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).

[OnceConvinced]

You made a claim and did not back it up. It's not the atheists who claim that Jesus suffered more than anyone else every has when he died on the cross. Why would an atheist claim that?

Of course they wouldn't. This is a claim made by Chrisitans. Do you dispute that?

I never claimed He must suffer worse than any other nor have I heard that claim in a Church. I do not know Warnke nor any others...

I never claimed you said that. I was addressing your claim about others saying it. You seem to be indicating it was non-theists making this claim so as to denigrate his work.

I, in fact, wrote:

And there is NO criteria that He must suffer more than anyone else or for longer or for any other strawman criteria made up to denigrate His work.

You have obviously mixed me up with someone else or...

It was you I was addressing. You seem to be implying here that it was we non-theists making that claim. to "denigrate his work". And I pointed out it's not we non-theists making this claim. It's the theists making this claim. Would they be trying to denigrate his work?

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying but it did seem like you were making an accusation against non-theists.

Why do Christians continually try to justify the horrors of the bible god?

Funny - I usually see: Why do non-Christians continually deny the justice of GOD's judgement against criminally evil people???

Perhaps because they don't see it as just? It all depends on what you mean by "criminally evil people".

[tam]

Peace to you!

I realize this is a little late, but I was going through my drafts this morning, and re-discovered this one.

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?

I feel like you dodged or just do not understand the point. What she did, she did out of love and gratitude for Christ (and God).

Im not saying she didnt do a selfless thing.

Are you not?

Then what was the point of you asking what she was buying with her gift?

My problem is with Jesuss hypocrisy here.

Hypocrisy you have yet to demonstrate.

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.

I answered your specific question.


How exactly did He expect that perfume to be poured on Him?

He accepted her beautiful gift, and defended her against the unjust rebuke that was leveled at her.

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?

A truthful one. She poured that perfume on Him in faith, because His death was coming, and that how bodies were prepared for burial. With perfume and spices. See Mark 16:1, Luke 23:56 and 24:1.

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?

Because you are taking His words in one situation and applying them to fabricated situations.

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.

Ah, but you don't seem to have a problem saying what He expected and how He felt.

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

But I am in a position to say that your claim is baseless; that no evidence has been provided by you to support it.

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

He offended the disciples. Read the story.

Keep reading my sentence...

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?

Are you equally open to the possibility that 2+2=7?

You are speaking from the pov of someone who does not know Christ, but who is claiming Him to be a hypocrite, and then failing to back up that claim with actual evidence.

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 don't know AT ALL that He had wealth stored up. But you don't mind making accusations as if it were a fact.

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?

His own words support the first claim; and there is zero evidence suggesting He had the other things (do you think there were bank accounts two thousand years ago in that land?)

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

How many do you think actually did that?

That being said - from those who did - some of it would have remained with the families that those men left to follow Christ (not that this means they left their families permanently; no more than a soldier is leaving his family when he goes off in service to his country; no more than a sailor is leaving his family when he goes off to sea).

If anyone sold all their belongings to follow Him, then they were told to give to the poor.


Not to Christ.

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?

Do you have any evidence that He was one of those people?

After all he has a lot of wealth stored up in Heaven, right?

What does that have to do with material wealth on earth?

Perhaps he figured a few years living modestly was something he could handle? Especially if he had an agenda.

Perhaps.. maybe... possibly...

Do you have any evidence for your suggestion?


And why would He store up material wealth when He knew He was going to die and return to His Father in heaven?

(Keep in mind that this is something you claimed at the end of your last post that He knew was going to happen.)

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?

He is not with us in the flesh.

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.

So He ate and drank with sinners and tax collectors, and this was somehow a sign of not being humble? Of milking being the Son of God?

You don't eat? You don't drink?

You know they found fault with John (the Baptist) because he did not eat and drink, and then they found fault with Christ because He did eat and drink.

"Children in the marketplace."

16 To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:

17
We played the pipe for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not mourn.

18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a demon. 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners. But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.

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.

But that would have been a lie, OC. Christ is not a liar and He is worthy. Not only because His actions demonstrate this (Him giving His "Life for life" which in itself shows the great value and worth of His blood and His life), but because His Father - the Most Holy One of Israel - says so.

Just one of many examples of that:

It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.


**


False humility is what you seem to be promoting here; not the truth. Christ is humble BEFORE GOD - putting the will of His Father first, giving glory and thanks and credit to His Father; obeying God; speaking the words that God gave Him to speak.

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.

I suggest re-reading the list.

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?

I cannot recall Paul warning that. I do know that Christ warned that people would claim to do things in His name (driving out demons and such), but that He never knew them.

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

The sheep in the sheep and the goats parable are invited into the Kingdom (and even called righteous) according to what they had done (unknowingly) for Christ.

