According to the tales, Jesus gave up a weekend.

[Zzyzx]

.
According to the tales, Jesus gave up a weekend. What’s 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).

[Willum]

[Replying to post 110 by JehovahsWitness]

Anyone claiming they were the son of God would be overplaying his role.
Especially if he is out maneuvered and killed by a bunch of people who serve God.

It was the Pharisee who arranged for Jesus' departure to the next world, no? over several issues of blasphemy?

When he was crucified, is that because he willingly accepted their charges of blasphemy?
Or did he beat the wrap and return to the crucifix of his own free will?

Remind me.

[Zzyzx]

.

He implied he was older than Abraham, and, maybe we should mention the elephant in the room, he also claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God.

In modern times people who make such outrageous claims are often institutionalized or at least medicated. Long ago many people believed such tales -- and some still do.

If the 'elephants in the room' (messiah wannabes) were laid end-to-end, they would probably reach around the Earth. Yet Apologists pick out one of them and claim he is the real deal -- they read so in a book that tells tales about such things.

[marco]

That's fine, as long as no insulation of wrong doing is being suggested, I have no problem with your post. I'm going to make a statement, feel free to challenge me, there is nothing in those activities that is biblically objectionable or out of line with Jesus stated and implied mission.

In this instance I am not commenting on Christ's wrong doing but in answer to your question:

Could you list some of these "great benefits" ?

I am specifying these benefits. That is all that was required.


The new discussion is whether these are questionable activities. Who knows?


The picture we have is of somebody wandering about entertaining, promising the poorest they will become the richest. If the legend of his divine connection is correct then he sacrificed a couple of days. What is more likely is that he believed he was bigger than he was. Post mortem fame was his reward, not eternal life. Rather like Shakespeare and Keats, though Keats had the humility to say his name was "writ in water" whereas Christ felt his name was written into eternity, or some such thing.

[JehovahsWitness]

That's fine, as long as no insulation of wrong doing is being suggested, I have no problem with your post. I'm going to make a statement, feel free to challenge me, there is nothing in those activities that is biblically objectionable or out of line with Jesus stated and implied mission.

In this instance I am not commenting on Christ's wrong doing ...

Naturally, because biblically Christ did no wrong. Feel free to challenge me on that. So how could you comment on Christ's wrong doing? "Commenting on Christ's wrong doing" would be like commentIng on the the letter ""W"'s flavour. So effectively you are saying "I'm not doing what it is impossible to do". Fair enough, I'm not starring in the Wizard of Oz with Judy Garland.

I'm only commenting because you have me in quote on your post so I take it it is response to something I wrote in there.



JW

[Zzyzx]

.

Naturally, because biblically Christ did not wrong. Feel free to challenge me on that. I'm only commenting because you have me in quote on your post so I take it it is response to something I wrote in there.

Did you happen to notice the next line?

"Could you list some of these 'great benefits'" ?

Readers might be anxious to learn

[marco]

That's fine, as long as no insulation of wrong doing is being suggested, I have no problem with your post. I'm going to make a statement, feel free to challenge me, there is nothing in those activities that is biblically objectionable or out of line with Jesus stated and implied mission.

In this instance I am not commenting on Christ's wrong doing ...

Naturally, because biblically Christ did no wrong. Feel free to challenge me on that. So how could you comment on Christ's wrong doing? "Commenting on Christ's wrong doing" would be like commentIng on the the letter ""W"'s flavour. So effectively you are saying "I'm not doing what it is impossible to do". Fair enough, I'm not starring in the Wizard of Oz with Judy Garland.

I'm only commenting because you have me in quote on your post so I take it it is response to something I wrote in there.

You have lost me in an ocean of irrelevance and we have now strayed too far from the OP. Your previous post seemed to suggest I had done X. I clarified with: "I have not done X."


Your philosophical debate on which kind of film star you wish to be leaves me baffled. Let us pretend you are using irony and leave it there. Meantime we are debating the weekend that Jesus happily sacrificed so that people in lower Saxony could sin in safety.

[JehovahsWitness]

You have lost me .... we have now strayed too far from the OP. Your previous post seemed to suggest I had done X. I clarified with: "I have not done X."

Fair enough, I was simply clarfying biblically Jesus did no wrong and am happy for anyone to challenge me on that. If I implied you have done something you have not done I apologise. After all, I'm sure we both find groundless accusations and innuendo objectionable.

Good day to you,


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

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

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.





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



Thank you for your patience,

JW

[tam]

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?

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?


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. 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. He did not ask for anything (including donations) for Himself, but instead said to give to the poor.

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.






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

[OnceConvinced]

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!