Title: Should I Only Use The King James Bible? CRUCIAL VIDEO | KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, Message Bible Review Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Oct 10, 2023 Author:Gene Kim Post Date:2023-10-10 22:13:23 by A K A Stone Keywords:None Views:3214 Comments:46
I've listened to him for three minutes, and I will tell you I already have a very deep problem with his logic. It isn't that I don't understand what he is saying: I do. I disagree with his premises.
His view is this: you have to have a perfect Bible in order to learn perfect doctrine, so therefore you have to believe that the King James Bible is perfect.
My response is: that's silly. You don't have to have a perfect Bible, you have to know Jesus and have the Holy Spirit with you to learn what God needs you to learn, and what that is varies by person. Only God knows the entire story, and he communicates with each man through the Holy Spirit, You need to hear Jesus to get the big chunks right, but some men and women are called to marriage, others to celibacy; some are called to the more warlike and defensive occupations, while others are called to piece. These callings are directly from God, through the Holy Spirit. Having the Bible is immensely helpful, in order to hear what Jesus said, and get your mind right with the fundamentals - love, charity, faith - but that's all. There are no great details of anything beyond that in any version of the Bible, and if you TRY to pull things out of the Bible that somebody said that were just a custom of their time and place, you will make yourself ridiculous and bad, not good.
Example: I saw pamphlets back in the 60s from conservative religious people arguing that the long hair fashion was condemned by God in the Bible. Looking at it, yes, Paul doesn't like long hair on men in a certain place and time. Ok. Of course, Jesus and many faithful Jews, or Jews with a Naziritate vow, had long hair. Because these 20th Century Christians didn't like long haired hippies, they searched around in the Bible and found what THEY call a prescription against long hair on men. Nothing is more likely to destroy the faith of people than seeing that sort of shit.
No, you do not need a letter perfect Bible, because the only parts of the Bible that MATTER are what Jesus said. The Holy Spirit provides the specific guidance in YOUR life. Many Bibles get Jesus right, and that's good enough.
Beyond that, the very principle of putting the Bible highest of all, which this man does, is idolatry. I have had the argument with many idolators. It goes like this:
Me: "Jesus said this."
Him: "But Paul said this!"
Me: "Yes, but Jesus is Lord. Paul must be interpreted through Jesus. He is not a stand alone authority."
Him: "You lie! Paul is in the Bible, and EVERY WORD in the Bible is the Word of God!"
Me: "You believe this? To the point that you disregard Jesus Christ in favor of Paul, or James, or John, or Moses?"
Him: "No! They never conflict."
Me: "Yes, they DO conflict." (Gives example, such as works v. faith alone)
Him: "That is not a conflict."
Me: "Clearly it is."
Him: "This is because you do not have the Holy Spirit, and you blaspheme God by refusing to accept the truth of his Bible!"
Me: "Hoss, God never wrote a Bible. Men did. But God DID send his only begotten Son, who told us to follow HIM, do HIS commandments, which differ from the Torah commandments, and from some of the opinions of Paul, James and John."
Him: "You blaspheme and lie, because you do not respect the supreme authority of the Bible!"
Me: I'm neither a blasphemer nor a liar. I respect the Bible, but Jesus IN the Bible is the highest authority over all of the rest of it, OBVIOUSLY, because HE is God, and Paul, James, Peter and the prophets are NOT God. So everything must be read through what Jesus said. God SENT Jesus to set things right, and now you're ignoring him in favor of some other dude in the Bible you like more for some reason. Jesus says that the Holy Spirit is the guide, not the Bible."
Him: "Blasphemer!"
Me: I am not a blasphemer, but you are an idolator, and the Bible is your idol. Jesus never said that the Bible was God. He said his Father was, and that he was from the Father, and that he send the Holy Spirit to guide you once he left. You substitute your Bible for Jesus and the Holy Spirit. He never said to do that. So why do you believe it?"
And the answer to my question, which he will never give, is that he has been taught that, and believes it, and thinks that you HAVE TO have one final, written authority, or else everything falls apart.
But that's not what Jesus says. Jesus gives his word, and sends the Holy Spirit to each man to help him. The whole Bible is an aid, but it is not the final authority. Jesus in the Bible, and the Holy Spirit in you, are the final authority. Obviously.
