According to the tales, Jesus gave up a weekend.

[Zzyzx]

.
According to the tales, Jesus gave up a weekend. Whats the big deal?

What is the sacrifice in a supposedly eternal being giving up a weekend being dead?

An 'omnipotent god' (or part thereof, or whatever is claimed) would presumably know that the 'death' was extremely temporary -- just a few hours (less than 48 according to the tale).

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

The perfume belonged to her; she was free to do with it as she wished. She did not use it on herself; she used it on Christ, out of love for Him. For this, Judas (a disciple) rebuked her.

I wonder what benefits she was trying to buy? (and no I'm not insinuating anything sexual)

Why are you insinuating that she was trying to buy anything at all?

Because she was human. Because she had who she believed to be the son of God there. Because most of the time when people pray to a god they're after some kind of benefit for them or others. So it would be the same when it comes to Jesus, surely?

Does no one do anything out of love and gratitude in your world?

Christ had saved her life... and... He had forgiven her sins... even her brother had been given back to her. There was nothing left for her to buy; everything had already been given to her. She did as she did out of love (and faith).

Because Christ did not ask anyone (including Mary) to give Him something instead of giving to the poor.

How do you know that? This story was about one specific person coming to Jesus and spilling very expensive perfume on him.

But does there need to be an example of Jesus asking for something?

If you are going to assert it, then yes, there has to be an example (evidence) of it.

Does the queen ask to be treated like royalty or do people just treat her that way because she's the queen? We're talking about the so-called son of God here. I'm sure he never had to ask for anything.

Anytime someone gives to the poor or forgives someone who wronged them or prays for those who persecute them - out of love for Christ and for His Father - they are doing as He asked them to do.

Christ defended her against that unjust rebuke. She had done a beautiful thing - that is simply the truth. She did not deserve to be rebuked or shamed for her beautiful deed

My issue is not the giving of the gift or the beauty of it. The problem is that he clearly expected this attention.

Did you not imply that people are misunderstanding your words on this thread, taking them out of context perhaps, because you were merely responding to something 1213 claimed? Seems to me that you are doing the same thing here with what Christ said. Because Christ did not ask anyone (including Mary) to give Him something instead of giving to the poor. He never asked anything for Himself. He needed nothing from anyone; He is the One who served us; giving even His life for us - who healed (something He did by carrying others' infirmities in His own flesh).


That does not mean He did not know that some would give to Him - out of love and gratitude to His Father and to Him, for what they have done out of love for us. Are you suggesting that He should have thrown gifts or acts or words given to Him from the heart and out of love back in their faces? Even if He knew that those things would come with a blessing from His Father?

No, not throw them back in their faces. Re-gift those things to the ones who need it.

A - I'm sorry, please explain how you re-gift perfume that has been poured on you?

B - How many people feel good when someone re-gifts their gifts, given out of love?

The thing is Jesus was telling people to give up everything to follow him.

He did the same.

The Son of Man has no place to lay His head.

He was telling rich men that's what they needed to do. He was critical of them because it was so hard for them to give up their wealth.

Stating a fact is simply stating a fact; if a person finds the truth to be critical, then perhaps they simply do not like what it reveals about themselves (or others). And the rich man (singular) to whom He spoke pushed to know more about where he lacked. So Christ answered Him truthfully again.


The thing is... it is not Christ who is offending people; it is the truth that people are offended by, the truth that people do not like or want to hear.

Of course he would have to give up the gifts. I would expect that from a person telling me that I have to give up all my wealth to follow him. Otherwise he's a hyprocrite just like all those wealthy pastors.

I responded to your 'wealthy pastor' comparison below:

As for lavish modern day religions and preachers (like televangelists) who are asking (directly or indirectly) for money and gifts, etc, to be given to them - there is no comparison between them and Christ.

But the thing is they're not asking for money and gifts for themselves. They're asking for it to use on God's behalf.

You have yet to provide the comparison between them and Christ.

