Who Represents Christianty?

[Divine Insight]

Isn't the Church of Christianity supposed to represent Jesus?

Didn't Jesus hang around with sinners proclaiming that sinners are the ones who need salvation the most?

If so, then shouldn't "Christian Churches" embrace sinners and invite them openly into their congregations?

Question for debate: Why do so many Christian Churches renounce sinners and refuse to allow them to be part of their Church of Christ?

Shouldn't they be welcoming sinners above all others as Jesus did?

[1213]

So are you saying that Christianity cannot be one jot or one tittle different from Judaism?

I am saying that things that God said disgusting in OT are still disgusting.

If you actually stand by using Jesus as an excuse to enforce every disgusting thing that it is in the Old Testament then why aren't you killing heathens, witches, adulterers, etc.? In fact, you would need to support the killing of homosexuals too.

I am not judge set by God, therefore I dont judge. And if I would be judge, I could forgive and not judge anyone to death.

Many gay people proclaim they are in love. They even want to get married. You can't very well knock that. Being willing to get married is pretty powerful evidence that they are serious about their love and commitment to each other I think.

I think I love also you, I think it is not good reason to marry you. Or what do you think; would it be reasonable if I marry all that I love?

By the way, when I say that homosexuality would be "disgusting" for me, I only mean if I am being asked to participate it. I don't think it's disgusting to see same gender couples who are in love with each other. So I may not find homosexually to be "disgusting" in the same way you do.

I also am not against love. In my opinion people should love even their enemies. I think God or Bible does not forbid love, it just tells that lie with a man, as with a woman is disgusting.

[Divine Insight]

I am not judge set by God, therefore I dont judge. And if I would be judge, I could forgive and not judge anyone to death.

Seems to me that you are claiming moral superiority the God of the Old Testament then.

Many gay people proclaim they are in love. They even want to get married. You can't very well knock that. Being willing to get married is pretty powerful evidence that they are serious about their love and commitment to each other I think.

I think I love also you, I think it is not good reason to marry you. Or what do you think; would it be reasonable if I marry all that I love?

Of course you wouldn't want to marry all that you love since that would be polygamy. Not to mention the practical difficulty in making a multiple commitments to so many other people.

The whole idea of marriage is to make a commitment to a single person. And they gays are asking to be able to do that, just as anyone else does this.

By the way, when I say that homosexuality would be "disgusting" for me, I only mean if I am being asked to participate it. I don't think it's disgusting to see same gender couples who are in love with each other. So I may not find homosexually to be "disgusting" in the same way you do.

I also am not against love. In my opinion people should love even their enemies. I think God or Bible does not forbid love, it just tells that lie with a man, as with a woman is disgusting.

It also tells us that stoning our unruly children to death is divine.

Would you object if I stoned my unruly children to death? Or would you support that I am indeed following the commandments of an almighty divine God?

I'm not personally a Christian. I don't believe in the Bible at all. But I think it's pretty clear that the teachings Jesus of love and forgiveness (and turning your cheek to your enemies) is incompatible with the Old Testament directives.

The Old Testament clearly commands you to stone people to death for all manner of reasons. Not the least of which is that they are teaching of other Gods. Supposedly if you hear of anyone in your neighborhood teachings of other Gods you are commanded to look into the matter and if you find it to be true you are to kill the heathens along with their entire family, children, livestock, and even the original town from whence they came.

Are you actively obeying that directive?

If you're not than I submit to you that you don't believe in this religion anymore than I do.

I don't see how you can make a big stink over gays when you're allowing other religions to worship and teach their "false Gods" in your city or town.

It seems to me that you're just being highly selective in what you are choosing to "enforce" versus what you are choosing to completely ignore.

If you can ignore the fact that other people are teaching other religions and gods in your own city, then why can't you ignore gays?

Using the bible as an excuse for selective bigotry doesn't hold any water in my book.

I reject the entire Bible. So I can't even use it as a source of support for "selective bigotry".

If I choose to be bigoted against something I'll at least confess that the bigotry is of my own making. I won't pretend to blame it on some ancient God fable.