So, I find his entire argument about the Bible - ANY Bible - being supreme is idolatry. No, the Bible is not Supreme. The Father never said it was.
The Son never said it was.
The Holy Spirit never said it was.
It itself never says that it is.
And the complete Bible in its current form did not even exist until after 325 AD, and the KJV in particular doesn't have all the books in it that the complete Bible has in it.
How, then, is the KJV, an English translation, THE supreme authority?
Because men who have the idolatrous view that they have to have a pure authoritative written source says so. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not enough. No, they need a written source.
And it can't be the original written sources, no, it has to be this abridged source.
And you can't even read the original Greek manuscripts.
Nope, it has to be this one English Protestant translation from the early 1600s.
It's just screaming idolatry.
Yeah, I follow the logic, but the logic is idolatrous.
This doesn't make YOU a bad person for thinking this way. You have been taught it, and you believe what you have been brought up with. I am not going to even try to dissuade you from the point of believing that the KJV is best.
Indeed, I've gone ahead and used the 1611 KJV to get what Jesus said, the purest of the pure words, in your view. I've stopped worrying about the Greek because you think the English is inspired. The English is fine. I have provided some notes where the English is really archaic (Ex> Jesus searches the reines and the heart. Reines? The French word for kidneys is reines, and in 1611, the English were still using the Norman French word, not the Anglo-Saxon word. I clarify, but the 1611 KJV is great for giving the words of Jesus. So we use those.
And I know what Jesus said, and how he called on the Holy Spirit to carry that on in the world after him. I ALSO know that what he said departs rather severely from what some Protestant Churches teach (the Catholics and Orthodox have different issues).
Works, love, judgement based on keeping his word and following him, do what he said to do - this is NOT what KJV Onlyists believe. Why? Being nice, and not observing that it is just harder than what they believe, I observe that they look to Paul and get a different gospel. They don't look to John (who speaks of venial and mortal sins, and sounds pretty Catholic); they'll cite James' "break one law, you've broken them all!) (over and against Jesus' "greater and lesser sin" comments. They focus on Paul and assert that he says "Faith Alone" (in some translations. They like that, and Once Saved, Always Saved, and assert that using a constellation of things that Paul and John wrote. They can't quote Jesus on this, because he said rather the opposite.
But they don't care, because JESUS is not their highest authority, the BIBLE is. So, they quote the BIBLE - the parts that could contradict Jesus, and they use a constellation of Paul, James and John to create a new gospel that guts Jesus' own word.
And when you point that out, they call you a blasphemer for not believing the Bible.
My response is that they are idolators, for raising the Bible above Jesus Christ.
They retort that I am the idolator, because I take the "red letter words" of Jesus Christ, and elevate "just those words" above the rest of the Bible.
Well, OF COURSE I do! Any thinking person knows that Jesus is ABOVE Paul, James, John, Moses and the Prophets. And knowing that, any thinking person would NEVER take anything from anywhere else in the Bible and use it to nullify Jesus. But the KJV-Onlyists do precisely that, BECAUSE the Bible is their ultimate source for God, and not simply Jesus Christ.
That takes you to a different place than me.
I see the roots of all of this right in the first three minutes of the video. I can go on watching it, and comment on it, but that's right there in a nutshell. He won't say it, but he treats the Bible itself as God, and that's why he needs a supposedly perfect Bible, and the ultimate root of authority.
But Jesus is God, and his words, alone, of the words in the Bible, are the ultimate Biblical authority, in any language (not just English).
So I'll listen to the guy, but I'm going to just tear apart everything he says. If he REALLY wants an authoritative Bible, then he needs to drop the pretense of the KJV, and go learn koine Greek, for THAT is the language of the ACTUAL BIBLE. The KJV is but a translation.
He will assert its an INSPIRED translation.
Why? Based on WHAT?
Not the Bible. IT doesn't say that.
So why?
Why was this particular group of political Protestant translators gifted with divine protection, to give a perfect Bible? When did God ever say that? Why isn't their religion all over the world? Jesus at least got 10% of the Jews. The KJV Onliests don't have 10% of the Christians?
