What did Jesus Really Preach?

[ElCodeMonkey]

Hey everyone, it's been a while for me. I thought I'd pose a debate question and shamelessly plug a request . So first of all, I would like to pose that Jesus did not preach sacrifice and atonement. At the time of the last supper, after 3 years of preaching, the disciples didn't even realize he'd be dying. Clearly he was preaching something other than, "I'm going to die for the atonement of your sins." So what was it and why the heck do Christians focus on bloody atonement instead?

As for my request, I thought you peeps would be the absolute best to help me out. I have written a book called "Christians Are Revolting" which ultimately centers around the question above while walking the reader through the experiences of my psychotic Christendom. I'm looking for a few people willing to proof-read it for me both Christian and non-Christian alike. If you have questions or would like to proofread it, please PM me rather than replying so that this thread focuses on the debate question. Be prepared, it is a full 340-page book of 127,000 words. As a thanks, I can also provide a printed copy when it is complete. Thanks!

[ElCodeMonkey]

How fascinating. You might want to look up the other posts where I've addressed this view (when raised by Elijah John): that you're basically throwing out swathes of Scripture from Exodus to Revelation where sacrifice is commended and commanded to maintain this view when these verses are very plausible, especially in context, as hyperbolic statements to shock the reader into realising that sacrifice is not the most important.

When holding the position that the Bible contains corruptions of man (which is not unheard of at all if you read Jeremiah 8:8) there is nothing "throwing out" about the other verses. It's not like I missed their existence. I simply recognize them as man-made. I've got a feeling you didn't read through the list and associated text very carefully. Many of them cannot be simply "hyperbolic" as you claim.

"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

Nonsense, these verses from Paul's epistles only encourage the reader/listener to do good. They hardly indicate that 'the original kingdom focused only doing Good'; incidentally you don't discuss Paul's own talk about the sacrifice of Jesus. Shall we note this as more picking-and-choosing?

See above regarding a corrupted scripture. There is nothing wrong with "picking and choosing" if one is using logic and understanding to do so. It is far worse to find 20 verses claiming that sacrifice is a corruption to God's desires and then simply ignoring this fact because 200 other verses claim the opposite. You're picking the 200 and warping the 20, I'm picking the 20 and claiming the 200 are inserted falsities.

You do realise that 'Jesus and/or Paul preached that we must do good eg. giving to the poor' does not contradict with 'Jesus and Paul preached about Jesus' own sacrifice'?

I presented a list of the requirement for obedience over belief as well as what that obedience is: righteousness, and what righteousness actually is: loving others. This, combined with accusations from the Bible that sacrifice is from the temple of Molek, that God never instantiated it, that the faith will return to the corruption from whence it came, and the fact that modern day Christianity focuses on sacrifice, this makes a pretty compelling argument in my opinion. So if obedience to righteousness and love is required, what good is the sacrifice? It sounds like the sacrifice did nothing.

[ElCodeMonkey]

The story of Zacchaeus proves (snip)

Asserted, but not demonstrated.

It was never about blood sacrifice. That was Paul's corruption and why he should not have been allowed to be in the NT canon.

Asserted, but not demonstrated.

Here's the demonstration regarding Zacchaeus:

But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.�

9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.�

So, Jesus said that salvation came to the house due to Zacchaeus' response to care for others and NOT via a believe in the sacrifice for sins. Thus, it was not at all about sacrifice and everything to do with a heart for others.

As for demonstrating the "it was never about sacrifice", I believe that this is the discussion we are having right now which has been demonstrated in many ways thus far. If indeed Paul advocated it (which seems quite likely given that he was a Pharisee who denied Jesus and persecuted his followers, he became the main teacher of the new testament, and never once sat at Jesus' feet for the 3 years he taught), then we can likely say it was Paul's fault. However, I'm not entirely convinced since many things attributed to Paul have been unattributed later if I remember correctly and many things Paul says seems to contradict that he came up with the sacrifice idea. So I think the sacrifice idea may have been other people's insertions into Paul's teachings, but in the end it really doesn't matter "who started it." What matters is that sacrifice is a corruption from the temple of Molek as stated in Acts:

Acts 7:42
Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the Prophets: ‘Did you offer Me slaughtered animals and sacrifices during forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? You have taken up the tabernacle of Molek and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship.

The answer is no, they did not do any sacrifices during the 40 years in the desert. Thus, he is saying that it was not worthwhile to do so and doing so is merely following the path of Molek—a man-made idol.

