Something Bad Jesus Did

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Ben Masada, Jan 31, 2012.

  1. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    Her people were a mixed culture which compromised Jewish with pagan culture -- the thing you don't like about Christianity. They had a copycat religion with modified laws (or interpretations), and they disputed with Jews about some big ticket items as can be seen in Jesus conversation with the 'Woman at the well'. (John 4:9,20) It appears that they wanted to be accepted as Jews as they were, so they were trying to modify Judaism, hence they were accused of opposing the Lord.

    Besides in the passages above, its not David who makes the distinction of dogs but the Lord who makes it between the Israelite and the Egyptian of the time of Exodus. The enemies aren't David's enemies but the Lord's enemies, and that is the most clear in the story of Goliath where David attacks in the name of the Lord. If these are only David's enemies, then why bother praying to the Lord to defeat them? Its reasonable to think that the Lord's enemies were called dogs.

    There is no need to defend him until you've established that he has not followed the golden rule. He only refused to do anything until she showed that she was not opposed to the Lord. Its clear that he had no problem with her lineage but only with enemies of the Lord, dogs. Therefore, the passage in question may not be a late addition.
     
  2. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1

    Would Jesus have liked to be referred to as a dog? Of course not! Therefore, he broke the Golden Rule by referring to that mother as a dog. I am sure, deep inside, she did not like it. She did not protest because the cure of her daughter was more important. But I understand your frustration to have to admit imperfection in Jesus. But what can I do? If this gloss is in the NT, Christians must be able to defend themselves.
    Ben
     
  3. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    I've no problem with Jesus making a mistake. I just don't think he did anything offensive in the context of that situation. Shouldn't a Jewish person rebuke evil wherever they find it? He would be neglecting his responsibility to ignore it, particularly with all those syro-phoenecians standing around watching. If you ask me, the time he possibly made a mistake is in John 4:8-10 where he told everybody he was not going somewhere but then secretly went.
     
  4. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1


    Gee, Ben, it was right there, in the opening sentence of the little tourist brochure: “Jews have sought since antiquity to be buried on the Mount of Olives, where according to the Bible (Zech. 14:4) the resurrection will begin when the Messiah comes.”



    I know it is scriptural. That is why I recommended that you not use such language when speaking to the congregation in John Hagee’s synagogue masquerading as a church: there might be some, especially scripturally literate, in the crowd who would be reminded of the dialogue in the eighth chapter of St. John’s Gospel.



    Tell them that, when you speak to them. But, if you do, be forewarned: your building fund might dry up.



    You’ll have to ask Imam John Hagee that one. I am not a theologian and I do not particularly care.



    Do you mean, like, what happened to Muhammad al-Durrah in “Operation Cast Lead?” I have put myself in the shoes of that father.



    Well he does a fine imitation, in any case, which is one reason he has been practically beatified by AIPAC.



    I remain unconvinced. If the Jews weren’t expecting an “individual”, why did they flock, en masse, to Palestine when they heard the clarion call of Sabbatai Zevi? He was an individual, not a collective.



    Let me guess: to be contra Ben Masada is to be ant-Jewish and worse, antiSemitic. At any rate, I am watching plenty of Rupert Murdoch media now, to say nothing of the so called “History Channel,” and ought, soon, to be properly educated. Once I have finished with Murdoch and his talking heads, I might agree with your history as hagiography. Please give me some time: or, to paraphrase, "Please be patient with me, Murdoch is not finished with me yet."

    Serv
     
  5. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1
    Too late to edit typographical error. Should be "anti-Jewish," clearly.
     
  6. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1
    Tweaking on the details here, but that should be read: to oppose Ben Masada's opinion (not his person), to disagree with him, is to be anti-Jewish and worse, anti-Semitic.

    During the reign of G.W. Bush, it occurred to me, at one point, that the new definition of anti-Semitism, as it appears in the American Political Dictionary, should be: "anyone, including his wife, Midge Decter, who disagrees with Norman Podhoretz."
     
