Title: College QB arrested, suspended after claiming ‘cocaine’ on his car was bird poop. It was bird poop. Source:
Saturday Down South URL Source:https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/s ... on-car-was-actually-bird-poop/ Published:Aug 3, 2019 Author:SDS Staff Post Date:2019-08-11 09:33:59 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:39844 Comments:348
Georgia Southern QB Shai Werts has been suspended following an arrest earlier in the week.
Werts was arrested following a traffic stop on Wednesday night in Saluda, South Carolina. According to reports, Werts was originally pulled over for speeding. When the officer attempted to pull him over, however, he kept going and reportedly called 911 to explain that he wasn’t pulling over in a dark area. After reaching town, Werts then pulled over and was arrested for speeding.
The QB was then asked about the white powder on the hood of his car, and he claimed it was bird poop that he tried to clean off at the car wash. The officer tested the powder, and it tested positive for cocaine with two different kits and in two different places on the hood of the car.
“Everything about him and inside his vehicle made him appear as a clean person but the hood of his car was out of place,” the police report states.
Werts denied any knowledge of the origin of the cocaine. The officer wrote that the powder appeared to have been “thrown on the vehicle and had been attempted to be washed off by the windshield wipers, and wiper fluid as there was white powder substance around the areas of the wiper fluid dispensary.”
In addition to speeding, he was charged with a misdemeanor possession of cocaine.
This is all really bad news because Georgia Southern plays LSU Week 1.
Al Eargle, the Deputy Solicitor for the 11th Judicial Circuit which includes Saluda County, told Werts’ attorney, Townes Jones IV, that these kinds of charges would not be pressed on “his watch,” Jones said.
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) tests were conducted on the substance samples collected from the hood of Werts’ 2016 Dodge Charger, but the results confirmed that no controlled substance was present in the samples.
“I have not seen (the SLED results) yet,” Eargle said on a phone call Thursday night. “But I was informed that the test did come back and that there was no controlled substance found.”
He had demanded of Abraham in the sacrifice of Isaac: the sacrifice of his only begotten son as a blood sacrifice for sin.
God never said that the sacrifice of Isaac he demanded of Abraham was a blood sacrifice for sin. He said it was a test. Whether or not Abraham PASSED the test by being willing to do it is an interesting question.
Because Abraham was willing to do it, God followed one path - gave a ram as substitution - not for a sacrifice for sin (there is no mention of the offering of Isaac as a SIN offering - that's more Jewish and Christian tradition-making). He said to Abraham "Because you obeyed me in this thing" (offering up a child of his, not his firstborn, as a sacrifice, like the Canaanites all around did), "I will give you this land."
Suppose Abraham had said "No, Lord. You commanded us not to shed blood. You said that he who sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. I will not do as these dirty murderers all around me do and offer up my second-born son to you as though you were Molech. What you have asked me to do is wrong!" God MAY have said to Abraham: "Well done my faithful servant! You have kept my law, even resisting me when I tempted you with evil, and held to the true law I gave to all mankind, which does not change. Therefore, I give to you the entire world!"
We don't know what God would have said to Abraham had he not made the decision to become a Molechite because God tested him by asking him too. We don't know if Abraham PASSED the test, only his choice and what God gave him.
I talk to God sometimes. If he ever asked me to sacrifice my daughter to him, I would tell him no, that would be wrong. If he wants her, he can take her himself. I'm certainly not going to do it."
And I believe that, had Abraham kept to the Law of God, that is what he SHOULD have said to El Elyon when he was asked to behave like a child- sacrificing Canaanite.
But Abraham took the other path, and so God rewarded him as he did, with the promise that his heirs would have the Land of the Canaanites (who would then seduce them into child sacrifice, more law-breaking, ultimately rejecting the Son of God and sacrificing HIM, and then having the Temple and Israel utterly destroyed.)
To which Jesus would answer: 'Not a letter nor a penstroke of the Law shall be changed until the end of the world.'
It wasn't changed at all and it is still intact.
But the death of Christ made it obsolete.
Unless you consider Judaism to be an equally valid religion to Christianity for purposes of salvation. And you know where that discussion goes. You have to repudiate a lot of Christian doctrine if you go there.
The New Testament declares that no one can perfectly fulfill the Law. Only Jesus ever could. But Jesus, by his death, made the Law obsolete. Well, unless you're going to suggest that Jesus didn't have to die for our sins, that we could have just all become Jews instead. In which case, why would God send His Son to die? For what, nothing?