[Paprika]

The story of Zacchaeus proves (snip)

Asserted, but not demonstrated.

It was never about blood sacrifice. That was Paul's corruption and why he should not have been allowed to be in the NT canon.

Asserted, but not demonstrated.

Here's the demonstration regarding Zacchaeus:

But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.�

9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.�

So, Jesus said that salvation came to the house due to Zacchaeus' response to care for others and NOT via a believe in the sacrifice for sins. Thus, it was not at all about sacrifice and everything to do with a heart for others.

So, Jesus said that salvation came to the house due to Zacchaeus' repentance, not merely 'caring for others'. And the OT has always been clear that repentance + sacrifice is necessary, so your demonstration fails.

As for demonstrating the "it was never about sacrifice", I believe that this is the discussion we are having right now which has been demonstrated in many ways thus far. If indeed Paul advocated it (which seems quite likely given that he was a Pharisee who denied Jesus and persecuted his followers, he became the main teacher of the new testament, and never once sat at Jesus' feet for the 3 years he taught), then we can likely say it was Paul's fault. However, I'm not entirely convinced since many things attributed to Paul have been unattributed later if I remember correctly and many things Paul says seems to contradict that he came up with the sacrifice idea.

So you assert.

Acts 7:42
Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the Prophets: ‘Did you offer Me slaughtered animals and sacrifices during forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? You have taken up the tabernacle of Molek and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship.

The answer is no, they did not do any sacrifices during the 40 years in the desert. Thus, he is saying that it was not worthwhile to do so and doing so is merely following the path of Molek—a man-made idol.

Utter rubbish. He is pointing out that the Israelites rejected God by sacrificing to other gods; that's hardly a repudiation of sacrifices to Himself. Stephen recounts the ancestors' rebellion by sacrificing to and following other gods with the point that his current audience were again rejecting God by rejecting Jesus.

Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt, saying to Aaron, ‘Make for us gods who will go before us. As for this Moses who led us out from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’ And they made a calf in those days, and offered a sacrifice to the idol and were rejoicing in the works of their hands. But God turned away and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets:

“‘Did you bring to me slain beasts and sacrifices,
during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?
You took up the tent of Moloch
and the star of your god Rephan,
the images that you made to worship;
and I will send you into exile beyond Babylon.’

“Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, just as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen. Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David, who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. But it was Solomon who built a house for him.

Nowhere in Stephen's speech is there a repudiation of proper sacrifice to God in His Tabernacle and later the Temple.

Meanwhile, to reject sacrifice as worthwhile or approved and/or intended by God you have to throw out loads of passages from Genesis (the sacrifice of the patriachs), Exodus (Tabernacle), Leviticus (more laws), the Histories, the Prophets, all the way to the Gospels, Paul's epistles, Hebrews and to Revelation (the Lamb that was slain).

[Paprika]

How fascinating. You might want to look up the other posts where I've addressed this view (when raised by Elijah John): that you're basically throwing out swathes of Scripture from Exodus to Revelation where sacrifice is commended and commanded to maintain this view when these verses are very plausible, especially in context, as hyperbolic statements to shock the reader into realising that sacrifice is not the most important.

When holding the position that the Bible contains corruptions of man (which is not unheard of at all if you read Jeremiah 8:8) there is nothing "throwing out" about the other verses. It's not like I missed their existence. I simply recognize them as man-made.

So remind me, what's incorrect about describing your theology as picking and choosing, given that you selectively accept verses from Paul for your own purposes while blithely claiming that others that don't are insertions?

Many of them cannot be simply "hyperbolic" as you claim.

Why not?

"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

And is there any evidence that what we have is false?

Nonsense, these verses from Paul's epistles only encourage the reader/listener to do good. They hardly indicate that 'the original kingdom focused only doing Good'; incidentally you don't discuss Paul's own talk about the sacrifice of Jesus. Shall we note this as more picking-and-choosing?

See above regarding a corrupted scripture. There is nothing wrong with "picking and choosing" if one is using logic and understanding to do so. It is far worse to find 20 verses claiming that sacrifice is a corruption to God's desires and then simply ignoring this fact because 200 other verses claim the opposite. You're picking the 200 and warping the 20, I'm picking the 20 and claiming the 200 are inserted falsities.

I hardly warp the 20 by noting that hyperbolic language was a common feature (eg. 'gouge out your eyes' or the apocalyptic language); your approach involves ignoring the central aspect that sacrifice played in Judaism as detailed in the OT and the centrality of Jesus' sacrifice in the NT authors' minds as demonstrated from their writings.