  7. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1

    Dream, for heaven's sake! Think! It is not too hard. That desperate mother meant no evil to Jesus. Why would he have to rebuke her? You are hitting against pricks with your bare hands. Let us do something else which will clear Jesus of such a mistake or apparent break of the Golden Rule. The case did not happen in reality. It was only one of Jesus' parables. There! You are happy, I am happy and every one else is happy. Every thing is possible in a parable or allegory without having to compromise any values. How about that?
    Ben
     
  8. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
     
  9. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1



    The only verbal juggling is between you and the tourist brochure. It clearly refers to the belief among Jews in resurrection at the time of the Messiah. If you cannot read that for what it is, then so be it. I think this has been said, but those who have historically denied the soul's immortality and bodily resurrection, in your religion, are known as Sadducees.





    I am dropping white hot light upon the nations, of course, following my exemplar, Ben Masada.




    Does dropping white phosphorous on Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip qualify as "fighting the battles of the Lord?" Collective punishment sounds to me more like the strategy of Machiavelli on crack cocaine: when Bob attacks, annihilate Mary and her neighborhood.




    He does function as a temple prostitute for Israel. Even Wal-Mart sells his books. I think he is one of the head mullahs in the American branch of Hezbullah, or “Party of God.”




    Would they be any less foolish to accept you and organized crime boss Semion Yudkovich Mogilivech as part of a collective messiah, sitting upon King David's throne, simply because you are born Jews? To me, that would be Einstein in reverse.





    In view of R. Johanan's injunction (involving the death penalty to gentiles prying into your scriptures), perhaps you could tell me where, in the scriptures, God is said to have given Noah "laws" which apply to me. Where are those "Noahide Laws" given in scripture?


    Serv
     
  10. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1
    Addendum:

    Source:

    “Theological dissent, in and of itself, did not, however, [at Spinoza’s time] call down upon the dissenter the wrath of the organized [Jewish] community. Acosta was only one among a considerable group in the Jewish community who denied the soul’s immortality. These skeptics were called “Sadduceans,” after their ancient forebears, and against their trend of thought, the community’s exponents of orthodoxy directed an unceasing stream of writings. Manasseh published his De Resurrectione Mortuorum in both Spanish and Latin versions, Samuel da Silva wrote a Tratado da Immortalitidade, and Moses Raphael de Aguilar, principal of the Talmud Torah … contributed a Tratado de Immortalidade da Alma …[p. 15]”
     
  11. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
     
  12. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    I do not say that I am happy about it, but that is ok with me. For all I know it may have been a parable. Owe! My poor hands! What good is it if a man gains the whole world but grinds his hands to pulp in the process?
     
  13. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi Ben,





    Apparently, you missed the bit where the tourist brochure provides the scripture which gave the Jews buried on the Mount of Olives the strange, inexplicable, indefensible, absurd, fantastical, fabulous and ridiculous notion that they would be resurrected at the time of their messiah. If they are not going to be resurrected, perhaps you, as a sort of messiah in residence, should dig them up and tell them that their hopes are, after all, in vain.



    You heap both scorn and ridicule upon your orthodox coreligionists and those buried on the Mount of Olives.



    That, I must say, was a refreshingly trite analysis and one worthy of Sky and Fox News. Uri Avnery, a wee small dissenting voice, offers an antidote to those terrorists –and their institutional enablers- who operate with relative impunity from these Unites States, Kach-Kahane. According to Mr. Avnery:

    "… It [Kasher’s argument] states, in effect, that it is permissible to kill enemy civilians without restraint in order to avoid casualties among our [Israeli] soldiers. (In retrospect, we should be glad that the British soldiers who fought the Irgun and the Lehi did not conduct themselves in a similar manner.)

    Tragically, it appears that the IDF operated in accordance with this principle during the Gaza war, and to the best of my knowledge, this was the first time it did so. In order to prevent the death of a single one of our soldiers, it was considered permissible to kill ten, a hundred, or even a thousand enemy civilians. The goal was a war with zero casualties for our side, and the statistics reflect this: There were approximately 1,400 casualties in Gaza, one- or two-thirds of which (depending on whom you ask) were civilians, women, and children. In comparison, six IDF soldiers were killed by enemy action (four more died in friendly fire incidents) ..."




    There is no blame on my part. I am starting to catch the vision. Funnily enough, especially in light of the Machiavellian military strategies Israel is pursuing in its jihad against the Palestinians and others, I am starting to see the distinct, prophetical possibility that Semion Yudkovich Mogilivech and others like him will be crowned collective King of Israel. "Wither is fled the visionary gleam, where is it now, the glory and the dream?"