[Mudcat]

Well, you're new here, and I'm sure people get tired of hearing my history.

<snip>
Thanks for sharing it DI, good to get some background on you. Like you I was raised Christian (Southern Bapt.).. I left Christianity behind me in my late teens. My dilemma was more philosophical.. problem of evil, eternal hell, fate of the unevangelized and so on.. there was a point where it didn't make sense so I dropped out of it.

I understand your Taoism to a degree, after I left I was never a "hard" atheist more of a deist/agnostic sort. Couldn't get rid of the idea that there was something more even though I didn't know what it was. My only experience with Taoism was through Martial Arts.. Jeet Kune Do specifically.

That went on for a decade... then I had an interesting day. A culmination of the events of the day seemed to be some sort of symbolic reflection of the Gospel... Something sort of "shifted".. I wasn't looking to experience God when I awoke that morning but before the day was out.. I became a follower of Christ.

You asked me, how I am going to do Christianity.....

It's a work in progress. I walked into faith still faced with the dilemmas I left Christianity with. Yet here I am... a Christian.

I have resolved some issues, others I suspend agnostically, others I wrestle with to some degree. Only difference is that I deal with these things from a position of affirmative belief in Christ, rather than seeing these things as some reason for disbelief.

[Divine Insight]

I have resolved some issues, others I suspend agnostically, others I wrestle with to some degree. Only difference is that I deal with these things from a position of affirmative belief in Christ, rather than seeing these things as some reason for disbelief.

The only problem I have with "an affirmative belief in Christ", is to basically ask what this even means?

What does it mean to "believe in Christ" if you aren't really sure what the Christ even means?

I mean, I can certainly see a lot of positive things in many of the things that have been attributed to Jesus. Especially via the four Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. My feelings change dramatically when we toss the writings of Paul in there.

Also, I see no reason to take everything that is in Mark, Matthew, Luke or John as "Gospels verbatim truth". Especially when it comes to things like the story of the virgin birth, God speaking from a cloud proclaiming Jesus to be his son, the resurrection itself, and the idea of a multitude of zombie saints climbing out of graves that were jostled open by an earthquake. These zombie saints are said to have gone into the Holy City and showed themselves to the people there. Yet the people in the Holy City would have been mainly Jews. Typically the Jews don't believe in the Jesus story. I also don't see any independent reports of anyone having seen these zombie saints.

What I believe is far more realistic is that Jesus was a mystic-minded Jew. That's actually not abnormal for that time in history. He was probably well versed in either Mahayana Buddhism or possibly Jainism. Or even some Jewish sect that was heavily influenced by those philosophies.

The idea that Jesus would have taught "I and the father are one" makes perfect sense in Mahayana Buddhism. That's basically what they teach. I also point out that when the Jewish priests threatened to stone him for blaspheme his response was "Is it not written in your law I have said ye are gods?" It sounds to me like he was arguing that everyone and the Father are one. Otherwise how would this be in his defense?

So I see Jesus as potentially a mystic-minded Jew who was simply trying to bring the higher moral values of Mahayana Buddhism into his home religion.

By the way, I didn't come to these conclusions until much later when I actually studied the history of Buddhism and learned about Mahayana Buddhism. That' when the light came on and I realized that it makes perfect sense that Jesus was actually preaching from this philosophical view.

Mahayana Buddhism was at its peak right at time when Jesus would have lived. The idea that he was fully aware of it is not unrealistic. In fact, it would be unrealistic to think that he wasn't aware of it. Mahayana Buddhism also teaches to take on disciples and have them swear an oath to become Bodhisattvas. A Bodhisattva is simply someone who has become spiritually enlightened and dedicates his life to helping others become spiritually enlightened. So Jesus would have just been doing what Mahayana Buddhists naturally do.

Mahayana Buddhism also doesn't care how people think of "God". That is unimportant to them. Mahayana means "The Great Vehicle". It teaches that how we live our lives is what is ultimately important and how we actually think of a God is not. So Jesus could have easily adopted these teachings of Mahayana Buddhism into his home religion where Yahweh is viewed as "God". That would be acceptable and there wouldn't be a conflict there.