The thing is we don't know how much wealth Jesus had stored up. The bible doesn't tell us that. Although we do know he was given gold at one point. He didn't have to ask for that, did he?

So you have no evidence at all to support these accusations that you are making against Christ. You are just making it up; never mind the truth; never mind evidence; never mind that He is innocent of the hypocrisy that you are charging him with.

Christ had no home of his own (the Son of Man has no place to lay his head); no fancy chariots; no big bank accounts and property investments, etc.

How do you know he didn't have these things? Just because he wasn't going around flaunting them doesn't mean he didn't have them.

Because He SAID it... and that is more evidence than you have provided for your accusations.

"Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." Matt 8:20

My partner had an AIR BnB at one point and a woman stayed there for several weeks with here. Later we found out she was a millionaire.

That is a nice story but it has nothing to do with Christ; nor is it evidence of anything to do with Christ.

Some people just don't splash it around and if Jesus was a con man he wouldn't have wanted people knowing all about his wealth.

Well, now you're failing your own 'fat cat' analogy. The wealth of wealthy pastors; tv evangelists; religions, etc... is KNOWN.

And the statement he made is appalling. To say the poor will always be there.

He simply stated the truth (unless you are claiming that they did not have the poor with them at some point?) One might find the fact that the poor would always being among them appalling, but that does not make it any less true.

Like I said to the others on this thread who claimed he was simply telling the truth. He was only telling the truth if he really was who he claimed to be. If not, then he was conning them.

Are you suggesting that they did not always have the poor with them?

And even if he was the son of god, it's still a horrible thing to say. It makes him look bad and seems to indicate that he didn't care about the poor as much as he claimed. Of course I would expect that if he was a con man.

Con men don't tend to show integrity to their death.

And where was his humility? He showed absolutely none with this statement. So much for Jesus being humble. He's was clearly milking being the son of God for all its worth!

How is defending a woman against accusations for her gift an example of 'not showing humility'?

How is telling the truth 'not showing humility'?

How exactly did He 'milk' things by allowing perfume to be poured on Him (which he even said was in preparation for his death)?

You really think that was an example of "milking being the Son of God for all its worth?"


Having no place to lay His head; fasting; healing others (taking their illnesses into His own flesh); teaching the truth despite the persecution it brought Him; not calling upon the angels at His disposal; NOT allowing the people to fight and make Him King by force; not exacting eye for eye and life for life - but instead GIVING His life for our lives... this is what 'milking being the Son of God for all its worth' looks like to you?



I think what you are saying He should have shown - what would make Him more acceptable to you and others - is FALSE humility.


But He cannot do that; there is nothing false in Him; He is the Truth.





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[marco]

Naturally, because biblically Christ did no wrong. Feel free to challenge me on that.

It depends how much meaning is placed in the word "biblically". Let's take it to mean "as recorded in the Bible" then all we can say is that, as far as biblical records go, we hear of nothing done by Jesus that would be considered wrong. Two challenges to this:


(a) We are reading a record of the goodness done by Jesus, not his negative actions. Some 90% of his life is hidden from us and that provides adequate space for flaws and failures. Even Augustine, saint that he was, sinned before seeing the light. As an adolescent and a young man, as yet untouched by the call to found a religious group, Jesus may have done things that were bad. But if the word "biblically" includes a definition of Jesus as perfect or as God what can we say? It all depends on which Christian group we support, not on what Jesus did or did not do.

(b) We would not expect loyal followers to print anything bad about their master. We would have to extract evidence from events that are ambiguous in what they say about Christ's behaviour. His lack of "honouring his parents" as he was commanded to do, is a possible blemish. He was wrong in having them wait - it reduced them in the eyes of those around him. He used force with the buyers - the temple wasn't his; others were in charge of its maintenance. His adolescent wandering away from his concerned parents is certainly suspect regardless of the excuse he offered.

Did Christ do wrong? Possibly. Probably.