Luther objected to a saying attributed to Johann Tetzel that "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory (also attested as 'into heaven') springs."[35] He insisted that, since forgiveness was God's alone to grant, those who claimed that indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error. Christians, he said, must not slacken in following Christ on account of such false assurances. ... Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz and Magdeburg did not reply to Luther's letter containing the Ninety-five Theses. He had the theses checked for heresy and in December 1517 forwarded them to Rome.[50] He needed the revenue from the indulgences to pay off a papal dispensation for his tenure of more than one bishopric. As Luther later noted, "the pope had a finger in the pie as well, because one half was to go to the building of St Peter's Church in Rome".[51]
You left out the best part of the story:
Pope Leo X (A.D. 1475-1521) commissioned John Tetzel, a Dominican monk, to travel throughout Germany selling indulgences on behalf of the Church. Tetzel declared that as soon as the coins “clinked” in his money chest, the souls of those for whom the indulgences had been purchased would fly out of purgatory.
These indulgences not only bestowed pardon for sins committed already, they were used to license the commission of future transgressions as well. In the classic volume, The Life and Times of Martin Luther, noted historian Merle D’Aubigne relates an amusing episode relative to this practice.
A certain Saxon nobleman heard John Tetzel proclaiming his doctrine of indulgences, and the gentleman was much aggravated at this perversion of truth. Accordingly, he approached the monk one day and inquired as to whether he might purchase an indulgence for a sin he intended to commit.
“Most assuredly,” replied Tetzel, “I have received full powers from his holiness for that purpose.” After some haggling, a fee of thirty crowns was agreed upon, and the nobleman departed.
Together with some friends, he hid himself in a nearby forest. Presently, as Tetzel journeyed that way, the knight and his mischievous companions fell upon the papal salesman, gave him a light beating, and relieved him of his money, apparently taking no pains to disguise themselves.
Tetzel was enraged by the foul deed and filed suit in the courts. When the nobleman appeared as the defendant, he produced the letter of exemption containing John Tetzel’s personal signature, which absolved the Saxon of any liability. When Duke George (the judge before whom the action was brought) examined the document, exasperated though he was, he ordered the accused to be released.
He said to Abraham "Because you obeyed me in this thing" (offering up a child of his, not his firstborn, as a sacrifice, like the Canaanites all around did), "I will give you this land."
I don't count Ishmael as a son of Israel even though he was a son of Abraham. Abraham should have been wiser than to sleep with the hired help. Nothing holy about it.
Most of Americans do not understand traditional societies that lasted for many centuries. They move, break contacts, mix and forget.
While the Roman siege and genocide in Jerusalem in 70AD did wipe out the priestly families gathered for Passover with the huge crowds of pilgrims, I find it very hard to believe that the Romans murdered every last member of a priestly family. Surely there was a son or grandson of the Aaronic line studying off in Babylon or one of the many other ancient Jewish schools spread across the region. Or an Aaronic descendant was traveling. Or had taken ill while on a journey and didn't return in time to die in the siege.
And there's always the likelihood of some horny young rascal who just happened to be descended from Aaron was off carousing in Rome or other ancient cities and escaped destruction by the Romans.
Tell me, when Jesus died on the cross after He said, "It is done.", was the 'it' just his own life? Or was 'It' the end of the old covenant so the new covenant could begin, the end of the Temple veil as a dire warning to Israel and the priests, the end of the ability to use animal sacrifice to expiate sins, the end of exclusion of Gentiles from joining the covenant with God? I could go on but you get my point. I think that Jesus was not talking about the smaller matter of His own imminent death but about much larger matters.
The "It" was his mission, and some of the things you said. Let's examine seriatim:
(1) was the 'it' just his own life? It WAS his own life, but not "just".
(2) was 'It' the end of the old covenant. No, Jesus said that the Law (the Old Covenant) could not be changed until the end of the world, and that he was not there to destroy it but to fulfill it. He kept the Law. The Covenant remained, and remains, for the Tribe of Hebrews residing in Israel and keeping all of the law. But 36 years after Jesus' death, God made it impossible for the Jews to keep the law, by removing the priesthood from the world. Unless, of course, the whole business about tracing the Aaronic priesthood through people named "Cohen" is a real thing, in which case God didn't even do that, and the Jews CAN reconstitute the Temple and, as long as they communally keep all of the law - including animal sacrifice for forgiveness of the imputation of individual sins to the Community - then God WILL protect Jews in Israel from all attackers. At that point maybe God can take over and we can get the protection of Israel off of our defense budget.