I ultimately conclude that something along these lines is what most likely happened and who Jesus ultimately was. The moral teachings of Jesus are far more in line with the moral teachings of the Old Testament. In fact, that's actually the greatest reason why I believe this scenario is most likely true.

The Old Testament had God commanding people to judge each other and to stone sinners to death (supposedly this is precisely why the Jews were doing this).

Jesus taught people not to judge others and not to cast the first stone (that 100% in line with the moral teachings of Mahayana Buddhism and not even remotely close to the teachings of the Old Testament). In fact, it's just the opposite.

So I conclude that Jesus was most likely trying to bring the higher moral values of Mahayana Buddhism into his home religion. He probably did argue with the Jewish Priests, teach opposite moral values from the Old Testament, and was ultimately crucified for blaspheme just as the New Testament rumors claim.

So even if it was shown to be a confirmed fact that some guy did all these things, this would not convince me that Jesus was the demigod son of Yahweh.

Now I'm not suggesting that Buddhism is then "The True Religion". I'm simply pointing out that historically it makes sense the Jesus was most likely influenced by Mahayana Buddhism and was most likely teaching these moral values and spiritual ideals. That doesn't mean that Mahayana Buddhism is true.

Now also, I'm using the term "Mahayana Buddhism", but historically it may not have been that technical. In other words, Jesus may have simply been teaching a philosophy along these lines. But clearly Mahayana Buddhism was the source of these moral values and spiritual principle. Of course Jesus would have naturally tossed in his own Jewish beliefs as well. So it's going to be a mishmash of beliefs. And that appears to be precisely what it was.

So what does calling Jesus "The Christ" mean to you?

Does it mean that you fully accept that he was the virgin-born demigod son of Yahweh? Does it mean that you fully accept everything that is in the New Testament verbatim? God speaking from a cloud confirming that Jesus is his son? Saint being jostles from their graves? And of course the resurrection of Jesus etc.

For me, there are so many problem with that story. For example, one huge problem is why would Jesus even need a physical body to be resurrected and to actually take that physical body with him to heaven? I thought heaven was supposed to be a spiritual place, not a place where we will need to take our dead physical bodies with us.