[JehovahsWitness]

Naturally, because biblically Christ did no wrong. Feel free to challenge me on that.

It depends how much meaning is placed in the word "biblically". Let's take it to mean "as recorded in the Bible" then all we can say is that, as far as biblical records go, we hear of nothing done by Jesus that would be considered wrong.

Yes that is exactly what I meant and the conclusion I have drawn. Of course all my conclusions are faith based and not being presented here as claims of truth, only of claims I believe them to be true. And would stake my life on it.

I cannot claim to know what Jesus did beyond what is in scripture but if we are speculating, (I'm just speculating here, not claiming I know) I would say he did more wonderful things that proved beyond the shadow of a doubt he is the Son of God for all those present.



JW

[marco]

Are you suggesting that the ransom sacrifice represents a blanket excuse for sin? (I would like to clarify exactly what your point is to avoid misunderstanding) before I respond.

It is fascinating to discover the many alleyways my simple statements seem to run into. "Ransom sacrifice" is a phrase I have not used, not will use, mainly because it is quite meaningless in the case of a man who was tried and sentenced. The church that honours me with a weekly notice as I drive past, sometimes informs me that "Jesus died for our sins." I guess I am attempting to make sense of this. Perhaps you can be more successful than poor, artless Marco.

NOTE Please this is not an invitation for personal attack against me or any group.

The rules of the forum make this interesting addendum unnecessary.

[JehovahsWitness]

Are you suggesting that the ransom sacrifice represents a blanket excuse for sin? (I would like to clarify exactly what your point is to avoid misunderstanding) before I respond.

"Ransom sacrifice" is a phrase I have not used, not will use, mainly because it is quite meaningless in the case of a man who was tried and sentenced.

I understand, sometimes I forget I am speaking with unbelievers and use biblical language, it was not meant to belittle you or cause unnecessary confrontation. That said, the issue you raised was related to the notion of sin and what, if anything his death signifies for those that accept that notion. Which is why I refered to the "ransom" which is a term Jesus himself is reported to have used in relation to his impending death.

I didn't think that the word "sacrifice" would be seen as meaningless since it was in the comment which prompted by question.

... we are debating the weekend that Jesus happily sacrificed so that people in lower Saxony could sin in safety.

Emphasis MINE





JW




RELATED POSTS



Should the ransom sacrifice be used as an excuse for indulging in wrongdoing?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 639#978639


Can the concept of Jesus dying for mankind be reconciled with the view that Adam and Eve were myths?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 566#979566

[marco]

Yes that is exactly what I meant and the conclusion I have drawn. Of course all my conclusions are faith based and not being presented here as claims of truth, only of claims I believe them to be true. And would stake my life on it.

Good grief, that is an alarming proposition. Let us keep calm. Yes I am arguing for or against what is written in the bible and you are expounding it as truth. I understand this.

I cannot claim to know what Jesus did beyond what is in scripture but if we are speculating, (I'm just speculating here, not claiming I know) I would say he did more wonderful things that proved beyond the shadow of a doubt he is the Son of God for all those present.

That is wisely put - you cannot know what Jesus did in the vast part of his life that went unrecorded. Perhaps only the good part was thought worthy of record. But it is surely a mistake simply to assume, on the basis of 10%, that the unknown 90% follows the same good pattern. I'm not assuming Jesus was God, and that being so, I can accept that SOME of his actions weren't perfect. That is what "not being God" would imply.

A good way of deciding is to ask what his family, rather than his acolytes, thought and there are hints that they had a somewhat negative view. They worried about him. But of course Faith can do what it likes and declare Jesus is God and absolve him of all wrong doing. Ergo, end of discussion.

[JehovahsWitness]

But it is surely a mistake simply to assume, on the basis of 10%, that the unknown 90% follows the same good pattern.