Where on earth do they get these preposterous excessive claims?
The answer is, they NEED an ultimate written source, so they have designated one. They don't TRUST the Holy Spirit to provide them the guidance they need.
That's the Truth, as I see it.
I'm not angry at you, or at him. This is just the way you look at it. Nothing I say will change your mind. But I think you understand now why I think the argument is just hooey.
And remember please, you asked! I'm telling you the truth. I find the arguments for KJV Onlyism to be ridiculous and idolatrous.
His view is this: you have to have a perfect Bible in order to learn perfect doctrine, so therefore you have to believe that the King James Bible is perfect.
I think his argument is more complex than that.
I think you have a Bible with contradictions and flaws in it that would lead to deception. I think the Bible doesn't contain errors.
Do you think God wouldn't be able to have his word be perfect if he wanted to?
Why wouldn't he want his word to be perfect so that we could understand what he wants us to understand. That doesn't mean we understand everything just what we were given.
People are CALLING the words spoken by Paul, James, John, Peter, Ezekiel, Daniel, Moses, Obadiah, etc, "God's word", but they are not God's words. The only actual words of God in the Bible are in the Torah, where YHWH or Elohim says specific things, identified by "Thus sayeth the Lord", and where Jesus speaks in the four gospels, the first chapter of Acts, one line of a letter of Paul where Paul quotes Jesus, and then in the first three and last chapters of Revelation. THAT is God speaking.
All of the rest of it is men speaking, often about God.
If you just focus on God, YHWH's precepts of the Torah are what Jesus speaks on and demonstrates in the new, and he places specific limitations on how far men are to go in enforcing what YHWH said.
Examples include pork and shellfish - God forbade them (for reasons probably specific to Israel), and the Jews greatly accelerated the importance of not being unclean (to the point that 5 Isreali boys have their hands cut off and are fried to death in front of their mother, with their mother exhorting them to do so, because they will not eat pork.
You could take what God said that far, make it an article of absolute faith.
But Jesus explained that it isn't what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean, but what comes out of it, thus making all foods clean. The point was made explicit to Peter. This is a contradiction in the text, between YHWH and Jesus. Jesus gave us the rule that applies to us, because Jesus was the Son of God and.
And yet you have the prohibition persisting among the Jewish Christians, with some prohibiting people eating meat "sacrificed to idols". John thought it very important not to. But Paul said, hewing to what Jesus taught, that all is permitted. NOTHING that a man eats makes him unclean. NOTHING means NOTHING.
You have the Torah saying yes, Jesus saying no, but then John and Peter saying yes again, and Peter being rebuked for it by Paul. This is a welter of contradictions, and you cannot get a clear read from the totality of the Scriptures. So, what do you do?
You read Jesus and ignore the rest. Jesus was God. The Apostles were not.
This is obvious to me. It is NOT obvious to people who make an idol out of the Bible and place the totality of the Bible above what Jesus said. If you do that, then what is the answer about pork and shellfish, and food sacrificed to idols? You don't know, because you CAN'T know, because the Bible says yes and no. But if you stick to JUST JESUS, then you have a clear and definitive answer, from the ONE GUY that God sent, his son, who says 'Follow ME!" all the time. So follow him, and that is that.
OR dilute him with the rest of the Bible and end up back in confusion.
Another example: YHWH in the Torah sets the Sabbath aside as holy, and at one point Moses ordes the execution of a man who collects firewood on the Sabbath. The Jews in the Bible follow the Sabbath to the point of letting themselves be killed by the enemy on that day, because they would not fight. But Jesus said "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", and gave the example of healing on it, and of animals being rescued on it. So, you have a sharp contradiction. Later Christians apply the rule of the Sabbath, which is on Saturday, to their Sunday practices.
So, you have a mess of contradictions here. What is the right answer?
Do what Jesus said and ignore the rest. The rest is a welter of confusion, Jesus is clear.