And what if Jesus would have been beheaded? Would have have risen from the grave carrying his head around in his hands? Supposedly all the wounds that killed him were still in tact. In fact many Christians have actually voiced that when they get to heaven they expect to see the scars of the crucifixion still on Jesus' body. That seems really strange to me. You'd think in heaven God could restore bodies to pristine condition at least.

~~~~~

For me, the idea of even calling Jesus "The Christ" makes no sense. And to call Jesus "The Christ" implies that he was the only begotten Son of Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament. Couple what with the fact that the Gospels have Jesus proclaiming that he didn't come to change the laws and that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law, and suddenly you've got a real mess on your hands.

Should you be judging other people and stoning people to death or not?

How can you obey both the teachings of Jesus AND the jots and tittles of the Old Testament.

You can't.

You can only do one or the other. You can't do both.

Moreover, if Jesus didn't come to "change the laws" why is there a conflict here to begin with? Why is Jesus teaching different behaviors if he didn't come to change the laws?

It seems to me that Christianity might have had some chance of being made into a religion based on Jesus if Jesus would have at least proclaimed that he did indeed come to change the laws. Then you could make a religion that is actually based on the teachings of Jesus, instead of the teachings of the Old Testament.

But as it is now, how in the world are you going to do that? You really can't even speak of the "Teachings of Jesus" as if they are something different from the teachings of the Old Testament, because if they are different then Jesus would have "changed the laws".

So I don't see how Christianity can be based upon the teachings of Jesus, unless you somehow believe that Jesus was actually teaching the laws of the Old Testament. But you'd never convince me of that because I see too many opposing teachings.

So I don't even know what you mean when you say "affirmative belief in Christ".

What does that even mean?

[1213]

Of course you wouldn't want to marry all that you love since that would be polygamy.

Why is polygamy wrong, if people love others and want to commit to others?

The whole idea of marriage is to make a commitment to a single person.

To what that claim is based on?

In my opinion the idea of marriage is to make family and good situation to raise children that hetero couples may have.

It also tells us that stoning our unruly children to death is divine.

Would you object if I stoned my unruly children to death? Or would you support that I am indeed following the commandments of an almighty divine God?

I would ask you first, are you a Jew? If you would say yes, then I would ask, are you a priest or judge, set by God? If you would answer yes, then I would ask what has the child done wrong and I would ask is there any way that you could forgive this time. If not, then I think you have right to make the judgment.

The Old Testament clearly commands you to stone people to death for all manner of reasons. Not the least of which is that they are teaching of other Gods. Supposedly if you hear of anyone in your neighborhood teachings of other Gods you are commanded to look into the matter and if you find it to be true you are to kill the heathens along with their entire family, children, livestock, and even the original town from whence they came.

Are you actively obeying that directive?

OT gives rules for the judges that were set by God. Rules tell what wrong actions are and what people could deserve from it. Then it was judges job to decide how he judges the one that was accused. Atheists usually see only those parts that say kill or something like that and therefore I think they should not be judges, because they dont even read the whole rules. They skip for example these crucial teachings:

"Thus has Yahweh of Hosts spoken, saying, 'Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother.
Zechariah 7:9
I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the foreigner who is living with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.
Deuteronomy 1:16-17
"You shall not spread a false report. Don't join your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; neither shall you testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice; neither shall you favor a poor man in his cause.
Exodus 23:1-3
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he who is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Deuteronomy 17:6

It is also questionable do Jews still have right to give death penalty, because it is said:

Pilate therefore said to them, "Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law." Therefore the Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,"
John 18:31

Because I have read the whole book I think I should not judge.

I don't see how you can make a big stink over gays when you're allowing other religions to worship and teach their "false Gods" in your city or town.

Sorry, I didnt mean to make a big stink about gays. I just wanted to show that according to the Bible, men should not lie with other men as with women. I dont mean that it is only wrong or disgusting thing according to the Bible. And personally I think for example that lying is more wrong than that.

[Divine Insight]

Why is polygamy wrong, if people love others and want to commit to others?

I don't think it necessarily is wrong. In fact, right and wrong are nothing but subjective options anyway. Clearly if there are people who are in polygamous relationships and none of them have a problem with it, then it wouldn't be wrong for them.

I personally have no desire to make polygamous commitments to multiple people. I think making a monogamous commitment can be demanding enough.

The whole idea of marriage is to make a commitment to a single person.

To what that claim is based on?