(3) "the end of the Temple veil as a dire warning to Israel and the priests, the end of the ability to use animal sacrifice to expiate sins," - no, it was not the end of any of those things. The Temple remained up for another 36 years, and Jesus did not come to destroy the Torah, which cannot be changed at all until the end of the world. And animal sacrifice did not forgive the man's individual sins before God for the afterlife - only forgiveness of other people can do that, per Jesus (and since Jesus was not CHANGING the law, it is clear that the animal sacrifice was for atoning for the community, so IT would not be smitten by God for the individual sins of people. The Law says nothing about the disposition of individual souls after death, but Jesus does. And Jesus says he is not adding to the Torah or subtracting from it. THEREFORE the animal sacrifice under the old convenant DID NOT expiate personal sins from individuals for the purpose of salvation in the afterlife - there was no salvation at all under the Torah, it was never mentioned, and Jesus gave a DIFFERENT manner for the forgiveness of sins for the individual facing final judgment from God. Sactifice absolved ISRAEL of the sins, it didn't mean the person went to Paradise after death.
(4) the end of exclusion of Gentiles from joining the covenant with God? No. The Gentiles were never under the old covenant, and not a letter can be added to the old covenant. The new covenant is for individuals, including Gentiles. It is new wine in a new bottle. The Old Covenant never applied to Gentiles, it does not now, and it never can be made to - it cannot change, at all, until the end of the world. Gentiles are permanently excluded from it...unless they physically move to Israel and convert to Judaism, and the Temple is up and the Aaronic priests are practicing the daily sacrifices. And then, if the Gentiles have sins and do not forgive others, they can make their sacrifices and go straight to Gehenna if they die that very day, because the animal sacrifies have nothing to do with forgiving sins before God for salvation. They only have to do with preserving Israel against divine wrath. To be forgiven personal sin for the purposes of Salvation, because there is an afterlife to be saved for, is the EXCLUSIVE province and EXCLUSIVE revelation of Jesus, in the New Covenant, which is for individuals. The Old Covenant is for Israel, as a tribe, in this life, in that land. It isn't about individuals or the afterlife. New Wine, new bottles. Can't put the new wine into the old bottle - it will burst the old bottle. Paul and the other Jews who tried to make the Torah have a meaning in the New Covenant thought the old wine was mellower, and tried. And they burst the wineskins in the process. The Church is divided because those early Jews SO DESPERATELY WANTED TO BE RIGHT, wanted salvation to be about THEM and THEIR Law. It wasn't, except insofar as it prepared a society into which Jesus could be born, where he teachings would make sense against the backdrop of the Law, and also to provide a written example to the world of 1500 years of error and how tradition can lead men so far astray that they'll try to murder God to protect their personal cultural beliefs.
(5) I think that Jesus was not talking about the smaller matter of His own imminent death but about much larger matters. In this, you are correct, but it's not about taking the old wine and putting it into the new bottle - it's that the new wine is new wine, and the old wine is finished and will in fact kill you - the old Law killed Jesus as a blasphemer. The new wine is what gives life.
Jesus' death had significance under the old covenant. BECAUSE he was truly the spotless lamb - innocent - but CONVICTED under the Law of blasphemy against God BY the very prophetic source of judgment - the High Priest - it was the final, magnificent failure of the logic of the Temple and its predecessors. The first failure may well have been Abraham's willingness to become a Molechite rather than telling God that what God was asking was wrong.
Paul's theology annuls Jesus's teaching about the forgiveness of sins, and substitutes the Torah blood sacrifice of animals - in this case Jesus - for the forgiveness of sins of individuals with regards to the afterlife. Jesus never taught anything like that. It is an example of Paul straining really hard to synthesize a Judaism that his Pharisaic heart loved with Jesus and the New Covenant. But Paul was wrong about that, dead wrong. It's a lovely story, but it was neither true for the Jews nor for the Gentiles. Animal (and human) sacrifice never forgave Gentile sins, and while Jesus - the perfect lamb of God - his sacrifice DID cover the sins of Israel theretofore, and DID serve to allow Israel to proceed forward blamelessly under the Torah - but Israel pitched headlong into the sin of its high priesthood having killed him - an innocent man - to get there, and then having rejected Jesus' message along with him.
John 1: NASB
24Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 25They asked him, and said to him, “Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” 26John answered them saying, “I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. 27“It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.” 28These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
A certain Saxon nobleman heard John Tetzel proclaiming his doctrine of indulgences, and the gentleman was much aggravated at this perversion of truth. Accordingly, he approached the monk one day and inquired as to whether he might purchase an indulgence for a sin he intended to commit.
It is a little too clever perhaps. Still, it is a great story. It has been my favorite indulgence joke for many years. Warms the heart of any smug Prot.
Another way to say this is that Jesus FULFILLED the Law...because we couldn't keep the Law...He kept it for us. By our faith in Him, in what He did for us, we are covered from the penalty of those Laws.