It's called faith. I believe, and I am making faith statements, simply presenting my own faith based conclusions . The writer of the gospel of John puts it so beautifully, I can present nothing better:

JOHN 21:24, 25

This is the disciple who gives this witness about these things and who wrote these things, and we know that his witness is true. There are also, in fact, many other things that Jesus did, which if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.

So do we have 10% of what Jesus said and did? Probably not, we probably have much , much less than 10%. But thanks to the gospel writers, the fearless men and women that fought to preserve the holy scriptures throughout the centuries and of course, to JEHOVAH GOD, men and women of faith have all the information they need to have complete confidence in the appealling qualities, the faultless honesty and the absolute integrity of Jesus of Nazareth.


JW

[Clownboat]

But it is surely a mistake simply to assume, on the basis of 10%, that the unknown 90% follows the same good pattern.

It's called faith. I believe, and I am making faith statements, simply presenting my own faith based conclusions . The writer of the gospel of John puts it so beautifully, I can present nothing better:

JOHN 21:24, 25

This is the disciple who gives this witness about these things and who wrote these things, and we know that his witness is true. There are also, in fact, many other things that Jesus did, which if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.

So do we have 10% of what Jesus said and did? Probably not, we probably have much , much less than 10%. But thanks to the gospel writers, the fearless men and women that fought to preserve the holy scriptures throughout the centuries and of course, to JEHOVAH GOD, men and women of faith have all the information they need to have complete confidence in the appealling qualities, the faultless honesty and the absolute integrity of Jesus of Nazareth.


JW

When we remove your faith statements, we are left with:

The writer of the gospel of John puts it so beautifully, I can present nothing better:
<and>
So do we have 10% of what Jesus said and did? Probably not, we probably have much , much less than 10%.

I would like to make a faith statement about a belief I have faith in. Hold on to your hats!

I have faith that the first commandment of the Bible, about 'not having any gods before Me' was ment for future Christians that have made an idol out of a book called the Bible.

Aren't faith statements fun!

[Zzyzx]

.

It's called faith. I believe, and I am making faith statements, simply presenting my own faith based conclusions . The writer of the gospel of John puts it so beautifully, I can present nothing better:

Perhaps it escaped notice that this is a DEBATE site -- not a podium for preaching ones beliefs and proselytizing with statements from writers of religious propaganda.

Giving up a weekend does not seem like a great sacrifice for a supposed 'eternal' supernatural entity.

[OnceConvinced]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

The perfume belonged to her; she was free to do with it as she wished. She did not use it on herself; she used it on Christ, out of love for Him. For this, Judas (a disciple) rebuked her.

I wonder what benefits she was trying to buy? (and no I'm not insinuating anything sexual)

Why are you insinuating that she was trying to buy anything at all?

Because she was human. Because she had who she believed to be the son of God there. Because most of the time when people pray to a god they're after some kind of benefit for them or others. So it would be the same when it comes to Jesus, surely?

Does no one do anything out of love and gratitude in your world?

Sure they do. People pray for others all the time. I included others in my above quote. (I underlined it for you) But how does wasting a jar of expensive perfume by pouring it all over Jesus going to benefit anyone but Jesus and her?

Im not saying she didnt do a selfless thing. My problem is with Jesuss hypocrisy here.

Because Christ did not ask anyone (including Mary) to give Him something instead of giving to the poor.

How do you know that? This story was about one specific person coming to Jesus and spilling very expensive perfume on him.

But does there need to be an example of Jesus asking for something?

If you are going to assert it, then yes, there has to be an example (evidence) of it.

Thats all fine if I asserted it but I didnt. I didnt say Jesus asked for anything. I said he expected it. That is clear by his words:

The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

And whats even more absurd is he goes on to say:

When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.

What kind of ludicrous justification is that?

Christ defended her against that unjust rebuke. She had done a beautiful thing - that is simply the truth. She did not deserve to be rebuked or shamed for her beautiful deed

My issue is not the giving of the gift or the beauty of it. The problem is that he clearly expected this attention.