In my opinion the idea of marriage is to make family and good situation to raise children that hetero couples may have.

I agree that's certainly one good reason to make a personal commitment. However, actually if that's the foundation of the commitment then there's no longer any reason for the couple to remain committed after their children have become adults.

Clearly there are reasons beyond parenting to want to become involved in personal commitments.

After all there are couples who marry and choose to never have children. Besides, the world is already overpopulated. The wise thing would be to stop having children for a few generations anyway.

Continuing to overpopulate an already overpopulated planet isn't very wise.

It also tells us that stoning our unruly children to death is divine.

Would you object if I stoned my unruly children to death? Or would you support that I am indeed following the commandments of an almighty divine God?

I would ask you first, are you a Jew? If you would say yes, then I would ask, are you a priest or judge, set by God? If you would answer yes, then I would ask what has the child done wrong and I would ask is there any way that you could forgive this time. If not, then I think you have right to make the judgment.

Well, Jesus didn't bother going through all that. In fact, that's a very big point that I often make about the New Testament. If Jesus was just trying to say that judging and executions should only be made by authorities he should have just said that. That would have been far clearer.

But that's not what he said at all. One the contrary he rebuked the Old Testament Law directly.

Matthew 5:
[38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

He's not explaining that only judges should judge. He's clearly rebuking the whole law.

Also, are you suggesting that the teachings of Jesus doesn't apply to people in authority?

Are judges exempt from the teachings of Jesus? That sure seems to be what you are implying. But that's clearly not what Jesus taught.

The Old Testament clearly commands you to stone people to death for all manner of reasons. Not the least of which is that they are teaching of other Gods. Supposedly if you hear of anyone in your neighborhood teachings of other Gods you are commanded to look into the matter and if you find it to be true you are to kill the heathens along with their entire family, children, livestock, and even the original town from whence they came.

Are you actively obeying that directive?

OT gives rules for the judges that were set by God. Rules tell what wrong actions are and what people could deserve from it. Then it was judges job to decide how he judges the one that was accused. Atheists usually see only those parts that say kill or something like that and therefore I think they should not be judges, because they dont even read the whole rules. They skip for example these crucial teachings:

{snip}

Because I have read the whole book I think I should not judge.[/quote]

Too bad Jesus didn't know that. It could have made his job much easier. And let's not forgot that the Chief Priests of the Jewish Temples were the God-ordained Judges of that time. But according to Jesus God's judges were themselves corrupt.

I don't see how you can make a big stink over gays when you're allowing other religions to worship and teach their "false Gods" in your city or town.

Sorry, I didnt mean to make a big stink about gays. I just wanted to show that according to the Bible, men should not lie with other men as with women. I dont mean that it is only wrong or disgusting thing according to the Bible. And personally I think for example that lying is more wrong than that.

According to the Bible your supposed to be looking into heathens who preach other Gods in your town. And if you find that this is true you are supposed to kill them, their families, and livestock. Burn their place to the ground and never build on that site again.

Until you are actively obeying those directives, why should I care that you think God hates homosexuality?

You clearly don't bother with anything else this God says.

It's just selective bigotry. That's all it is. In fact, there would be a lot more selective bigotry in Christianity if people thought they could get away with it. They only reason they aren't killing people from other religions is because today they would be found guilty of murder.

All you are doing is preaching selective bigotry from an ancient collection of fables that is full of all manner of hateful bigotries.

And far more importantly these fables have been proven to be false beyond any rational doubt already anyway. So why continue to hold them up as fodder for selective bigotry? What's to be gained from that?

I'm actually glad that many Christians do this, because it only serves to highlight the bigotry of the religion and actually helps to drive people away from it in droves.

So all I can say is "Keep up the Good Work".

It won't be long before no decent person will want to have anything to do with the religion.

[1213]

In fact, right and wrong are nothing but subjective options anyway.

Does that mean that saying, "according to the Bible homosexual act is disgusting", is morally wrong?

I agree that's certainly one good reason to make a personal commitment. However, actually if that's the foundation of the commitment then there's no longer any reason for the couple to remain committed after their children have become adults.

In my opinion the deal is for the rest of their life. The children may need them and their grand children may need them, even if they are adults.

But that's not what he said at all. One the contrary he rebuked the Old Testament Law directly.

Matthew 5:
[38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I think he didnt rebuke the Law. Everything that is wrong according to the Law is still wrong. he came to forgive and rebuke the judgment, not to tell that people would not deserve the judgment.

One example of this is:

Jesus, standing up, saw her and said, "Woman, where are your accusers? Did no one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way. From now on, sin no more."
