 34.11, 24; Lev. 18.24; 20.23, and dozens of others). It wasn't because the Canaanites were their archenemies, but because they were squatters on Israelite land. And if they wouldn'y leave, the Israelites were to try to incorporate them into Israel (Deut. 20.10).

> They were condmened for their child sacrifice and fertility rituals

This is correct.

> This was the main reason that homosexuality was condemned.

You're making this up. We're not given the reason homosexuality was condemned. I've looked for it.

> Somehow child sacrifice is not condemnable, but only the idolatry.

This is wrong also. Child sacrifice WAS condemned (Lev. 18.21; Dt. 18.10; 2 Ki. 3.27; 16.3 and MANY others).

> Human sacrifice is destroying a child that would normally survive.

Not really. Human sacrifice in the OT is killing a child to appease the gods. It's a horrifically abominable practice.

> Somehow you've casually forgotten all of the times God killed people due to their forsaking of the commandments

We can discuss whatever you wish.

> somehow you've casually changed the word commandment into a suggestion

Now don't twist what I said. I didn't in the least say they were suggestions. Most of the OT is casuistic, not apodictic, but they're not suggestions at all. They were the legal wisdom according to which God expected His people to live to stay in relationship (covenant) with Him.

> you've thrown out the vast majority of the commandments given by God himself and his vessels

I haven't thrown out anything. The Law has been fulfilled. It was given for a purpose (to show people their need for a covenant relationship with God) for a time, and it was fulfilled by Jesus (Mt. 5.17). The Law is not nullified, but it is no longer our standard for relationship with God.

> Objectively your arguments are the antithesis of religion

Good, I hate religion. Religion has created more misunderstandings than almost any other power on Earth. That's why I'm a Christian. The point is a relationship with a living God, not being religious.

> I mean there's nothing of value in that sort of religion you believe in.

Possibly it's the religion you are talking about that has no value. Religion, for the most part, is a dangerous lie. My Christianity is of priceless value. It's completely different, though people who don't know better lump them all together.

> nothing but a placebo that does nothing to protect or ensure the legitimacy or stability of your community, your people, or your nation.

The point has NEVER been to " protect or ensure the legitimacy or stability of your community, your people, or your nation." The point has always been to be freed from slavery to sin and to be in relationship with God.

[Marzipan]

> "You're making this up. We're not given the reason homosexuality was condemned. I've looked for it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

'Other interpreters state that God was commanding the Israelites to not to imitate anal sex between men practiced at the temples of Molech'

> "And if they wouldn't leave, the Israelites were to try to incorporate them into Israel (Deut. 20.10)."

Deut 20:10 is "Offer peace terms to the inhabitants of a city while holding siege, and treat them according to the Torah if they accept the terms"

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

19 When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them?[b] 20 However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.

God definitely says to destroy the Cannanites.

"Offer peace terms to the inhabitants of a city while holding siege, and treat them according to the Torah if they accept the terms" - This only applies to "This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby."

The Cannanites did not meet this condition. God explicitly commands you to destroy the Canaanites.

"Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God"

Completely unironic that the West is now entirely defined by the worship of the vices of the Canaanites.

As for this quote:

"Then you didn't read what I said. I most certainly didn't say it was a supernatural book that gives supernatural benefits. That hasn't been our discussion. What I said was that the Bible is given to us to reveal God and to tell us how to live in relationship with Him. It's assuredly NOT to "serve the purposes of governance.""

It sounds like you're trying to say that God is not a supernatural entity? I don't understand how God can exist in a form that isn't supernatural right here.

> "They are in the form of commands, but you'll notice that only 2 of them are expressed in a form that is even remotely enforceable by a court of law (Don't murder; don't commit adultery). The others are so general as to be virtually unenforceable through any judicial system. These aren't laws at all."

The issue here is that you're conflating the human justice system with the justice system of God. God being omniscient can clearly condemn you and prove your guilt when you do commit something such as sloth, breaking the sabbath, or coveting.

God has the capacity to condemn you, and even while it cannot be physically enforced by a judicial system, it can still psychologically have a similar effect. God commands you to do things, you don't do them, then God finds you guilty, psychologically you understand that you've broken the commandments, you feel guilt and shame and this causes you to address your own behaviors.

Beyond that, many of the commandments are spoken in the form of actual commands, of laws, or otherwise orders.

>> "Jesus was a heretic in the eyes of the Romans."
> "This is also not true. If you can find evidence of it, I'll be glad to read it."

This is common sense here. The Romans worshiped Roman Gods like Zeus and Poseidon. Clearly Jesus was a heretic in their eyes. Jesus wasn't out there preaching about Zeus and Poseidon.

Beyond that, as for being a criminal. He was raising a commotion. That's a crime. Inducing public unrest, otherwise rallying people, doing any of that sort of thing is a crime. Just look at Hong Kong. Those protestors get shot at by the police because they're creating a very serious public disturbance that inhibits the proper function of society.

"subverting the nation ... opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar", there is plenty of grounds to argue these things because the context of the word "king" implies a sovereign power, and this means if he were a king, this would imply his people are their own nation, and this would imply that they are a sovereign state and military power that likely has no interest in paying taxes to some other king. This is what the word king meant, even though Jesus says "only in a spiritual way", religious theocracy was an incredibly common form of government. If Jesus is the king of these people, then this implies the threat of a religious theocracy that could challenge roman rule. It's just semantics here, but there's plenty of grounds to argue that just by using that word, Jesus is making veiled threats against the Roman rule and subverting the state.