So I think you are accusing Paul a bit much on a thin basis. I don't think he missed the mark by that much. But then, I once got into a dispute back at FR on those endless Calvinism threads where we debated Hebrews 10:1-13 and especially verse 14, the center of the dispute. You understand that we debated things like the placement of a comma or semicolon in the vernacular translations. We got far down into the weeds, what should be properly termed as "unprofitable disputes".
I wasn't in those particular disputes, because I think the New Testament is to be read like the Old.
In the Old, TORAH (the Law) is the highest authority, the literal commandments of God. Nevi'im - the prophets, is only secondary authority - God sending prophets to remind people of the Torah, and how they are falling short. Kethuvim - the writings, is only tertiary authority. It is always overridden by Torah. It is speculation, prayer, tradition and history. Good for reading, but NOT equal in authority to The Law.
In the New, Jesus is the Son of God, and God said "Listen to HIM". Jesus only speaks directly in the Gospels, the first two chapters of Acts, one line of Paul, and much of Revelation. That's the "Christian Torah". The rest - the letters of the apostles and acts - these are writings - inspirational, history, prayer, faithful...but subordinate to Jesus.
Paul, James and John each contradict Jesus in some important way. They are not equal to Jesus, and writings are inferior in authority to Gospel. Jesus was the one to whom God said to listen, and God made sure that we have his words, in quadruplicate in many cases.
So, I don't dwell on commas, etc. in Romans, because Paul is not authority. He is persuasion and inspiration and history. Jesus alone is authoritative law. Paul conflicts with Jesus on matters in Romans, in particular. Therefore, I completely disregard Paul on matters where what he says disagrees with Jesus, and don't trouble myself further with that.
I do not commit the sin of idolatry, pretending that when men have designated as "The Bible" make the Bible a God-maker that elevates mere followers to the status of God's Son, and changing what God said from "Listen to HIM" to "Listen to THEM, and let their words nullify what HE said."
No. That's obviously wrong. To me anyway. Gotta take everything off the camel. What Jesus says is always exactly right. What challenges it or queers it is wrong and to be ignored, just like some of the things that appear in the writings that contradict what is in the Torah.
Hebrews 10:14:For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
I can get two out of the above...maybe three but that would be stretching it. And I can only do that because there is other Scriptural support. But I'm not a fan of single or few 'proof texting' as that's exegesis' ugly cousin eisegesis.
So was the argument that in that one verse we see (1) The one offering for Sin in the Blood of the New Covenant in Christ (2) Perfected forever them, as perseverance of the saints/the pledge or down payment and (3) limited atonement? You said there were three others, but I can't see that.
And I didn't think you should condemn someone like me who just thought such claims were overblown and ridiculous and led toward a view that one could "discover" a half a dozen doctrines in any verse of the Bible. But that's just me. So you picked an example of Pauline theology that you probably can never sell me on
You know Pauline theology. I don't. I have read Paul's letters, and like them. When I find places that disagree with Jesus, I note that and move on. BECAUSE there are such things there, and BECAUSE the greatest divisions in Christianity are there, I don't quote anybody but Jesus for any of my prospects. I simply do not beleive that Paul is the equal of Jesus, and I do not believe that the tradition of stitching Paul's letters into a single book alongside of Jesus can elevate Paul to the status of God.
There is no contest, in my mind. Jesus ALONE is the source of the entirety of my actual theology. I note how much of the rest of Christian theology departs from Jesus, and that it is precisely these departures that give rise to all of the wars and divisions of Christianity.
And I note that Jesus' final prayer at the last supper was for Christian UNITY. Therefore, I count Christian division over doctrines that did not come out of the mouth of Jesus as defiance of Jesus expressed wishes, defiance God's commandment "Listen to HIM", and the reason for the destruction of the Church.
Can you cite any Catholic doctrinal source that says the same things you are saying here?
No. The Catholic Church is as guilty of error as the rest. Proof? Look at all of the dead bodies. Any Christian Church that has killed people is by that fact demonstrably wrong. The most pure Christian Church is the Quakers, historically. But today they don't perforce privilege Jesus, and that's their error.
Are you with Luther in attitude toward some books of the canon and perhaps want to move all the Pauline writings to the back of the canon to make them quasi-apocryphal writings? So it would make your own theology more consistent?
My theology is UTTERLY consistent: JESUS ALONE.
HE doesn't contradict himself at all. Paul and James and John, and the Churches, and the Jews, etc. - they conflict with him.
But God said: THIS is my beloved Son, listen to HIM.
And Jesus said to Satan: Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God.
THE mouth of God is Jesus, nobody else. Nobody else stands on an equal plane, and everything that contradicts Jesus dilutes the words that proceeded forth out of the mouth of God.