John 8:10-11

So, sin is sin, but he decided to be merciful.

Are judges exempt from the teachings of Jesus?

The teachings are for his disciples and it would be good if ell would become his disciples.

...And let's not forgot that the Chief Priests of the Jewish Temples were the God-ordained Judges of that time.

Do you have any support for that?

This scripture seems to disagree with you.

Pilate therefore said to them, "Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law." Therefore the Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,"
John 18:31

[Divine Insight]

In fact, right and wrong are nothing but subjective options anyway.

Does that mean that saying, "according to the Bible homosexual act is disgusting", is morally wrong?

No it means that there is no such thing as absolute objective morality. Morality is an invention of humans. Clearly not agreed upon nor obeyed by the animal kingdom, or nature herself.

I agree that's certainly one good reason to make a personal commitment. However, actually if that's the foundation of the commitment then there's no longer any reason for the couple to remain committed after their children have become adults.

In my opinion the deal is for the rest of their life. The children may need them and their grand children may need them, even if they are adults.

Just because you believe in needy people doesn't justify this ideal. In fact, if children need their parents and grandparents then how do you justify a God allowing people's parents or grandparents to die, especially when the children are quite young, which apparently happens quite often.

This would be a God who doesn't care about children at all.

But that's not what he said at all. One the contrary he rebuked the Old Testament Law directly.

Matthew 5:
[38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I think he didnt rebuke the Law. Everything that is wrong according to the Law is still wrong. he came to forgive and rebuke the judgment, not to tell that people would not deserve the judgment.

One example of this is:

Jesus, standing up, saw her and said, "Woman, where are your accusers? Did no one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way. From now on, sin no more."
John 8:10-11

So, sin is sin, but he decided to be merciful.

Are judges exempt from the teachings of Jesus?

The teachings are for his disciples and it would be good if ell would become his disciples.[/quote]

So you're saying that the God of the Bible wasn't as wise as Jesus?

Why wouldn't the God of the Bible have simply taught things right the first time around? Then he wouldn't have caused all this trouble.

In fact, when the Jewish Priests were calling for the crucifixion of Jesus for blaspheme they were only obeying the commandments of the God of the Old Testament.

So you're position is to demand that it was the God of the Old Testament who was the buffoon until Jesus came by and tried to fix up the mess that the God of the Old Testament had created.

The problem with your scenario is that you can't have Jesus trumping the God of the Old Testament by rebuking the teachings of the Old Testament. That would require that Jesus was actually a totally different God. One that knows better than the foolish God of the Old Testament.

...And let's not forgot that the Chief Priests of the Jewish Temples were the God-ordained Judges of that time.

Do you have any support for that?

Sure. Jesus gives full support for this. Jesus himself recognize these Jewish Priests as being the official priests of "God's Temple".

In fact, I often argue that if Jesus didn't believe that these Priests were representatives of the God of the Old Testament then he should have simply renounced their whole religious sham, including any temples they were preaching from.

Why walk into THEIR TEMPLES and proclaim that it's the "House of the Father God"?

That would be utterly stupid.

The Christians never walked into Pagan Temples proclaiming that it's the "House of God". On the contrary they burnt pagan temples to the ground and proclaimed that they had nothing to do with God.

This is what Jesus should have done with the Jewish Pharisees if he disagreed with their teachings. But he didn't. Instead he acknowledged that there were indeed God's Priests.

This is just yet another place where these fables shoot themselves in their own foot.

This scripture seems to disagree with you.

Pilate therefore said to them, "Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law." Therefore the Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,"
John 18:31

But who's law were they talking about when they said, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death"?

They must necessarily have been talking about Roman Law. Certainly not biblical law. According to the Bible it would not only be lawful for them to kill Jesus but it would actually be mandatory.

John 10:
[30] I and my Father are one.
[31] Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
[32] Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
[33] The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

According to Old Testament Law, it would not only be lawful for them to kill Jesus but it would be mandatory that they must kill him for his blaspheme.

So the Jewish Priests were seeking Roman approval from Pilate to kill Jesus. They had no need to seek approval from their God because by the laws of God they were obligated to kill Jesus for blaspheme.

The blood of the crucifixion of Jesus on solely on the hands of the God of the Old Testament because this is what he commanded that the Jews must do. Pilate himself washed his hands of the blood of Jesus. So there's no blood of Jesus on the hands of Pilate. All Pilate eventually did was give the Jewish Priest Roman permission to carry out their bloody crucifixion in the name of their God.

Pilate was completely innocent of the blood of Jesus. Pilate publicly exonerated Jesus from all wrong doing.

