Would Jesus promote punishing the innocent instead of the guilty?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that christians, by and large wouldn't. Christians today, anyway. It's clear that this is precisely what the authors ( or compilers, if you prefer) of the NT had in mind, though.

Like you mention, they run from this issue, but that doesn't stop them believing and affirming it as the proper and necessary state of affairs according to the author of the cosmos, even if it's moral poison. An escape from death and the redemption of our souls in the face of guilt is a compelling hook. We want it, and we do and agree with and affirm and legitimize and normalize bad things for the things we want.

If christianity offered it's followers a hamburger for the low low price of one tortured and executed palestinian, I'd like to think it would have fizzled out long ago...but then I remember that they grew in rome by handing out little cakes...so....

[Greatest I am]

Literalist Christians today, knowingly lie and accept immoral moral tenets, so I would not even try to guess what such poor thinkers are going to do or say.

They are only keeping their eyes on the prize and will curse anyone that tries to block that view.

They will follow Satan through hell to try to keep out of it, and that is why thy idol worship a genocidal prick.

Regards
DL

[Vicki Q]

A small point that seems to refute that so I offer it for your files.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrDGgKunPsY

Thanks for the reply.

The theory that a crucified and resurrected Messiah was around in Judaism before Jesus is wrong, very much against the academic consensus, and one maverick's speculation changes nothing. From the clip:

“Exactly what that command is, no-one is sure. Time has rendered this passage virtually unreadable.”

“I don't think you can read the tablet. That section where he's seeing 'in three days rise' is illegible. I don't see those letters there. And by the way, neither does anyone else.”

“...the Jeselsohn Stone is an interesting find, but not a revolutionary artifact.“

Of course, Jesus dying for our sins is contrary to all that the Jewish law and Jesus himself would have taught so Jesus would not sanctioned such immoral thinking.

Given the detail that Paul goes into to show that Jesus' death and resurrection is completely in line with the OT narrative, I can't agree. Jesus was very clear also that this process is the fulfilment of the Torah. The Gospel writers also are careful in their commentary to show continuity with the OT story. Could you unpack your reasoning?

Where thy got their immoral version, I do not know.

That's the thing. While everyone was waiting for a Messiah to come in glory, setting God's people free, kicking out the ****ing Romans and inaugurating God's Kingdom, this small group within Judaism declared that the inauguration of the Kingdom of God had already happened. This would as a matter of course have included the full forgiveness of sins. Trying to explain plausibly why they should make this claim is pretty much impossible.

They said that they had repeatedly witnessed the return to full bodily life of a dead man, and this changed everything they thought. Whether their belief was correct is a whole other question, but that they believed it had happened is by a long way the most sensible explanation for their claim.

[Fake Messiah]

Given the detail that Paul goes into to show that Jesus' death and resurrection is completely in line with the OT narrative, I can't agree.

The detail? Paul only claims to know nothing except "Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2), and reminds them that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and raised on the third day – three details he knows because they are "according to the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3–4).

The Gospel writers also are careful in their commentary to show continuity with the OT story.

Continuity? How? By listing so called Jesus's genalogy? Or maybe when they were making truly ridiculous claims that OT passages describe Jesus? Like one of the most notorious ones is Matthew 2:16-9, where its author claims how Jeremiah 31:15 in which Rachel is crying for her children is a reference to Herod's slaughter of the Innocents.

[Vicki Q]

The detail? Paul only claims to know nothing except "Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2)

Clearly that's not supposed to be taken literally (did he also act like he didn't know his name?). Paul means that he had the gospel, with its crucified Messiah, as his singular focus and passion while he was among them.

and reminds them that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and raised on the third day – three details he knows because they are "according to the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3–4).

I'm not sure what your point is here, I'm afraid.

After Jesus' resurrection, the disciples went back to the OT writings and were able to clarify things that were rather vague before. The promise to Abraham was never meant to be just to one nation about just a patch of the Middle East. It was to humanity, about the world. The suffering servant of Isaiah, something of an interpretive mystery, turned out to be Jesus representing Israel. God's promise to return to Jerusalem, enacted in the 'Palm Sunday' events, suddenly became clear.

Paul refers directly and indirectly to the OT story throughout his letters. For example, in Romans 9 he is analysing the ongoing Jew/Gentile divide by looking at both the wider story and specific OT passages. He is treating the OT much like the early acts of a play, to which the later acts must be faithful.

Continuity? How? By listing so called Jesus's genalogy?

Yes. The genealogy is intended amongst other things to emphasise that Jesus follows the OT story.

Or maybe when they were making truly ridiculous claims that OT passages describe Jesus? Like one of the most notorious ones is Matthew 2:16-9, where its author claims how Jeremiah 31:15 in which Rachel is crying for her children is a reference to Herod's slaughter of the Innocents.  

Please read the whole of Jeremiah 31, because Matthew is using this verse as a kind of tag for the whole thing. J31 tells of God's renewal of the covenant, bringing Israel back from exile. Although Israel will need to mourn, as has happened so often in its history, once again rescue is on the way.

Verses 31-34 are particularly important in that there is a clear promise that this renewal will be completely different, completely great and completely final. Matthew is saying 'It was always going to be the case that this sort of suffering comes as an unwelcome part of the bundle”.

[Foxaèr]

So much of the Bible is to not be taken literally that none of it should.

[Fake Messiah]

Yes. The genealogy is intended amongst other things to emphasise that Jesus follows the OT story.

Let's just say that Matthew and Luke gave two different genealogies which are not evidence of anything. They maybe want to correspond to Jesus story with OT, but then again they likely reflect the political allegiances of the authors.