HE doesn't contradict himself, and HE is all that matters.
The camel has to shed that load.
The camel owners won't. So bedlam reigns and the Church dies around us, while Islam grows and devours Europe, as disgusted seculars come to be the dominant force in America.
So be it. Christians will bend that stiff neck of theirs and follow Jesus, or they will end up being the Shakers.
I find it very hard to believe that the Romans murdered every last member of a priestly family.
Already at that time majority of Jews lived in other countries. After the destruction of the Temple the center of Jewish religion moved to Galilee (not affected by uprising) then to Babylonia.
To get a feeling how the real Jewish Jews receive the priestly blessing in a yearly solemn ceremony (as opposed to less solemn in a synagogue if a priest is present) see this video.
I would say that Paul took considerable risks as the major leader who advocated for inclusion of Gentiles in the New Covenant and resisting requirements of Old Covenant law such as requiring circumcision of converts (since all the apostles and leaders of the early church(s) were Jewish and circumcised). This was a bit of an issue even before the time of Jesus. Circumcision and uncircumcision were both fiercely debated over the centuries.
Needlessly.
What was circumcision for? It was a mark given to Abraham and his lineal male descendants that identified them as such, and heirs to Canaan. After Sinai, it expanded to include the lineal descendants of those at Sinai, which included vastly more people than JUST the lineal descendats of Abraham.
And what did it MEAN? It means that, if they did that, and followed the rest of the law, they had the birthright to a farm in Israel, in this life, and that God would protect that Israel from all enemies.
That's all it ever meant. For Gentiles, it's nothing - a meaningless (and painful) tatoo. It has no religious significance, other than as a form of idolatry if Gentiles THINK it has a significance beyond what is just described.
Jews, of course, in their fantasizing and speculating about the importance of their laws and customs, gave it all sorts of additional meanings. Jesus said nothing about it at all, and therefore it is of absolutely no importance in the world now. Especially given that there is no divine protection of Israel now, as the covenant is not being kept by mankind.
People want magic. It's not on offer. Cutting off the end of one's dick is at best a primitive tribal sign. At worst, it's idolatry. And it's always painful and potentially crippling.
This is tedious, but I will try to explain. It is not needed to remember the whole line over many centuries. It is enough to keep it continuous in the community.
So you would believe the claim that, for instance, the Japanese royal family is an unbroken lineage for 6,000 years?
I don't. I'll believe it only if they submit to extensive DNA testing and can compare to the DNA of known dead ancestors of their line. Even then, I'd have a lot of doubts. You can be certain they'll never submit to such testing. Nor will Britain's royal family or any of the other surviving members of defunct royal families.
I doubt very much if all of these people are who they say they are. I also think there are a lot of unacknowledged and unknown members of royal blood lines which came from promiscuous sex by various princes and kings. Certainly they had heirs which they sometimes decided to legitimize as an heir. Therefore, one can assume that there were probably a much greater number of heirs that they decided not to acknowledge.
Who knows, maybe you're related to Charlemagne or something.
You go almost to the point of the secular scholars who claim that Christianity's distinct doctrines are entirely due to Paul, not to Jesus or the other disciples. I don't agree. But the Bible was created by Roman bishops and certified by the popes over the centuries. If you have an argument with the infallibility of scripture, you have a much bigger problem with Rome than with me. I'm still not confident that Catholic theologians would agree with you.
Of course they wouldn't! They're still insisting on priestly celibacy (Jesus chose a married man as the first pope), on the necessity of confession for the forgiveness of sin by God (Jesus said to be forgiven you have to forgive others, and he didn't add anything else), on the all-male clergy (JEsus chose St. Photini, the woman at the well, to carry out the first mass conversion of any village in the Scripture, through her teaching them about him).
The Church would defend the murder of millions by saying that these were mere "disciplinary matters" - when abstaining from killing was the first general commandment given after the flood, and killing is one of the sins on both of Jesus' lists of sins that will get one thrown into the lake of fire at final judgment if not forgiven.
The Church burnt a SAINT alive after a Church trial - St. Joan of Arc.
The Church accumulated the wealth to build the towering Vatican by selling indulgences and other corrupt practices.
Of course the Church would disagree with me. They want to cling to THEIR doctrines, which didn't come from Jesus. And as they do, they dwindle. But it's the diddling of boys and the interference into the marital bedroom that really is killing the Church.
Know what Jesus said about married couples using contraception? Nothing.
Therefore, the Church should shut up and stop killing Christianity by asserting things it has neither the authority to assert, nor the right to. The damage these derogations from Jesus have done is massive, and ongoing.