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

"Whatever you did for a least one of these brothers of mine, you did for me."


Paul also spoke about people of the nations who did not have the law, but who did NATURALLY the requirements of the law - these ones would be declared righteous. Romans 2:14-16

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?

He could have walked away; He could have avoided it; He could have had His disciples fight for Him; and as He said, He could have called upon angels to prevent it.

And not only that, he believed he was heading to Heaven straight after.

Well I think you need to make up your mind. If He believed He was heading to heaven straight after, how exactly would He have been a con man?

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.

You seem to be trying to turn it around on me, but no, I am speaking for TRUTH.

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.

So I am preaching when I say something about Christ (which He said Himself) which supported my point... but you are not preaching when you make statements about Christ, even when there is no evidence at all to support your statements?






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

[OnceConvinced]

Im not saying she didnt do a selfless thing.

Are you not?

Then what was the point of you asking what she was buying with her gift?

I'm open to the fact it was selfless. I am also open to the fact that it was done to buy certain favours.

My main problem is with God justifying her waste and putting himself above the poor. Not only was it saying "to hell with the poor" it was also as far from humble as you can possibly get.

My problem is with Jesuss hypocrisy here.

Hypocrisy you have yet to demonstrate.

His own words condemn him. I can't help you see that if you are intent on trying to justify him.

"The poor you will always have with you,[a] but you will not always have me."

Mark 10:21-22
Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor,

How exactly did He expect that perfume to be poured on Him?

His words quite obviosly imply that he expected lavish attention:
.
"The poor you will always have with you,[a] but you will not always have me."
"When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial."


Surely it's not difficult to see an entitled attitude there?

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?

A truthful one. She poured that perfume on Him in faith, because His death was coming, and that how bodies were prepared for burial. With perfume and spices. See Mark 16:1, Luke 23:56 and 24:1.

Truthful? Are you for real? He wasn't dying then. His death was further down the track. That perfume would have washed away long before he was crucified. If it was preparing for his burial it would have been done after he died not before it.

I'm surprised you can't see how ludicrous that statement was. To me it shows a man who was trying to justify the lavish attention she was placing on him and came up nonsense to do it.

Imagine this:

A man builds a lavish mansion for a church pastor to live in. The pastor justifies this by saying "Oh he's just built a tomb for me ready for me to be buried in when I die."

Would you accept that nonsense?

And how do you know Im taking his words out of context?

Because you are taking His words in one situation and applying them to fabricated situations.

I'm taking his words at face value.

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.

Ah, but you don't seem to have a problem saying what He expected and how He felt.

His own words show an entitled attitude. And no it's not a baseless claim. I have supported my argument. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then there's not much more I can do.

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

Are you equally open to the possibility that 2+2=7?[/quote]

We know for certain that is not the case. We don't know for certain that Jesus was not a conman and a hypocrite.

You are speaking from the pov of someone who does not know Christ, but who is claiming Him to be a hypocrite, and then failing to back up that claim with actual evidence.

You don't know Christ either. You can claim you do but it makes no difference. Anyone can claim to know Christ. Doesn't make it so.

I was convinced I knew Christ for many years. But you don't seem to be willing to take that into consideration. If I was deluded, then maybe you are too.

You don't know AT ALL that He had wealth stored up. But you don't mind making accusations as if it were a fact.

Where am I saying it's a fact?

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?

His own words support the first claim;

Ones own words do not support ones own claims.

and there is zero evidence suggesting He had the other things (do you think there were bank accounts two thousand years ago in that land?)

So what happened to the gold?

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

How many do you think actually did that?

That being said - from those who did - some of it would have remained with the families that those men left to follow Christ (not that this means they left their families permanently; no more than a soldier is leaving his family when he goes off in service to his country; no more than a sailor is leaving his family when he goes off to sea).

We can make a lot of presumptions here but we can't know anything for sure. There is no way to know that Jesus wasn't hoarding wealth away somewhere. We just don't know.

Perhaps, possibly, maybe...

That's all you and I have.

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?

He is not with us in the flesh.

What difference does that make? According to you, you commune with him every day. How is that not being with you? The deciples had the holy spirit with them right up until their deaths didn't they? Isn't that Jesus?

Do you have the holy spirit in you?

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.

But that would have been a lie, OC. Christ is not a liar and He is worthy.

So you claim, but even if he's not a liar you still can't call him humble! You can't have people bow down and worship you, claim it's justified and then claim humility.

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?

He could have walked away; He could have avoided it; He could have had His disciples fight for Him; and as He said, He could have called upon angels to prevent it.

"My God, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Does that sound like someone who was able to walk away or be rescued?

And not only that, he believed he was heading to Heaven straight after.

Well I think you need to make up your mind. If He believed He was heading to heaven straight after, how exactly would He have been a con man?

