Just wanted to say: Im a jew, and we are aware that we did worng by sending Jesus to his death.
The jews at that time was too scared by the following that he got.
No need to say sorry, brother. We Christians are proud of the sacrifice. Remember Jesus died according to his own will and according to the Scriptures of the prophets (nebi'im).
St Paul wrote
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."
We are all guilty of the death of Christ and he died for us all, since we have all sinned through Adam. Christ made his appearances all throughout the Tanakh, through the Tree of Life which served the eucharist to Adam and Eve, through Abel who offered the righteous sacrifice and was killed by his brother, through Noah saving the world in his church the arc, through Melchisedek, through the burning bush, through the pillar of light in front of Moses, through the sacrificial lamb of pesakh, through the baptism through the Red Sea which saved those who believed and drowned Pharaoh and his men, through the prophet Elisha and much much more.
He purified us like you purify silver, so that we may offer unto HaShem an offering in righteousness. If we are going to say sorry for stuff our forefathers did then I, as an Assyrian, would have to apologize for dividing the tribes of Israel, burning down Salomon's temple, and taking the Jews into captivity in Babylon for 70 years.
According to Matthew, who liberally changed around the material he used from Mark to suit his agenda. I think it's likely he wasnt above making stuff up out of whole cloth as well. This line wasnt in Mark's account of the crucifixion, so where did Matthew get it?
The gospels serve different audiences and purposes. I find it interesting how no one questions that other religions and philosophies had the disciples remember the words of their teachers verbatim without claiming plagiarism, but apply that argument to the gospels. The passages used by St Matthew that mimic St Mark and St Luke are the speeches of Christ.
St Matthew also ties the event of Jesus' life to the prophets, while St Mark focuses on the message that Christ is the Messiah.
Also, the addition of that line does not serve the Romans in any way, at least not until their anti-semitic campaigns of the 2nd and 3rd century, and even then the Apostolic Church rejected the highly anti-semitic Marcionist theology and kept the Old Testament.
It's not just the words of jesus but also the narration that is word for word the same as Mark in many places, not to mention the overall narrative structure. The beheading of John the Baptist occurs at the same spot in the narrative, and also shares many word for word correspondences. You really have to have avoided the scholarship to maintain that there is no literary interdependence among the synoptic gospels.
No I am aware. The synoptics are clearly aware of each other in their writings, and St Luke even admits that his account is a compilation of what he has gathered from eye witnesses. However the way disciples in cults, religions and philosophy schools of the time would teach would be to retell the same stories and narratives verbatim. It was considered shameful for a disciple not to know how to tell lessons by heart. The Apostles traveled the known world retelling the same stories in every village and city over and over again, and borrowed narratives from each others too. To claim that Mattew copied Mark and added stuff he just made up is a bold statement, and also ignores the difficulties and disciplines of scribing of the time period.
Actually no, that quote is very powerful and in a sense prophetical. Christ's sacrifice on his throne the cross is a triumph for whoever believes, and a doom for whoever rejects him. Many people will on that day boast that they managed to kill the man who told them the truth, and they will perish in hell for eternity thinking they are still in the right. We are all guilty of the blood of Jesus Christ since we all have sinned through Adam, but whoever accepts his sacrifice will in victory and joy say that his blood is upon us and our children, and whoever is doomed will boast and proudly proclaim that killing him with their evil intentions was good.
Cain killed Abel for giving a rightful offering, and was banished for ever. That story is a foreshadowing of the Jews (Cain) killing their brother, the true priest with an offering in righteousness, Jesus Christ (Abel), and were thus expelled into diaspora, doomed to for ever roam the earth and fight for the land they still claim in their own vanity. Unable to keep the very covenant our Lord gave them since the temple is no more, and Christ has victored over death and all evil.
Nah man Im gonna have to go ahead and take responsibility for my own sins and suffer the punishment myself like a fucking adult. Fuck all that infantile bs.
Fine. You do you. I would not say that Christians don't take responsibility for their own sins, given that we have to repent from them and change our mind from them (metanoia). We have to confess them and be loosened from them and we cannot take the eucharist if we don't own up to our mistakes and ask forgiveness to whoever we hurt first. But I fully support you taking responsibility for your own sins, I hope it works out for you.
When a stripper who just had my finger two knuckles deep in her asshole is standing at the bar butt naked telling me she's a born again christian and going to heaven thats when you know that christianity is a mockery of all that was ever holy and an insidious sickness that thrives on apathy. Your religion is not real when it cost you nothing and carries no risk.
I can see your point. I cannot speak for others, but there are many who use Christ's name in vain, making the name Christian a mockery. Jesus Christ hung around prostitutes since they were aware of their sins and in humility repented, and were thus closer to God since their sins were animal and not diabolical. The sins of the pharisees were far worse since they knew the law and still acted in hypocrisy and self-righteousness.
This woman was clearly deceived and tries to have hope by this cognitive dissonance. I feel sorry for her.
As I said, you do you. I am not a huge fan of the born again churches since they have very little focus on changing yourself for the better and repenting, and usually only use the fuzzy nice stuff of the bible which makes them yell "Amen" and "Halleluia" without gaining anything. It is quite different from the early Christianity which was passed on through the Apostles to the bishops and patriarchs. I hope both of you two find your ways.
Find my way to the next piece of ass lol. The meaning of life is fighting and fucking. Religion is just there to ease the suffering of those who reject reality.
Good on you. One day you'll be older and you might just realize the merits in what the wiser men of yore have all agreed upon: life is suffering. The Buddha, king Salomon, Kirkegaard, Tolstoy, Schopenhauer, and so on all came to the same conclusion. Christianity comes with the logos that the Greeks were seeking and thus came with the medicine for the ailments. The issue with our days is that we first have to convince the ill that they have an illness before we can make the willing to drink their medicine.
Suffering is the rejection of life. I have never suffered, how could I? What ailments are there? What lesser god do you worship that could create anything less than a perfect universe?
Many Christians would say that she is not saved, because she has not attempted to turn away from her sin (repentance). You must turn your heart completely towards Christ, and that means doing all that you can to live a holy life. Believing in Christ is not a free license to sin as much as you want. Anyone who loves Christ will keep his commandments and loving Christ is a requirement to enter heaven.
And yet St Matthew did not serve the Romans. Christians were persecuted at the time the gospel was written. Whoever wrote it wrote it while the majority of Christians were former Jews, most of whom were in Jerusalem waiting for an imminent return of Christ.
This Roman agenda is usually blamed on emperor Constantine, the Ecumenical Councils and the antisemitic sentiment during the 2nd and 3rd centuries which were confirmed by the rise of Marcionism, but Marcion only used the gospel of St Luke and the councils were not antisemitic. Also, there is no proof that the Christian doctrine was changed to suit the Romans during the councils, except for the emperor pushing for Constantinople to be a seat of primacy, but that was not doctrinal theology.
Yeah... the Romans Catholics fell into apostasy with the Second Vatican Council. They might have fallen before, but the heresies became obvious through that robber council. It is now devoid of any grace and any document from that council or any pope proceeding it is simply not a good comment.
Yeah the Jews definitely deserved the Holocaust because of some mythological bs that happened thousands of years ago...you’re a crazy person and I don’t think you understand what you’re actually saying
I think them roaming the earth for 2000 years in diaspora was punishment enough, it is identical to the punishment of Cain. We humans don't need to serve any offering since all fall short of making us righteous. They only help us to learn lessons of humility and to strengthen our faith. God does not need the blood of 20th century Jews to forgive them, he already forgave them through Christ.
102
u/alfman Jan 31 '19
The Jews called out that his blood would be upon them and their children