And Mary? Well, God DID send her as emmissary, after the Bible, so noting what she had to say is worthwhile. But essentially she exhorted the worship of her son. So the whole Marian business is a tempest in a teapot.
Prayers to Mary, to the Saints? Etc.? It's not wrong. Neither are prayers to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. But JESUS taught us to pray to the father. So how about shutting all of our shit traps and just doing it exactly like he said, hmmmm? Or do we really think we know better. (Well, we don't.)
The only one that was important. The only one borne by Sarah, named as Abraham's (true) wife.
And after Sarah died, Abraham took another wife, and begat six more sons by her: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah.
They're losers. Nobody talks about them.
The Christian tradition that puts Abraham and Jesus in parallel is simply bunk.
It's one of the few such comparisons that I entertain. It's not as though the Bible is so full of stories about a father sacrificing his own son in a ritual manner that you can't keep track of them all. I always thought part of the purpose in the Binding of Isaac was to prepare Jews to accept as holy the final true sacrifice: Jesus.
Ben Shapiro might say yes but I think a lot of modern Jews would not enjoy the question or answer it. Who wants to wind the clock back 1951 years and restart a religion of animal sacrifice? I sure don't want to sacrifice a chicken or goat or lamb in a church. Being a Baptist type, I say we slaughter the animals elsewhere, then bring the carcasses to the church to cook up for a nice potluck supper for the retirees and children. A choice of vegetable, a few fruit-and-jello salads, and a nice mint-and-nut cup on the side with big piles of sweets to finish. But no slaughtering on church property, please.
Already happening:
It's interesting you mentioned Ben Shapiro and how he diplomatically handles Christians. You will like this one. Whether he realized it or not, JM preaches the Gospel to Ben via Isaiah 53 and in his usual manner does so lovingly:
if Jesus hadn't been crucified and had just died of old age or disease and therefore was not the savior of mankind
Your "Therefore" is wrong. Jesus' death didn't make him the savior of mankind.
It was the fact that he was the Son of God and taught man what man had to do to be forgiven his sins and be acceptable to God - THAT is why Jesus was the savior of mankind, not because arrogant bastards killed him.
Had Jesus lived, and been acclaimed the Messiah, he would have been no more, nor less, the Savior of mankind. He saved us from our sins not by dying (that expiated the sins of Israel...which hardly matters because Israel was destroyed 36 years later BECAUSE it killed him), but by teaching us what we have to DO to be acceptable to God.
It's not about magic blood or superstition, it's about listening to Jesus and doing what he said to do.
"What good does it do you to say you follow me if you do not keep my commandments?" - Jesus.
Around here, they're a lot more likely to want to get tattooed than baptized. It's a little surprising to see how fast it has changed over the last decade or so. But then, they're dumbasses so that's just how it is.
I have noticed there are churches which people tend to go to just because or they have to go, and there are churches where people go to be with other people because they want to be there with other people who want to be there.
You can gauge it really on what ministries the church is truly involved in. If the church is empty most of the week except Wednesday and Sunday, then you have to ask how involved the lay people are in their church.
I really do think you are robbing Jesus of his role as savior to a certain extent with this line of argument.
I am actually doing what Jesus sAID TO DO: LISTEN to HIM, Follow HIM (just him), do the deeds he said to do.
I see all of the Churches dying, and I can tell you why. Because they are insisting on taking a camel laden with all of the crap they have piled on top of Jesus over the centuries - to the point that what Jesus SAID TO DO is almost COMPLETELY DISREGARDED.
Consider. In Revelations - written AFTER Paul, James, John, Peter, Jude, etc. have had their say, Jesus takes the last word. And he says, over and over again, to the Churches, that he judges men by their DEEDS.
Jesus said: I will judge you by what you DO. Which fits hand in glove with what he said before he died: "What good does it do you to say you follow me if you don't keep my commandments."
So, is doing deeds WORKS? Well, if it IS, then Jesus has said explicitly that everybody is going to be judged on their works.
And if not - if works means specific things under the Jewish law done to get blessings - then in any event Jesus said repeatedly you're judged on what you DO - your deeds - not your thoughts, not your beliefs.
Why, then, do Christians argue about this? Because they are arrogant and full of shit, that is why.
Christians should SHUT UP and accept that Jesus told them directly they are judged by what they DO. There SHOULD BE no argument about that.
The fact that there IS shows you how much crap has been piled on that camel.
And why the Church is divided - to the point of having murdered, among ourselves, on the order of tens of millions of Christians in civil wars. And believing that doctrinal purity is more important than human life.
Well it is, and the only PURE doctrine is Jesus alone. Anything that departs from what he said, to the left or to the right, is wrong. And stubbornness in that wrong, out of tradition - well, that's the Pharisees.