Even con man can delude themselves. just look at all the cult leaders out there conning people, yet believing they're going to Heaven. .

[tam]

Peace to you,

Im not saying she didnt do a selfless thing.

Are you not?

Then what was the point of you asking what she was buying with her gift?

I'm open to the fact it was selfless. I am also open to the fact that it was done to buy certain favours.

My main problem is with God justifying her waste and putting himself above the poor. Not only was it saying "to hell with the poor" it was also as far from humble as you can possibly get.

Christ's words said nothing at all like 'to hell with the poor'. Most people (including non-Christians) can see this in His treatment of the poor, His compassion for them, His directions to give to those in need (including the poor), etc.


Any other assertion ignores the evidence we have at hand. Any other assertion comes off as a person WANTING to find fault with Christ.

I see nothing more to add to this line of our discussion, and I am leaving the previous posts to stand as they are and moving on.

You don't know AT ALL that He had wealth stored up. But you don't mind making accusations as if it were a fact.

Where am I saying it's a fact?

I did not say you stated it as a fact. You are making your accusations and drawing your conclusions as if it WERE a fact.


**

In your previous post you claimed:

Perhaps he figured a few years living modestly was something he could handle? Especially if he had an agenda. ...OC

To which I asked you:

And why would He store up material wealth when He knew He was going to die and return to His Father in heaven?

(Keep in mind that this is something you claimed at the end of your last post that He knew was going to happen.)... tam

Your position is illogical.

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?

His own words support the first claim;

Ones own words do not support ones own claims.

It was MY claim; and the evidence I used to support MY claim were HIS words that He had no place to lay His head.


That is more evidence than you have provided to support your claim.

and there is zero evidence suggesting He had the other things (do you think there were bank accounts two thousand years ago in that land?)

So what happened to the gold?

I do not know what happened to the gold. Do you? Do you even know how much was given?

Perhaps it helped provide for Joseph and Mary and their baby when they had to flee to Egypt or when they came back, or anything else that might have been needed in the raising of their child?


In order to prove your accusation of hypocrisy, OC, you have to demonstrate that Christ was unwilling or unable to do what He told others to do (and perhaps also that He judged them for being unable to do it). This is not the case here. Even granting your hypothesis for the sake of argument, if He had gold leftover from a child, He did not rely upon it or put His faith in it, but walked away from it to do the work His Father had given Him. Putting His Father and the Kingdom first.

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

How many do you think actually did that?

That being said - from those who did - some of it would have remained with the families that those men left to follow Christ (not that this means they left their families permanently; no more than a soldier is leaving his family when he goes off in service to his country; no more than a sailor is leaving his family when he goes off to sea).

We can make a lot of presumptions here but we can't know anything for sure.

We can know the answer to your question though (which you did not copy from my previous post) - which is that Christ told them to give that money to the poor.

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?

He is not with us in the flesh.

What difference does that make?

He was speaking as per the flesh - the context was about pouring perfume on Him - that is only a matter of the flesh.

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.

But that would have been a lie, OC. Christ is not a liar and He is worthy.

So you claim, but even if he's not a liar you still can't call him humble! You can't have people bow down and worship you, claim it's justified and then claim humility.

As I said in my previous post: Humble before God; putting the will and desires of His Father even over His own will or desire. Being obedient to His Father; giving glory and praise to His Father. (and He did not have people bow down and worship Him)

I would also remind you that even though He is the Son of God and heir to all of God's Kingdom, He still came and served us; making Himself a servant, becoming the least, even washing the feet of His disciples. He never lied about who He was, but He also used His position, power, and authority (all given to Him by His Father) to give glory to His Father; to serve us; to help us; and to give His life for life.

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?

He could have walked away; He could have avoided it; He could have had His disciples fight for Him; and as He said, He could have called upon angels to prevent it.

"My God, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Does that sound like someone who was able to walk away or be rescued?

That sounds like someone who already chose not to walk away. That sounds like someone in immense suffering and pain, having a moment of fear and doubt, and calling out to His Father in His anguish. One final thing that He had to experience before He died.




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

[marco]

"My God, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Does that sound like someone who was able to walk away or be rescued?

That sounds like someone who already chose not to walk away. That sounds like someone in immense suffering and pain, having a moment of fear and doubt, and calling out to His Father in His anguish. One final thing that He had to experience before He died.

I think your defence of Christ as a man with good intentions is strong, Tam. It is, however, legitimate to examine motives, possible alternative explanations and the case that Christ was self-deceived, not fraudulent. At a human level his appeal to heaven for help is certainly full of pathos, showing understandable doubt. We can take this doubt and convert it into a virtue, but that is not the natural view.