Did you not imply that people are misunderstanding your words on this thread, taking them out of context perhaps, because you were merely responding to something 1213 claimed? Seems to me that you are doing the same thing here with what Christ said.

And how do you know Im taking his words out of context? I am here to point out when people take my words out of context. Im the only one who can for certainty. Not anyone else. Jesus is not here to say that I am taking his words out of context and hes the only one who can say I am for certainty.

You are in no position to be able to say that Im taking Jesuss words out of context. You dont get that privilege.

Because Christ did not ask anyone (including Mary) to give Him something instead of giving to the poor. He never asked anything for Himself. He needed nothing from anyone; He is the One who served us; giving even His life for us - who healed (something He did by carrying others' infirmities in His own flesh).

You are erecting a strawman here. I never once said that Jesus asked for benefits. Im saying he expected them. Thats a completely different thing. Its just like the queen expects to be treated like royalty. I doubt she asks for it. I doubt she needs to. Jesus would never have had to ask for anything either.

A - I'm sorry, please explain how you re-gift perfume that has been poured on you?

Well obviously Im not talking about spilt perfume am I? Im talking about gifts in general.

B - How many people feel good when someone re-gifts their gifts, given out of love?

People dont normally go around telling everyone to give up all their belongings and follow them, do they? If they did, then the person giving the gift should expect that it's going to be passed on to someone more needy.

But seeing as youre using that argument, then shouldnt we presume that all the gifts Jesus was given was stored up? All that gold he got? Everything else he would have received as gifts from grateful and adoring people?

In which case he most likely had a hoard of expensive items stashed away somewhere, which would destroy your claim that he had no material wealth.

The thing is... it is not Christ who is offending people;

He offended the disciples. Read the story.

It is the truth that people are offended by, the truth that people do not like or want to hear.

Im quite open to the possibility that Jesus was a hypocrite. That he might have even been a con artist. Are you?

You have yet to provide the comparison between them and Christ.

Those wealthy pastors and evangelists claim to be helping others and doing good works on behalf of God. Jesus also claimed to be helping others, doing good works on behalf of God.

Wealthy pastors and evangelists accept gifts and keep them. Jesus also accepted gifts and if what you said earlier is correct, he wouldnt have wanted to upset anyone by regifting them, so thus would have kept them for himself.

Wealthy pastors and evangelists do not ask for money and gifts for themselves. Jesus never did either.

The thing is we don't know how much wealth Jesus had stored up. The bible doesn't tell us that. Although we do know he was given gold at one point. He didn't have to ask for that, did he?

So you have no evidence at all to support these accusations that you are making against Christ. You are just making it up; never mind the truth; never mind evidence; never mind that He is innocent of the hypocrisy that you are charging him with.

Hey, I never said for sure he had a lot of wealth stored up. The fact is we dont know. You dont know either. You are the one who claimed this:


Christ had no home of his own (the Son of Man has no place to lay his head); no fancy chariots; no big bank accounts and property investments, etc.

Where is your evidence to support these claims?

If Jesus was getting expensive gifts like gold and perfumes was he regifting it or not? You seem to be saying he wouldnt have done that. So what happened to the gold? What about other gifts people would have given him?

Where did all the wealth go from the rich people who gave it all up to follow him?

Christ had no home of his own (the Son of Man has no place to lay his head); no fancy chariots; no big bank accounts and property investments, etc.

How do you know he didn't have these things? Just because he wasn't going around flaunting them doesn't mean he didn't have them.

Because He SAID it... and that is more evidence than you have provided for your accusations.

"Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." Matt 8:20

And we should believe that why?
And that verse says nothing about stored wealth. Nothing about fancy chariots. Nor the ETC.
And what if his property investments were in other cities? What if he had people renting them? Then no, he wouldnt have a place to lay his head, especially if hes not living where those properties are.

Im open to looking at possibilities here. You, however seem to want to just throw them aside.

My partner had an AIR BnB at one point and a woman stayed there for several weeks with here. Later we found out she was a millionaire.