    I notice that you provided one scripture less than that given in the tourist brochure. Again, where, in the scriptures, is God said to have given Noah “laws” which apply to me. Where are those “Noahide Laws” given in scripture? If I am going to be tried by them, I want to read them: chapter and verse.



    Now, all of a sudden, you are a “traditionalist?” You have gone from being a sort of crypto-Karaite (in your discussions with bananabrain) to a traditional Talmudist in six short posts. Ben, thy name is Mercury.

    Serv
     
  14. Jer3:16

    Jer3:16 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2012
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just want to address this concern... How dare you say that Jesus Christ did something bad? As I can see your wisdom of the Bible is not enough... Jesus Christ did not sinned... So how dare you say that he did something bad? Isn't that contradicting to what God said? Isn't that illogical? What I can advice is to focus on your salvation other than seeking evil or corruption in the book...
     
  15. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi Jeremy. In a sense you are right, but in another sense you are wrong. Although it may sound like we are debating whether Jesus did something wrong, actually this is about whether certain actions are wrong and why or why not. Jesus would count that to be more important than whether he was personally accused of something, because he always put his principles before his reputation, preferring to allow God to justify him instead of trying to do so through argument. If it were not so he wouldn't have gone on the cross would he? If Ben says Jesus did something wrong, then just let it go. Can't Jesus defend himself?

    Also this conversation is about whether scriptures were added to the books at a late date and about the whole nature of faith and of believing. People tend to wonder about these things, so don't get mad about it. You sound like you've read the Bible at least once, but don't make the assumption that we don't care what it says. You probably don't care about it as much as Ben does. You can question my sincerity, but don't question the power of the Bible in someone who studies it daily. There is no question about the effects of that. You cannot take the position that the Bible is holy and at the same time deny its power to affect a reader. I think you have let yourself get angry and are not thinking about what is really being discussed. That is ok though. I'm not saying you aren't welcome to the talk. The more the merrier.
     
  16. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1
    Corrigendum:
    (in which Servie, publicly losing control of his OCD, shamelessly tweaks on the details)

    Aargh! That should be United States, of course.



    That should be whither - whither is fled. If I am going to quote the good Wordsworth, I should spell him correctly and not rely upon my spell checker to do all things for me.

    ___________________________________

    Hi Dream,

    Please stop posting such intelligent responses in and to this thread. They are, at times, as unnerving as they are distracting: :D.

    Best regards,

    Serv
     
  17. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    Serv, thanks! I highly regard your complement, and I return it both to you and to Ben. (Love your concept of 'Philadelphian' christianity.) Arguing is a lot of fun, izn't it?
     
  18. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    I find it strange of you to be nitpicking your own posts.:eek:

    Why don't you let Ben call it out first?
     
  19. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    Surely Servetus, aren't you being a bit too meticulous and pedantic?
     
  20. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, undoubtedly, to both charges. The bad news is that my (mild-case of) OCD is evidently out of control; the good news is that I tend to pedantically tweak only upon my own posts.

    By the way, spot on to the Illuminati stuff, if I may say so. I hope, at some point, to be able to discuss the subject with you in more detail, but that is one reason why, though the logic of the primacy of the Jerusalem Church and of the corresponding patriarchate of James the Just is appealing to me, I am nevertheless cautious when accepting the findings of such scholars as, e.g., Robert Eisenman in toto. It is not that I consider him an Illuminatus, by any means, but rather that I suspect that it will be by means of some supposed resurrection of the long-lost Jerusalem Church and, significantly, of the desposyni (and blood-line of Jesus) that the Illuminoids might (try to) enthrone someone from, say, the (Merovingian) House of Plantagenet and declare him the messiah, son of David, son of Jesus, and rightful heir. This stuff is in the making and has been long before Dan Brown's mysteries. For instance, as I recall, H.P. Blavatsky, in one of her works, traced the alleged conflict, correction, feud between James and Paul through the Clementine Homilies and elsewhere. Whatever else might be said of her, I think it safe to say that she was a spokeswoman for an occult tradition, or traditions, plural, and it is worthwhile to note that Eisenman and others are just now pursuing the line of thought in their more academically credible studies.

    Anyway, it's a long subject, but I thought I'd address it.

    Best regards,

    Serv
     

Share This Page