I presented a list of the requirement for obedience over belief as well as what that obedience is: righteousness, and what righteousness actually is: loving others. This, combined with accusations from the Bible that sacrifice is from the temple of Molek, that God never instantiated it, that the faith will return to the corruption from whence it came, and the fact that modern day Christianity focuses on sacrifice, this makes a pretty compelling argument in my opinion. So if obedience to righteousness and love is required, what good is the sacrifice? It sounds like the sacrifice did nothing.

If X and Y is required, what good could Z possibly be?!!? Maybe Z was required too?

[ElCodeMonkey]

So, Jesus said that salvation came to the house due to Zacchaeus' repentance, not merely 'caring for others'. And the OT has always been clear that repentance + sacrifice is necessary, so your demonstration fails.

Sounds like you're doing the asserting and "inserting." Jesus said that salvation already came and yet Zacchaeus did no sacrifices and did not claim he intended to do any. Zacchaeus also did not even claim repentance but merely said he would give stuff away and repay people he has cheated. Personally, I believe repentance is thus a part of this, but I can at least admit that that is a mere assumption of understanding beyond what is written. But beyond all this surface text, one really has to ask oneself, what did Jesus tell this man that made him want to do this? Why was he so desirous to start giving to the poor? What did Jesus SAY, man!?

Utter rubbish. He is pointing out that the Israelites rejected God by sacrificing to other gods; that's hardly a repudiation of sacrifices to Himself. Stephen recounts the ancestors' rebellion by sacrificing to and following other gods with the point that his current audience were again rejecting God by rejecting Jesus.

Do tell why it started out by asking if the Israelites offered sacrifice in the desert then? He's contrasting ideas here. He's saying, "look, God was God without sacrifices for 40 years in the desert. You didn't need them then and you don't need them now. This is a mere corruption from the temple of Molek." If not this, then why start with the question? What do you suppose was gained by asking it?

Meanwhile, to reject sacrifice as worthwhile or approved and/or intended by God you have to throw out loads of passages from Genesis (the sacrifice of the patriachs), Exodus (Tabernacle), Leviticus (more laws), the Histories, the Prophets, all the way to the Gospels, Paul's epistles, Hebrews and to Revelation (the Lamb that was slain).

Once again, I have no problem with "throwing out" verses when the Bible is very clear that scribes corrupt what is written along with the many claims that corruption would occur and further along with the examples that corruption DID occur. "My ears you have opened" turning into "A body you have prepared for me" in Psalms is not a minor oops. It is a corruption intended to deceive. The end of Mark was all added in after the fact which we only learned later by finding older manuscripts. Paul was fighting against people trying to change the message while he was yet around. It was unavoidable. The message is corrupt so we HAVE to use our brains to determine what is true rather than accepting every verse. We HAVE to be willing to "throw some out." My studying has led me to believe that throwing out the sacrifice and rituals and focusing on love makes the most sense to the story.

[ElCodeMonkey]

And is there any evidence that what we have is false?

Yes, you can see the thread we've been discussing in this whole time for such evidence. Contradicting verses are a great indication that corruption has occurred. It's not worth resolving them. One can make the following comprehensible despite it's obvious contradictions too. It's just not worth it because it is great proof of absurdity instead:

One bright day in the middle of the night, two dead boys got up to fight.
Back to back they faced each other, drew their swords, and shot each other.
A deaf policeman heard the noise and came and shot the two dead boys.
If you don't believe this story's true, ask the blind man, he saw it too.

If you don't already hold that this MUST be true, you can easily brush it off as foolish. But if you start with THIS IS TRUE! Then you must resolve it by altering the story to be more like:

It was the third Saturday of the second Month in Alaska. Two children began fighting with each other.
They agreed to a duel using their gunblades. Surprisingly, they both ended up missing each other when they shot!
Unfortunately for them, however, a policeman was nearby and he ended up shooting them both dead.
These very shots actually echoed violently in the ears of the policeman and he went deaf from it!
Jimmy, who recently went blind via a chemical accident, actually saw it all unfold. Just ask him!

I hardly warp the 20 by noting that hyperbolic language was a common feature (eg. 'gouge out your eyes' or the apocalyptic language); your approach involves ignoring the central aspect that sacrifice played in Judaism as detailed in the OT and the centrality of Jesus' sacrifice in the NT authors' minds as demonstrated from their writings.

Yes, they saw it as a central aspect in the same way Christians today do. That doesn't mean that someone early on didn't insert it such that it BECAME the central aspect.