With regards to sexual sin, YHWH directed that the man and woman caught in adultery were to be stoned. But Jesus said of the woman caught in adultery, "Let he among you who is without sin, cast the first stone", moving the physical judgment of adultery off of this earth to God, for only God sees our full hearts and understands all. Men are themselves individually too sinful to carry out such a sentence. If you take the whole Bible as equal, you don't have and answer (and historically, men have chosen the answer found in the Torah and killed the sexually immoral in gory public displays, ignoring Jesus. But what did JESUS say? If you listen to him, you won't be stoning adulteresses.
What did he also say to her, he who was God incarnate, and without sin? He said "I don't judge you either. Go, and sin no more." God did not condemn her either, even though she was caught in a crime that he said warranted death in ancient Israel.
See? If you take the whole Bible and treat every word as equal, you end up in a welter of confusion. If you focus on Jesus, you don't. And logically, you should focus on Jesus, because Jesus was the Son of God. No one else in the Bible is.
The KJV has these contradictions in it. All Bibles do, because there ARE contradictions between what God and man said before, and what Jesus said. There are also contradictions between what the men who followed Jesus taught. Using the KJV only gives you these contradictions in Middle English, if you prefer, but they are still there. You have to sort them out. And the key to the whole thing is Jesus. Read HIM. HE doesn't contradict himself. He gives answers. So you follow him.
It's obvious.
Who ever said that Paul, or James, or Jude, or Daniel, or Ezekiel, or Moses was equal to Jesus? Not Jesus. Not God. God said "This is my beloved Son, listen to HIM." And Jesus said "Follow ME." The contradictions offered by these other men in the Bible are real, but Jesus has an answer to each of them. So that's what we are to do, follow Jesus, ignore the parts that contradict Jesus.
Otherwise what is the point of saying that Jesus is Son of God, Lord, and Savior. You obey the Lord. Is James ALSO your Lord, where he contradicts your Lord? Not logically.
Do I think God COULD perfect the Bible, if he wanted to? Sure. But he didn't even leave a Bible at all! Men put that together, over three centuries after Christ. The Bible is a work of men. God did not leave it for us, and nobody in the Bible every mentioned the Bible. They mentioned a very limited number of Scriptures, to which they referred a lot, and that is all.
So, why DIDN'T God leave a perfect Bible? Because he did not want to do it that way, at all. What he gave us was his Son, who taught in a limited number of clear precepts what he wanted, and who said that now he was sending the Holy Spirit to guide us in all things. In other words, God did not intend to limit bankind to a list of ancient written things. He left general precepts, and promised those who followed the general precepts that they would be guided by the Holy Spirit in each new thing. THAT is how we are supposed to relate to God.
But men have turned the Bible into an idol, and seek to bind the decisions of men on weighty things NOT to Jesus' precepts and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but to the judgements of men interpreting and ancient text the God never wrote. It's idolatry, and it leads men into doing hard- minded, even wicked things (hanging and burning "witches", anyone?), and directly away from listening the Jesus and the Holy Spirit. There is not one issue faced by anyone today that Jesus and the Holy Spirit do not provide an answer to. God did not need a "perfect Bible", and he didn't leave one.
People who want a perfect Bible are like the Muslims, with their "perfect" Koran. The Koran, being "perfect" locks them into the rigid and primitive mental and social structures of 7th century Arabia, with the complete disregard of women, etc., It is perfectly obvious to anyone who is not a Muslim that this is nuts, it's idolatry.
It is similarly obvious that worship of the Bible as God is also idolatry, and leads to some bad results. But focusing on Jesus and listening the Holy Spirit never does. So do that.
God never said that then Bible was his word. Jesus is his Word. God wants us to listen to Jesus. And Jesus told us when he was leaving that he would send to Holy Spirit to lead us. So the Holy Spirit carries God's word for us. the Bible can give us case studies, and it can give us the words of Jesus. But God never said that the Bible itself is "God's Word". He said Jesus is. The Bible is NOT God's word, it has the words of Jesus, and a bunch of case studies. Men treat it like God, and it's certainly important, but not importanct enough for God to have protected it from error, or even given it to us in the first place.
A narrow minority of English-speaking men in a few churches.
And what gives them the authority to say that?
Nobody and nothing. They assert it.
And that's all it is, a bald assertion of men.