The blood of Jesus is on the hands of the God of the Old Testament and his devout followers, the Jewish High Priests who were only carrying out God's Laws by obtaining Roman permission to do so.

That's the biblical story, like it or nor.

John.19:4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.

John.19:6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

Luke 23:
[20] Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.
[21] But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
[22] And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.
[23] And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.
[24] And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.

Matthew 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

Pilate totally exonerated Jesus according to the Bible.

It was the Chief Priests who were calling for the crucifixion of Jesus.

And Pilate finally released Jesus to the Chief Priests giving permission that they could see to it. Obviously since Pilate conceded to their wishes he was giving Roman Solider permission to carry out the wishes of these Jewish Priests since, by Roman Law, it was unlawful for the Jews to actually kill anyone.

So Pilate was simply making it possible for the Jewish Priest to have Jesus crucified, which then then did.

And so it was the Jewish Priest who killed Jesus, even if through the hands of Roman soldiers.

So it clearly wasn't against the "Religious Laws". On the contrary, it's very well known that the Bible commands that blasphemers be killed.

So God of the Old Testament was ultimately the authority behind the crucifixion of Jesus.

[1213]

Just because you believe in needy people doesn't justify this ideal. In fact, if children need their parents and grandparents then how do you justify a God allowing people's parents or grandparents to die, especially when the children are quite young, which apparently happens quite often.

This would be a God who doesn't care about children at all.

I am not God and not even all knowing, so I cant tell why in some cases parents die young. But I think it is not necessary bad if that happens.

In fact, when the Jewish Priests were calling for the crucifixion of Jesus for blaspheme they were only obeying the commandments of the God of the Old Testament.

And they were making false accusations and judged Jesus wrongly, if we believe what the Bible tells. So even if they would have been rightful judges, they did wrong judgment and so against Gods will.

Now the chief priests, the elders, and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus, that they might put him to death; and they found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward, and said, "This man said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.'"
Matt. 26:59-61

God did not command to make wrong judgments. God gave these rules in OT and clearly priests didnt care about them.

"Thus has Yahweh of Hosts spoken, saying, 'Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother.
Zechariah 7:9
I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the foreigner who is living with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.
Deuteronomy 1:16-17
"You shall not spread a false report. Don't join your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; neither shall you testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice; neither shall you favor a poor man in his cause.
Exodus 23:1-3
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he who is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Deuteronomy 17:6

Sure. Jesus gives full support for this. Jesus himself recognize these Jewish Priests as being the official priests of "God's Temple".

Yes, they were priests, but that does not necessary mean they were also judges set by God as in Deuteronomy 1:16-17.

The blood of the crucifixion of Jesus on solely on the hands of the God of the Old Testament because this is what he commanded that the Jews must do.

God didnt command to make wrong, unrighteous judgments.

[Divine Insight]

In fact, when the Jewish Priests were calling for the crucifixion of Jesus for blaspheme they were only obeying the commandments of the God of the Old Testament.

And they were making false accusations and judged Jesus wrongly, if we believe what the Bible tells. So even if they would have been rightful judges, they did wrong judgment and so against Gods will.

According to Christianity they weren't making false judgements. On the contrary, according to Christianity they were right on the money.

Jesus proclaimed to be one and the same as the Father, "I and the Father are one".

That's blaspheme for a man to claim to be God. Yet the Christians claim that this is precisely what Jesus had done.

Jesus also proclaimed that no one comes by the Father but by him. This is placing himself before the Father. That's a direct blaspheme and sin against the first of the Ten Commandments.

Now the Christians claim that Jesus was telling the truth, so these charges are bogus. But that's baloney. Even if these claims were true the Pharisees would have no way of known that. So their judgements against him as a blasphemer were totally air-tight.

They would have been 100% vindicated by this God's Old Testament Laws.

This is why I always say that this God himself would have been a fool to command people to kill blasphemers and then send his own son into that same group to commit blaspheme.

If Jesus claimed to be God as the Gospels demand, and if he claim that no one comes to the Father by by him, then he most certainly was as guilty of committing blaspheme as any mortal man could possibly be.

And like I say, even the excuse that Jesus was telling the truth because we really was God, doesn't fly. This would be a God who had created the conditions for his own crucifixion by his own commandments.

The Jewish Pharisees were only obeying this God's commandments. This God could do nothing to them other than accept them into his heavenly paradise praising them for being so devoutly obedient to his commandments.

So clearly this superstitious fairytale cannot be made to work in any case.