That is a nice story but it has nothing to do with Christ; nor is it evidence of anything to do with Christ.

Its an example of how wealthy people still choose to live modestly even though they have great wealth. Why could Jesus not be one of those people? After all he has a lot of wealth stored up in Heaven, right? Perhaps he figured a few years living modestly was something he could handle? Especially if he had an agenda.

All this womans wealth was tied up in China. All her properties and businesses. So she came to New Zealand without a place to lay her head. I wonder if it was the same for Jesus as he travelled? Im willing to entertain that possibility. Are you?

Some people just don't splash it around and if Jesus was a con man he wouldn't have wanted people knowing all about his wealth.

Well, now you're failing your own 'fat cat' analogy. The wealth of wealthy pastors; tv evangelists; religions, etc... is KNOWN.

Yeah but we dont know for sure about Jesus, do we? Even you dont know for sure.

It could be that Jesus was a very genuine guy (like that Osho Rajneesh guy from the 80s). He had good intentions but once the expensive gifts started rolling in, and he got used to be treated like a celebrity/royal, it may be that he started to think he deserved it.

The verse I quoted seems to indicate that.

And the statement he made is appalling. To say the poor will always be there.

He simply stated the truth (unless you are claiming that they did not have the poor with them at some point?) One might find the fact that the poor would always being among them appalling, but that does not make it any less true.

Like I said to the others on this thread who claimed he was simply telling the truth. He was only telling the truth if he really was who he claimed to be. If not, then he was conning them.

Are you suggesting that they did not always have the poor with them?

The poor people who were there at the time Jesus said that wouldnt have always been there. Maybe the price of that perfume might have saved a few from starvation?

And according to Christians Jesus is alive and still with us. Did Jesus forget he was going to be resurrected when he made that statement? Did he forget he would be with them as the holy spirit?

And even if he was the son of god, it's still a horrible thing to say. It makes him look bad and seems to indicate that he didn't care about the poor as much as he claimed. Of course I would expect that if he was a con man.

Con men don't tend to show integrity to their death.

How many con men have you witnessed the death of?

And where was his humility? He showed absolutely none with this statement. So much for Jesus being humble. He's was clearly milking being the son of God for all its worth!

How is defending a woman against accusations for her gift an example of 'not showing humility'?

Defending someone is not showing humility. Turning the other cheek is showing humility.

How is telling the truth 'not showing humility'?

One can tell the truth and still not be humble. Eg Im the best at doing this, Im much prettier than you, Im way more intelligent than you.

How exactly did He 'milk' things by allowing perfume to be poured on Him (which he even said was in preparation for his death)?

You really think that was an example of "milking being the Son of God for all its worth?"

If it happened once it probably happened other times too. Partying with tax collectors, I think would be considered milking it. Receiving praise and adoration from followers? When did Jesus ever say No, stop with that, Im not worthy, Im not worthy. That's what a humble person would say.

Having no place to lay His head; fasting; healing others (taking their illnesses into His own flesh); teaching the truth despite the persecution it brought Him; not calling upon the angels at His disposal; NOT allowing the people to fight and make Him King by force; not exacting eye for eye and life for life - but instead GIVING His life for our lives... this is what 'milking being the Son of God for all its worth' looks like to you?

Rich church pastors and evangelists do that sort of thing too. In fact, didn't Paul warn about people who do the things you are describing? Pretending to be great people of God doing all these great works but yet still being charlatans?

Since when was good works an indication of how righteous a person is?

And as for giving his life the death was forced upon him. He didnt just walk up there and nail himself to the cross, did he? And not only that, he believed he was heading to Heaven straight after.

I think what you are saying He should have shown - what would make Him more acceptable to you and others - is FALSE humility.

You seem to be endorsing pride.

But He cannot do that; there is nothing false in Him; He is the Truth.

Pure preaching and there seems to be a lot to indicate you are wrong.