I'm sticking with the Holy Spirit and what Jesus said. The KJV is a good source of what Jesus said. It's not the only source or the Supreme Source. it's a source, good enough for this purpose.
Look, this is all very abstract. Let's look at some real world examples, and look at what Jesus and the Holy Spirit tell us, versus what the King James Onlyists would say.
Pick three issues, any three, and let's look at the results of doing the analysis the different ways.
Agreed...I have friends who argue that the Bible is God's Word, and thereby sacred and beyond debate. However, that ignores that it is God's Word as interpreted by imperfect humans.
Regards...MUD
"NOW...Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan!!"
John 3:16-17 King James Version 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
You used to say you were a Catholic. You've also said you are not a Christian. You've also said you aren't a Catholic. You've also quoted scripture that isn't in red. You've also defended praying to Mary. Then said you don't pray to Mary. You've also claimed to raise lizards from the dead, and a mouse too.
Bible verses quoted by Jesus. Jesus never said any scripture was in error Vic.
The creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27; 2:24; Mk. 10:6-8)
The murder of Abel (Gen. 4:10; Lk. 11:51)
The corruption of Noah's day and the flood (Gen. 6-7; Lk. 17:26-27)
The corruption of Lot's day and the fire (Gen. 19; Lk. 17:28-29)
The worldliness of Lot's wife (Gen. 19:26; Lk. 17:32)
The faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Mt. 22:32)
Moses and the burning bush (Ex. 3; Mk. 12:26)
Moses and the heavenly manna (Ex. 16:15; Jn. 6:31)
Moses and the brazen serpent (Num. 21:18; Jn. 3:14)
David and some shewbread (1 Sam. 21:6; Mt. 12:3-4)
Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (1 Kings 10:1; Mt. 12:42)
Elijah, a widow, and the famine (1 Kings 17:1, 9; Lk. 4:25-26)
Naaman and his leprosy (2 Kings 5; Lk. 4:27)
The murder of Zechariah (2 Chron. 24:20-21; Lk. 11:51)
Daniel and the abomination of desolation (Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; Mt. 24:15)
Jonah and the fish (Jon. 1:17; Mt. 12:40; 16:4)
Jonah and the repentance of the Ninevites (Jon. 3:4-10; Lk. 11:30; Mt. 12:41) The Passages He Quoted From
During His temptations
1. The first temptation (in Mt. 4:4 He quoted Deut. 8:3)
2. The second temptation (in Mt. 4:7 He quoted Deut. 6:16)
3. The third temptation (in Mt. 4:10 He quoted Deut. 6:13)
During His Sermon on the Mount
1. In Mt. 5:21 He quoted Ex. 20:13, the sixth commandment 2. In Mt. 5:27 He quoted Ex. 20:14, the seventh commandment; (also compare Mt. 5:31
with Deut. 24:1). (Note: He later quoted some of the same commandments during His
talk with a rich young ruler. See Mk. 10:19)
During His hometown sermon (in Lk. 4:18-19 he quoted Isa. 61:1-2)
During various confrontations with Jewish rulers 1. As He defended His associating with sinners (in Mt. 9:13 He quoted Hos. 6:6)
2. As He expounded on marriage (in Mk. 10:7-8 He quoted Gen. 2:24)
3. As He was asked concerning the greatest of the commandments (in Mk. 12:29-30 He quoted Deut. 6:4-5)
4. As He rebuked their vain traditions (in Mt. 15:7-9 He quoted Isa. 29:13)
5. As the Pharisees questioned His authority (in Jn. 8:17 He quoted Deut. 17:6)
During His tribute to John the Baptist (in Lk. 7:27 He quoted Malachi 3:1)
During His Triumphal Entry Day (in Mt. 21:16 He quoted Psa. 8:2 ) During His cleansing of the temple (in Lk. 19:46 He quoted Isa. 56:7)
During a parable about Israel (in Mt. 21:42, 44 He quoted Psa. 118:22- 23; Isa. 8:14-15)
During a question session in the temple (in Mk. 12:36 He quoted Psa. 110:1)
During His last Passover night—predicting the world would hate the disciples as they hated Him (in Jn. 15:25 He quoted Psa. 35:19; 69:4) On the cross 1. His fourth utterance (in Mt. 27:46 He quoted Psa. 22:1)
2. His seventh utterance (in Lk. 23:46 He quoted Psa. 31:5)
In summary, our Lord said the Law would be fulfilled (Mt. 5:18) and the Scriptures could not be broken (Jn. 10:35). It has been estimated that over one-tenth of Jesus' recorded New Testament words were taken from the Old Testament. In the four Gospels, 180 of the 1,800 verses that report His discourses are either Old Testament quotes or Old Testament allusions. digitalco mmons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1060&context=second_person
Why does Jesus say "It is written" so often? Huh Mud?
