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:3208 Comments:46
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.
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.
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.