If X and Y is required, what good could Z possibly be?!!? Maybe Z was required too?

Well, seeing as Z is unjust and unfair, I have a rather hard time believing it fits in with X which is to be fair, just, and loving. Sacrifices were a form of tax which took what little the poor had and fed it to the rich. It was one of many ways that the Pharisees "devoured widows' houses"

[Paprika]

And is there any evidence that what we have is false?

Yes, you can see the thread we've been discussing in this whole time for such evidence. Contradicting verses are a great indication that corruption has occurred.

Hardly. But what is obvious reading as literal what is meant to be hyperbolic or metaphorical is a great way to ensure an absurd and/or contradictory reading.

Yes, they saw it as a central aspect in the same way Christians today do. That doesn't mean that someone early on didn't insert it such that it BECAME the central aspect.

Yes, of course, everything that was positive about sacrifice became inserted.

You make it sound as if it's merely slotting in facts when the center of Judaism revolved around the Tabernacle and the Temple its sacrifice, with many key narratives having these as the key centre. Similarly the whole of Hebrews, despite the core of it about Jesus and the sacrificial system and how Jesus fulfilled it must have been an empty shell until all the bits about sacrifice was inserted.

If X and Y is required, what good could Z possibly be?!!? Maybe Z was required too?

Well, seeing as Z is unjust and unfair, I have a rather hard time believing it fits in with X which is to be fair, just, and loving. Sacrifices were a form of tax which took what little the poor had and fed it to the rich. It was one of many ways that the Pharisees "devoured widows' houses"[/quote]
What utter rubbish. Sacrifice itself was not unjust and unfair; what you suggest is people exploiting the necessity to purchase sacrificial animals to oppress the poor. Even if this was the case, economic exploitation of the poor was common and took many forms and had nothing to do with sacrifice qua sacrifice.

[beeswax]

Hey have just remembered..

Jesus didn't tell Zacchaeus he had to be baptised either! Shucks, that's another nail in the coffin for the Church and as we know or assume that Jesus hated rituals, then maybe that one thing we can be certain of...No baptism, no Eucharist, he would hate how the Church spends all that time on a bit of bread and wine that was just something they all did at that time..and still do...the passover meal.

What else have we got? No bacon?

I could NEVER be a Jew or Muslim as I LOVE bacon!

Now come on!

Is it likely the Creator of the universe said, don't eat pigs?

What are pigs for otherwise?

There's a serious question among my frivolity...

[Paprika]

Hey have just remembered..

Jesus didn't tell Zacchaeus he had to be baptised either!

Just like Jesus didn't tell anyone else to be baptised before his death. What a shock that this too applied to Zacchaeus!

And baptising had up to that point of time mainly been a symbol of repentance; Zacchaeus had already repented so there was no need for the symbol.

Shucks, that's another nail in the coffin for the Church

More of another terrible argument has been smashed.

and as we know or assume that Jesus hated rituals

You may assume, but do we know that?

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to Paprika]

The 11th commandment was clearly "and when you fail all these things, kill an animal instead and I'll call that justice." Sacrifice was an addition to a concept of righteousness. The laws were to not make idols and worship "gods" and to instead focus on loving your neighbor. A great idea for commands from a God if you ask me. It makes a temple fairly useless. They simply wanted to be kool like all the other countries and their religions. The Israelites assumed the worship of other Gods far too many times to think for a second that it did not infiltrate their core. Every time it DID infiltrate their ranks, the prophets would speak out and die for it. The book of Prophets likely explains all this which is probably why it can no longer be found. My guess is that the blood-thirsty and book-hating Catholic Church burned them all. I would certainly love to read a copy since the Bible references it which means it must be just as good, right? I just read "The Lives of the Prophets" and apparently that's not the same book. How unfortunate.

But notably, Jesus did not uphold the scriptures himself and had many arguments like ours bringing up contradictions. This is why he says "your law" when talking to the Pharisees and brings up "and hey, if the law is perfect like you believe then..."

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods�’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?

Clearly we have a very different way of viewing the Bible. What evidence can possibly be brought forth to indicate one way or the other as correct? I say none whatsoever apart from God himself telling us. I asked God for direction for a good 7 years nearly every day and this is where it has led me. Others can claim the same and it led them somewhere else. Clearly my leading doesn't help you at all and your leading doesn't help me. Since no coherence can be made, I can only assume God would not put such a great emphasis on texts if there is no real leading and no evidence to indicate the perfection of any particular book.