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
So, I was a monotheistic pagan pantheist, very much like the ancient Lucretius (circa 76 BC), but with a strong foundation in modern science to PROVE my God, before God reached out of the air, grabbed me by the face and spoke. It was the direct revelation that changed God from an IT, of which I was certain through scientific examination and the application of my God- given reason, to a HE, because of revelation.
I didn't read the Bible until long after I knew God through science and revelation. Because I didn't go in seeking faith, but with the certitude of the EXISTENCE of God, what I was looking for was to see if the God of the Bible had anything to do with the REAL God that I knew directly and had reached through reason.
Granted, testimony that Jesus referenced the Old Testament in his recorded utterances does support the "divinity" of the Bible. My point continues to be that imperfect humans had to hear, then interpret, then remember, then record "The Sacred Word of God" for future generations to learn and live by. And imperfect humans hear, interpret, remember, and record imperfectly. God's Word and Jesus' words were perfect when uttered and hopefully we got it down right...MUD
"NOW...Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan!!"
2Tim. 3 Verses 16 to 17 [16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Also do you think God wanted us confused about his word so he thought Nah lets confuse man by not having my word be reliable. I'm a weak God and that wouuld be to hard and not worth my time.
Here I have tried to discuss what Jesus said on its merits, and presented my viewpoint on it. Nobody is engaging on either what he said, nor on my viewpoint. Rather, it has turned into a critique of me personally, one I am not interested in.
You were respected. You called people idolaters. You can't answer simple questions. You twist scripture making yourself God and the arbiter of which Bible verses to throw in the trash. You have been shown to not be consistent and you can't defend your kooky positions.
But I will answer you again: Christians who do bad shit go to Hell. The fact that they are Christians does not save them the consequences of their evil deeds. Believing in Jesus is not a "pass".
The stuff I said in the past was true, as is the stuff I say now. I am not embarassed by anything I’ve said.
I see that you don’t read, and you pull one line from Jesus, and think that proves your point. There is no point even attempting to discuss these things with you. So I’ve stopped.
It looks like you will be judged by your works though. Sorry to break it to you. Since it seems you judged others by their works.
] Judge not, that ye be not judged. [2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. [3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Truth is, I’ve already presented the texts from Jesus in Revelation, in which Jesus flatly tells the faithful he judges them by their works. And I could go on and keep quoting him from the Gospels, in which he speaks of sweeping in the eternal fire those who call to him “Lord, Lord!” but do not do the works he required - feed the hungry, heal the sick, clothe the naked, etc. He tells people to keep his commandments, he commands them to do these good things, and he asks what good it does you to say you follow him if you don’t keep his commandments. There are pages of this.
Against this, you put down one sentence, to the criminal on the cross, and you say checkmate?
There are two possibilities here. One is that Jesus is wildly contradictory (and therefore probably just a man, not divine). The other is that you are reading this situation wrong, to make it fit your notions of religion.
Which will it be? The violently contradictory Jesus who is really just a story that can’t bear up, or a consistent Jesus you misinterpret?
I believe in the second. And I think if you look at the totality of what Jesus said, what happened there on the cross is much more understandable.
Look at the parable of the workers. The landowner hired some at dawn, some mid morning, some at noon, some in the afternoon, and some an hour before the end. He paid them all the same. A day’s wage. The first began to grumble that they had worked all day in the hot sun, while these men arriving last had been paid the same. The parable taught that the master shares his abundance with all, whether they arrive early or late. This is the parallel with Jesus. You become his follower and you follow, you do what he said to do.
