Yet another prime example of how the Bible contradicts itself and confuses the hell out of me.

Edited to add: Kenn, Jesus did actively cause divisions. He took men away from their families when he chose his apostles. Even if the families all became Christian, they were unable to have normal lives with their husbands and fathers once Jesus got hold of these men. Yes, no pain, no gain...really sad that the Creator of all things decided to do things this way.

The society teaches that Universal Sovereignty is the reason. Why does the Most High God have to be on an ego trip? Why couldn't he have just taken care of things in Eden by getting rid of the trouble-makers back then? All this crap that we have to live with, all the suffering and fear and hatred, just because God wants us to know that he is the best ruler? I just don't buy it anymore. I don't find it particularly loving. I don't find Jesus causing divisions in families very nice, either.

Edited by - windchaser on 20 October 2002 19:27:51

Ken

Jesus' worst offence was attacking the priesthood and sanhedrin that god supposedly had moses and aaron set up.  Jesus was attempting to supplant that system w a new one.  If it hadn't been for paul, it might have worked.  Paul put his own twist on it, and made it attractive to the roman govt.

If god had wanted christianity, he should have started w christianity, instead of starting a system that was inherently corrupt from the beginning.  Changing directions after 2000 yrs of going another way, has left a lot of confusion in its wake.

SS

If Jesus would've  just fricken communicated for gods sake, there wouldn't be any questions about this or any scripture.  But nnoooo.

 

How's that, Mega?  lol

 Good post Elsewhere.

I agree Mega,, if Jesus walked into the headquarters and asked them what they are doing in His father's name, in God's temple, he would go postal on them, and therefore , thrown out on his bottom.

It is just amazing to me how much the WT and the Pharisees have in common. They both know the real truth, yet because of their pride they will not even listen to Jesus Christ himself. Too much to lose, power and money. Offsprings of vipers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Windchaser,

None of the Apostles were forced to follow Jesus.  They were not robots.  Nor did they abandon their wives by so doing.  The wives accompanied them. (We're not told if there were children involved, but if there were I rather doubt they were abandoned). In 1 Cor. 9:3-6 Paul states:  "My defense against those who would pass judgment on me is this.  Do we not have the right to eat and drink?  Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?  Or is it only myself and Barnabas who do not have the right not to work?"  Yet while he had those rights, Paul chose not to exercise them (vs.12)

SS,

I see it just the opposite. He didn't view himself as coming to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. (Matt. 5:17-18)   If there were any attacks, it were those made by the chief priests and Sanhedrin, upon Jesus.  It was they who caused his death, not the opposite. See Matt. 26.

Why didn't God inaugurate Christianity in the beginning?  I don't know.  I'm not God. I can speculate.  Perhaps the time was not right.  And Christianity came when it was supposed to. {At least, historically that's what happened.}   But I don't know for a fact.  Nor do I presume to be more knowledgeable than God so that I can correct him.  After all, it is the Potter who molds the clay, not the other way around.

Kenn, okay, that's nice, the wives could go along. I still think Elsie has a point, I really like the one on top of his head.

Yeah, well, I'm not correcting him either (like I could-hah), I'm just thinking that this way seems a bit unloving, cruel, mean and sad. Maybe he should have left 'love' and 'justice' outta my brain when I was conceived, then I wouldn't be thinking this way.

Oh, Sixer, now, now.  

I believe Jesus was gifted at communication.   So gifted, in fact, that those in the religious power structure in Jesus' day could understand exactly what he was saying and exactly what he meant, which is why he ended up nailed to a cross.   

 

Ken

There were many laws that jesus refused to endorse.  Take for instance the well known story of the adulterous woman who was brought before him.  The law said that they should be stoned.  Yet he refused to condemn her, in rebellion against that law.  There were many laws that demanded the death penalty for seemingly small things.  Whether those who brought her ther were also guilty, is really irrelavant to carrying out the law if the law was just.  In fact, if they were accomplices, he should have fulfilled the law of killing adulterers by charging  them before the priests.  Yet he was content to play in the dirt.

Generally, jesus advocated a peaceful reaction to lawbreakers.  He did not advocate the fulfillment of laws.

The priesthood and sanhedrin were appointed by moses and aaron.  They were doing their divine (according to the ot) duty. There was some corruption, but that was always there, from the beginning.  Here is the command they were following when they took action against jesus.

Deuteronomy 17
¹² The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel.

Hosea 4
⁴ "But let no man bring a charge,
let no man accuse another,
for your people are like those
who bring charges against a priest.

 

Paduan

I am referring to the old testement system of laws, death, one chosen race better than everyone else.  I am comparing that w the nt system, supposedly based one peace, love, faith.  Why didn't god start teaching people that 1500 yrs sooner?  The ot acting as  a 'tutor leading to christ' didn't work at all.  The ot engendered hate and discrimination.  Hate engenders hate.  Love engenders love.  Therefore, god could have started teaching love 1500 yrs sooner, at least.

SS

 

LMAO @ Elsewhere's "Jesus needs to be DF'd"

LMAO @ Jesus' respons.

Thanks for the laugh.