This could easily be poor word choice, but the most functional form of this word does not imply some sort of spiritual necromancer and moral judiciary that lords over human souls. It's not like he's saying "King of Ghosts", he's saying "Spiritual King", which translates in functional speech to theocratic dictator/king. It implies a sovereign leader of a group of people that has a military presence or loyalty enough to fight and defend itself.

[jimwalton]

> 'Other interpreters state that God was commanding the Israelites to not to imitate anal sex between men practiced at the temples of Molech'

That's a practice that was forbidden. It doesn't give the reason, which was my point. We're never told why.

> God definitely says to destroy the Cannanites.

Step one: They were to be driven out. That was what was going on. Step two: If they refuse to leave, offer them peace, and to be incorporated into Israel. The idea in steps 1 & 2 was to spare as much as possible lives of their own soldiers and also of their enemies. Step 3: If they won't leave and they won't surrender, then war was next.

You can't just quote the verses you want and ignore the whole picture. If you do that, you end up with a skewed picture motivated by bias. The primary intent was that the Canaanites be driven from the land, not that they be killed, as I showed.

> This only applies to "This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby."

Yep, you're right. Thanks for the correction.

> God explicitly commands you to destroy the Canaanites.

Now accept my correction of your thought. The quest of the Israelites was to drive the Canaanites out of the land (Ex. 23.28-31; 33.2; 34.11, 24; Lev. 18.24; 20.23, and dozens of others), not to destroy them. Only if they wouldn't leave was Israel to wage war.

> "Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God"

Anything that tends to undermine Israel's total allegiance to YHWH is not to be tolerated. The point is not genocide but pseudo-theocide: doing away with false gods. The intent was always (and only) to prevent false worship.

> It sounds like you're trying to say that God is not a supernatural entity? I don't understand how God can exist in a form that isn't supernatural right here.

Oh, not at all. Of course God is a supernatural entity. I was not claiming God was not a supernatural entity, nor that the Bible is not a supernatural book, nor that there aren't supernatural benefits. What I was claiming was (1) those are not what I said (even though I believe them), and (2) that's not what we were discussing.

> The issue here is that you're conflating the human justice system with the justice system of God.

No I'm not. Don't just make assumptions about me. The human justice system is supposed to reflect God's character. What I'm saying is that the Torah is not a set of laws. Ancient Israel, nor any of the ancient world for that matter, didn't perceive law as we do. We govern by precedent, with law books where we study previous cases, previous judgments, and we based future cases on previous cases. The ancient Near East didn't work that way. They expected the judge to be a godly person and to use his wisdom to make a right judgment. He didn't study previous cases; precedent had nothing to do with it. It was all about being wise and making the right choice. That's what the Torah is: legal wisdom. Very few of the laws in the Torah are complete enough to be able to run a court like we do in modern times. Instead, they were casuistic—hypothetical examples—to guide the judge to know what the wise and right decision would be.

> This is common sense here. The Romans worshiped Roman Gods like Zeus and Poseidon. Clearly Jesus was a heretic in their eyes.

Ah, no, "common sense" doesn't take us anywhere here. The Romans were polytheistic. They pretty much let anyone worship however they wanted and didn't really care which set of gods a person followed. They drew the line, however, when they instituted emperor worship (starting with Nero and worsening in the next decades). That was considered treason. But that wasn't around when Jesus was on trial. Augustus was the "Savior of Rome" who would bring peace, but didn't consider himself divine (though the Senate and the people did). In any case, Jesus had never spoken or acted against Augustus. During his lifetime Jesus advocating paying appropriate taxes to Caesar, and Jesus never engaged in any effort or attempt to overthrow the empire, especially militarily. The emperor during Jesus's trial was Tiberius. There is no evidence I'm aware of that he claimed to be divine or expected anyone to worship him.

Jesus was no heretic in their eyes.

> Beyond that, as for being a criminal. He was raising a commotion. That's a crime.

Once on the Temple mount he raised a small commotion, and there was conversation after it. If you want to claim anything he did was a crime, you need to prove it. Give me the evidence. Support your claim.

> Just look at Hong Kong.

What's happening in HK has nothing to do with ancient Rome and the situation of Jesus. You can't compare the two.

> Those protestors get shot at by the police because they're creating a very serious public disturbance that inhibits the proper function of society.

...and Jesus did no such thing. Ever. He never encouraged a revolution. When people tried to make him king he walked away (Jn. 6.15).

> because the context of the word "king" implies a sovereign power, and this means if he were a king

Pilate asked Jesus point blank if Jesus was a king. Jesus said yes and explained (Jn. 18.33-37), and Pilate concluded "I find no basis for a charge against him" (Jn. 18.38). You case doesn't follow.

> If Jesus is the king of these people, then this implies the threat of a religious theocracy that could challenge roman rule.

Pilate said, "I find no basis for a charge against him." He didn't consider Jesus a threat to Rome, a challenge to Roman rule, or treasonous.

> It's just semantics here, but there's plenty of grounds to argue that just by using that word, Jesus is making veiled threats against the Roman rule and subverting the state.

There aren't. The text specifically says Pilate sensed no subversion.

> he's saying "Spiritual King", which translates in functional speech to theocratic dictator/king

Jesus doesn't actually say "Spiritual king." What he says is, "My kingdom is not of this world," and "my kingdom is from another place." He guarantees Pilate this is no treason or threat to Roman rule. He says, "If it were, my servants would now be fighting to prevent my arrest." Then he says, "I came to testify to the truth." Pilate senses no threat in the least.

> It implies a sovereign leader of a group of people that has a military presence or loyalty enough to fight and defend itself.

Have you read the text? Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would now be fighting to prevent my arrest." In other words, he explicitly does NOT have a military presence, and there is no intention of fighting and defending. C'mon, we have to go with the facts that are given to us.