Catholics do it. Protestants do. The Orthodox have made a whole religion out of it. It's all foul.
Jesus is the bright morning star, the thing to orient on. Why is that so hard?
I'll answer that. Because Jesus calls for some very hard things that men don't want to do. That's why. So they find easier doctrines, and elevate those above Jesus, and justify them - and murder each other.
I don't count Ishmael as a son of Israel even though he was a son of Abraham. Abraham should have been wiser than to sleep with the hired help. Nothing holy about it.
God's promise was to be a child sired by Abraham from Sarah.
His desire to be glorified by men with all their hearts. So please don't suggest that Jesus was only supposed to save Jews in ancient Israel and it's all Paul's fault that us nasty rebellious Prots split off from the corrupt popes
I haven't said anything like that. I am uninterested in the ancient squabbles over false doctrines of dying churches.
What Jesus said is true. Jesus alone. Anything that deviates from that, is false. Stubbornness in the false is idolatry.
The Church is dying everywhere because of idolatry and OBVIOUS hypocrisy, and the young won't play along anymore, nor will a lot of married people, nor will anybody hurt by the charlatans. The jig us up.
Each Church must reform or die. It seems that the Churches are choosing to die. So be it. We still have Jesus, and we know what he said, and that is good enough. It would be easier if we had a community, but wherever there is community, there is the lust for power and command, and people are past that shit. They don't need it. And they won't tolerate it anymore - or pay for it.
It is a little too clever perhaps. Still, it is a great story. It has been my favorite indulgence joke for many years. Warms the heart of any smug Prot.
Yes it's legend indeed. Luther waxed poetic after a few pints and this just may be part of his "table talk."
Paul, James and John each contradict Jesus in some important way. They are not equal to Jesus, and writings are inferior in authority to Gospel. Jesus was the one to whom God said to listen, and God made sure that we have his words, in quadruplicate in many cases. So, I don't dwell on commas, etc. in Romans, because Paul is not authority. He is persuasion and inspiration and history. Jesus alone is authoritative law. Paul conflicts with Jesus on matters in Romans, in particular. Therefore, I completely disregard Paul on matters where what he says disagrees with Jesus, and don't trouble myself further with that. I do not commit the sin of idolatry, pretending that when men have designated as "The Bible" make the Bible a God-maker that elevates mere followers to the status of God's Son, and changing what God said from "Listen to HIM" to "Listen to THEM, and let their words nullify what HE said." No. That's obviously wrong. To me anyway. Gotta take everything off the camel. What Jesus says is always exactly right. What challenges it or queers it is wrong and to be ignored, just like some of the things that appear in the writings that contradict what is in the Torah.
You disagree with the Roman Catholic teachings of apostolic authority? That the apostles wrote by inspiration from the Holy Spirit?
Ishmael was so important that God made a covenant with Hagar, his mother, respecting him, promising he would be the father of many great kingdoms, and also promising that his descendants and Isaacs would forever be in each other's faces, annoying each other.
God's promise was to be a child sired by Abraham from Sarah.
God also made a covenant with Hagar regarding Ishmael, and kept it.
Muslims count themselves as sons of Abraham, descended from their father Ismail (Ishmael), and the Lord knows they are camped among the tents of Isaac, and they're up against each other all of the time, everywhere, exactly as God promised.
Your "Therefore" is wrong. Jesus' death didn't make him the savior of mankind.
Try telling that to your parish priest when he administers the Eucharist. Your entire Mass is focused on the Eucharist and 'bloodless' re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Christ.
Jesus did say:
Luke 22: NASB
14When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. 15And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
I am actually doing what Jesus sAID TO DO: LISTEN to HIM, Follow HIM (just him), do the deeds he said to do.
From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. (Matthew 16:21)
Luke 24: NASB
44Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48“You are witnesses of these things. 49“And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
14When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. 15And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
Yes, Jesus did say that. And there it is, the cup - drink it, it's the new covenant. He did indeed shed his blood for everyone. He didn't retreat, run away. He died bloody, and very publicly - and then rose from the grave two days later. THAT was the event that made him stupendous: the conquest of death.
His covenant was about the afterlife - by dying bloody it was clear to all: he was REALLY DEAD. By rising from the dead he did the apparently impossible, and demonstrated he was master even of death. Only then did his cult explode upon the world. The Resurrection is the key, the visible symbol: death is not the end. For him to resurrect, he had to die.
(2) was 'It' the end of the old covenant. No, Jesus said that the Law (the Old Covenant) could not be changed until the end of the world, and that he was not there to destroy it but to fulfill it. He kept the Law. The Covenant remained, and remains, for the Tribe of Hebrews residing in Israel and keeping all of the law. But 36 years after Jesus' death, God made it impossible for the Jews to keep the law, by removing the priesthood from the world.