Jesus spoke of angels but there were no angels. He deliberately provoked his own execution, even when he was warned to be careful. Those who followed him as friends ended up executed too. I cannot see that his mother experienced a wonderful life. So with all this suffering, what was the giant compensation? Centuries of religious persecution? Destruction of native civilisations? Murder of witches and homosexuals? Division, division, division.

We have not seen the angels, nor experienced the wonderful aftermath of a world redeemed by his having been here. We are no better than we would have been had the baby not been born in Bethlehem. So it is important to ask in what way Christ succeeded in his titanic mission. If we count the Church of Rome as a success, and the horrors that religion brought, then indeed Christ has succeeded. But many would say he failed spectacularly.


I suppose the jury, fair as always, is still out. Go well.

[tam]

Peace to you Marco,

[Replying to post 145 by marco]

We have not seen the angels, nor experienced the wonderful aftermath of a world redeemed by his having been here. We are no better than we would have been had the baby not been born in Bethlehem.

I am better (and better off) than I would have been without Christ (Jaheshua).

That is an absolute fact, and I am the only person in this world qualified to make that statement.


I am better (than I would have been without Him) because of His training, His discipline, His love, as well as the gifts and the fruits of the Spirit that He has given me. I am better OFF (than I would have been without Him) as well. When I am going through tribulation in this world (as He said that we would receive - either normal tribulation that is part of this world or greater tribulation because we belong to JAH and to Jaheshua), then I have my Lord and His peace and His word to get me through.


I am not the only person who would testify to this truth, dear Marco, but that is the truth I know and say to you.



May anyone who wishes and anyone who thirsts, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"



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

[Zzyzx]

.

I am better (and better off) than I would have been without Christ

What would you have been (or were you) on your own without 'Christ'?

When people in real life make similar statements, I observe that they seem rather average -- and wonder how much below average they were before receiving supernatural help.

Similarly, in debate here some claim to receive help from a holy ghost; which should make them outstanding debaters representing Christianity -- but none seem to be great debaters.

If people were actually receiving supernatural help to improve, shouldn't they be outstanding (unless they start from a very low point)? Shouldn't they be shining examples in life as well as in this venue?

[marco]

I am better (and better off) than I would have been without Christ (Jaheshua).

That is an absolute fact, and I am the only person in this world qualified to make that statement.

I'm better off for having read Proust or Cicero, or having learned to play chess or having struggled with partial differential equations or having studied the Tudors or the causes of the First World War or having translated Pushkin from Russian or been introduced to the shadowy wonders of the Sumerian language or having people in my life who are like angels to me or for having had the experience of reaching out to help another human being. I am not better for having knelt in prayer, though I love the innocent little boy who did this in a life far away.

Your betterment is your embracing lovely ideas that have percolated through the centuries, and the package is neatly labelled Jesus. The decision - in your case - to follow the precepts in a literal way and accept them and live by them has clearly made you the nice person you obviously are. The decision by some ministers of religion to follow the same Christ has made them drinkers of vinegar and instruments of gloom; worse, the 16th century followers of Christ, who did not suffer a witch to live, were not improved by the Incarnation. I know - they didn't really follow Christ. In fact when people are good, they are good regardless of where one places the credit.

I would say we are made better or worse by our internal components, our will to help, our reluctance to hurt , our desire to like our neighbour. I can do all this without calling my efforts Christian or derived from Christ, since such ideas existed before Jesus was born. It is good you have embraced such a good life and it is good, too, that you feel happiness for having done so. For you the label is Jesus, and for me it is humanity. Before Jesus was, humanity is. Go well, Tam.

[JehovahsWitness]

He deliberately provoked his own execution...

How? What was the act you can point to that {quote} "provoked his own execution"?


JW

[marco]

He deliberately provoked his own execution...

How? What was the act you can point to that did this?

Let me make a grammatical point, JW. When someone in the sea shouts "I shall drown, and no one will save me" then people flock to help him.
If he shouts "I will drown and no one shall save me," people shrug and let him get on with his intended course.

Not everyone is a strict grammarian and the wretch might have been saved regardless of his phraseology. In the case of Jesus he equivalently said: "I will die, and no one shall save me," which is an expression of acceptance or intent. Before any judgment took place he was already intent on dying, not on defending himself. He was orator enough - as he demonstrated in many incidents where accusers were left speechless - to explain his innocence. Are we to accept that the animus against him was greater than his power to defend himself? I don't believe it was, and so Jesus was complicit in his own execution.

As for what events caused the claims to be made against him, I think his statement about Abraham was enough to annoy the devout. He must have known that his chosen format of words would tell against him. If he was Truth, then presumably Truth possesses the music to soothe the savage breast. The good teacher gets through not just to the conscientious, but to those hostile to learning.


Or we can believe that the angry Jews were among the wickedest people in history.