Of course, there is a difference between the workers in the field and Jesus. Field work is hot and hard, and you don’t do it unless you’re paid. But Jesus’ burden is easy and his yoke his light - if you’re burning with resentment at helping the poor, you don’t have the spirit of Jesus whether or not you cry “Lord, Lord!”
James speaks of how unavailing it is to speak good news to a starving man. Feed him first, then teach. And Paul speaks of how unavailing it is to do anything without love.
This, by the way, is why I reproach Watchman so severely. Every other word out of his mouth directed at me in an insult. I am a demon, a deceiver, a liar , etc., etc., etc. I called him an idolater, and I paved the way beforehand explaining what I meant. He worships his version of a book, not God. He has made an idol of the Bible and missed the message. Following Jesus, according to him, is seeking for signs in the entrails of the world - and insulting people like me - and quaking in fear about the end. Is that what Jesus said to do? No, it isn’t. It’s what he said NOT to do. Who would come to watchman’s Christ after being insulted by him over and over, and seeing the prospect of trying to read things into the times, and fearing the end? Who would want that version of Christ?
“Save tomorrow for tomorrow ; today has ills enough of its own” Jesus said. And fear not! Jesus said, over and over again. I wouldn’t want watchman’s Jesus, and I don’t need his insults. It’s frank idolatry, and I told him so. I’ll certainly never follow such a distempered idol. But Jesus, the real Jesus, him I will follow.
Which brings us back to this “checkmate” business of the “thief” on the cross.
First, he was no thief. The Romans did not crucify thieves. In Judaea, the crucified insurrectionists. He wasn’t stealing people’s stuff, he was a probably zealous Jew fighting Roman rule. That’s who the Romans crucified. Is this even a crime? The Romans were murderous occupiers. They captured a Jewish insurrectionist and tortured him to death on a cross. You tradition calls him a thief - he was no thief. He was much more like the American Patriot, was it Nathan Hale?, who, being hanged, said “I regret I have but one life to give for my country.” The Romans were much, much more oppressive than the Redvoats. Was the man dying beside Jesus a criminal? As an insurrectionist, he had probably killed Jewish collaborators - tax collectors and the like. Bad stuff. Maybe a Roman soldier or two. He had done acts that troubled him, as men in war do. But a mere thief? No. That’s just old Catholic tradition, that called him “the good thief”. He was an iirregular warrior for the Jews. In modern terms, the Romans would call him a terrorist.
Secondly, he did perform a work on the cross. He acknowledged Jesus, thereby showing his fealty to him even after Jesus’ own disciples had fled. That was all he could do. He was nailed to a cross, dying in agony in the final hours of his life, like the workers in the parable chosen at the end of the day. But with his words, he performed a powerful work, and he was rewarded for it with the full wage.
He wasn’t stealing people’s stuff, he was a probably zealous Jew fighting Roman rule. That’s who the Romans crucified. Is this even a crime? The Romans were murderous occupiers. They captured a Jewish insurrectionist and tortured him to death on a cross. You tradition calls him a thief - he was no thief. He was much more like the American Patriot, was it Nathan Hale?, who, being hanged, said “I regret I have but one life to give for my country.” The Romans were much, much more oppressive than the Redvoats. Was the man dying beside Jesus a criminal? As an insurrectionist, he had probably killed Jewish collaborators - tax collectors and the like. Bad stuff. Maybe a Roman soldier or two. He had done acts that troubled him, as men in war do. But a mere thief? No. That’s just old Catholic tradition, that called him “the good thief”. He was an iirregular warrior for the Jews. In modern terms, the Romans would call him a terrorist.
blaqh blah blah made up bullshit. You don't have a clue.
AGAIN - He was an insurrectionist not a thief. He did two things. First, he admitted that he deserved the punishment he was suffering. This is an act of contrition. Second, he publicly recognized Jesus as his king. When Jesus own disciples had abandoned his, this criminal performed an act of obeisance. That was all he could do under the circumstance. He was the worker who came in the last hour, but he confessed his sin, and he performed an act of obeisance.
As I said pages ago, trying to converse with you is pointless. You like to demean people. It’s a bad look. You don’t care, of course. And for my part, I don’t care to continue trying.