Well, an independent reader might say that both you and I are offering arguments that are too clever by half. What good will the Law do for Jews in or outside of Israel if the primary requirement of animal sacrifice at the Temple is no longer possible? You're not saying anything much different than what I posted: the Law exists but is obsolete.
And animal sacrifice did not forgive the man's individual sins before God for the afterlife - only forgiveness of other people can do that, per Jesus (and since Jesus was not CHANGING the law, it is clear that the animal sacrifice was for atoning for the community, so IT would not be smitten by God for the individual sins of people.
Then why do the churches say outright that the only path to forgiveness is to forgive? It is a noble ideal but I do think people can go to heaven without forgiving everyone who has harmed them. Has anyone ever done anything to you and you don't know who did it? How do you forgive them unless you know who they are, why they did what they did, and confess or compensate? How about if you discover evidence on an X-ray that something pretty bad happened to you in your early childhood but you don't know exactly what it was? What if someone harmed you very badly but you can't remember it at all (PTSD incidents). Can you forgive something you can't directly remember? How do you "forgive" unknown transgressors? Or sins committed against you that you can't recall directly even if there is physical evidence of the sin that was committed?
I reject this idea completely. God's purpose with Israel and then with Christians was not to turn us all into passive doormats for aggressors. Simple forgiveness works well for simple sins but the world isn't always that simple. And sometimes there is no target for forgiveness. You can't forgive "someone" who did "something" in vague or general terms. Such forgiveness would be a mockery of real forgiveness. You may as well learn to recite "I forgive everyone for everything for my entire life" over and over. The Catholics could replace their Hail Mary's and Our Father's with this new saying. The Lord's Prayer? Too long and complicated, just replace it with "Iforgiveyou". You could use it like the word aloha, to mean "Hello, I forgive you" and "Goodbye, I forgive you". Then you could dump all this other unnecessary religious crap and replace with an endless refrain of Iforgiveyou's. They could rework that tired old rosary thing too, issue a new design and realize a surefire profit bonanza.
No. Just no. In fact, hell no.
Certainly, we should forgive others as much as possible but forgiving each other is not the centrality of Christianity teaching nor is it clear that that alone is the single most important criteria God will use in judging us and deciding whether we belong in heaven or hell.
You seem to be changing this famous proverb that is part of the Lord's Prayer and it would then be reworded as:
"Forgive us our sins but only after we forgive those who trespass against us. Also, we have to forgive others even if they aren't apologizing and make no effort at restitution or contrition."
So if you don't forgive the Charlie Starkweather who murdered your parents so he could rape your 14yo sister on an interstate killing spree, then your lack of forgiveness will result in you sharing a flame pit in hell with Charlie Starkweather? How about forgiving a kid who broke your finger scuffling over a soccer ball on the playground back in elementary school, a kid whose name you can't recall (unless you looked it up)? If you fail to forgive that kid, will God refuse to forgive your sins and throw you into hell while perhaps allowing that kid who broke your finger into heaven?
Is it really the case that your forgiveness of others is the most important element in salvation? Why is that foremost, even over confessing your sins toward others to them and making restitution?
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Paul and the other Jews who tried to make the Torah have a meaning in the New Covenant thought the old wine was mellower, and tried. And they burst the wineskins in the process.
I still think your central argument goes too far. You're overreaching to try to win your point IMO.
BECAUSE he was truly the spotless lamb - innocent - but CONVICTED under the Law of blasphemy against God BY the very prophetic source of judgment - the High Priest - it was the final, magnificent failure of the logic of the Temple and its predecessors.
You realize this is getting over the line a bit. I would not say that to Jews because I know what they would say in return. The Catholic church has apologized to the Jews for its replacement theology and for all the blame it placed on all Jews for the actions of some conniving priests and a rowdy crowd of Jews when Pilate asked their choice for execution. I don't condemn such discussion but I think there are certain historical aspects we should try to respect. Jews suffered a lot from the Catholic church and over many centuries.
As for whether the Aaronic priesthood really was entirely wiped out, well, in the midst of the ruins of Jerusalem, travelers to the site noted that there were a few inhabitants there. Either they played dead and survived or were elsewhere when Jerusalem fell. Or maybe they stabbed a Roman soldier and dragged his body in a dark alley and put on his uniform. It was not utterly impossible that there were survivors and they could be proper priests.
Doesn't surprise me a bit. That's nowhere close to a proper sacrifice.
If these were ancient times and non-priests were offering sacrifices in public as proper ritual, they would be slain by the priests and their soldiers.