The promise to Abraham was never meant to be just to one nation about just a patch of the Middle East. It was to humanity, about the world. The suffering servant of Isaiah, something of an interpretive mystery, turned out to be Jesus representing Israel. God's promise to return to Jerusalem, enacted in the 'Palm Sunday' events, suddenly became clear.

That's called wishful thinking.

Paul refers directly and indirectly to the OT story throughout his letters. For example, in Romans 9 he is analysing the ongoing Jew/Gentile divide by looking at both the wider story and specific OT passages. He is treating the OT much like the early acts of a play, to which the later acts must be faithful.

What Paul is doing is trying to tie mystical religions and many of the practices, such as baptism and sacred meals (probably even the mysteries of Mithras where he "introduces an image of a resurrection") with Judaism which were already in use among the mystery religions in the Greco-Roman world to draw non Jews to temples, and not Jesus from the Gospels. Like in Romans 11 I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written: 'Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.' 'And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.'

Paul seems to be talking about the coming of a future "Deliverer", but he makes no mention at all of Jesus here. If Jesus had just been here then why is Paul talking about old scriptures instead of Jesus Christ, who had just been here?

Furthermore, in Philippians 3, 20 Paul says that they are expecting a Savior from heaven, which is Jesus. He doesn't say that they are expecting him to come back again or anything like that, but that they are expecting a Savior from heaven for the first time. "But our commonwealth is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ."

Indeed, Paul's main preoccupation in his epistles was that it was not necessary to follow the "Law" of Judaism, particularly circumcision and dietary observation, but that a "new covenant" had been established, which was based on "faith". He declares that the "promise" made by God to Abraham existed before the "law." ("If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring and heirs according to the promise.") But, honestly, who really cares? Jesus never said anything about any of this stuff, but Paul never concerns himself with Jesus' teachings; his goal is to get Gentiles into the church, and the only way that he can justify such radical action is with his faith trumps-law argument.

Please read the whole of Jeremiah 31, because Matthew is using this verse as a kind of tag for the whole thing.

You read it and you'll see there is no mention of Jesus there, nor Herod's slaughter of the innocents -- it's all in the heads of Christian readers who are using the technique of "wishful thinking".

[Greatest I am]

Given the detail that Paul goes into to show that Jesus' death and resurrection is completely in line with the OT narrative, I can't agree. Jesus was very clear also that this process is the fulfilment of the Torah. The Gospel writers also are careful in their commentary to show continuity with the OT story. Could you unpack your reasoning?

The Torah is just commentary to the Jewish saying of Do unto others.

To read it literally is not what Jews do.

Nowhere in scriptures is it written that a god can die. If Jesus did not stay dead, there was no sacrifice.

The reasoning I use is moral reasoning and scapegoating is a full fledged immoral practice.
 
If you wish to believe that Jesus would be such an immoral prick as to ask us to do the wrong thing, I think you are wrong.
 
Not that Jesus ever existed.

Regards
DL

---

So much of the Bible is to not be taken literally that none of it should.

I see a few bits that I can use literally, but agree in principle.

Regards
DL

[Vicki Q]

Let's just say that Matthew and Luke gave two different genealogies which are not evidence of anything. They maybe want to correspond to Jesus story with OT, but then again they likely reflect the political allegiances of the authors.

They are very good evidence of the wish to tie Jesus into the OT meta-narrative. In the C1 Jewish world this was the equivalent of a fanfare and a town crier calling for attention. I agree totally this was also a political statement, because this was tying Jesus into the royal family- and Herod's approach to family members was well known.

What Paul is doing is trying to tie mystical religions and many of the practices, such as baptism and sacred meals (probably even the mysteries of Mithras where he "introduces an image of a resurrection") with Judaism which were already in use among the mystery religions in the Greco-Roman world to draw non Jews to temples, and not Jesus from the Gospels.

Baptism was properly instituted by John the Baptist (Josephus), and Jewish Chavurah fellowship meals were well established, so Paul didn't introduce them to Judaism, which is where Christianity got them from without any pagan influence. The whole Mithras theory has long been discredited in academic circles.

Like in Romans 11...Paul seems to be talking about the coming of a future "Deliverer", but he makes no mention at all of Jesus here. If Jesus had just been here then why is Paul talking about old scriptures instead of Jesus Christ, who had just been here?

?He's quoting a prophecy from the past, which was referring to Jesus as the deliverer, also in the (more recent) past. I really can't see your point here.

 
Furthermore, in Philippians 3, 20 Paul says that they are expecting a Savior from heaven, which is Jesus. He doesn't say that they are expecting him to come back again or anything like that, but that they are expecting a Savior from heaven for the first time. "But our commonwealth is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ."

?Why do you think this isn't about Jesus' return? Paul is using the Roman colonies in Greece as a metaphor for the Church as colonies of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth; eventually all the earth will become one giant colony when Jesus returns; that's what he is saying.

 
He declares that the "promise" made by God to Abraham existed before the "law." ("If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring and heirs according to the promise.") But, honestly, who really cares? Jesus never said anything about any of this stuff,  

Jesus repeatedly ties himself into the OT meta-narrative in general and Abraham in particular. For examples, Matthew 8:11; Luke 13:28; Luke 16:29,30; John 8:39,40; John 8:56

 but Paul never concerns himself with Jesus' teachings; his goal is to get Gentiles into the church, and the only way that he can justify such radical action is with his faith trumps-law argument.

 

What is your evidence for this claim?

Why would Paul bother to “get Gentiles into the church” if the church wasn't following Jesus' teachings? He was getting completely and repeatedly mashed for doing this (2 Corinthians 11)

Why then does Paul use Jesus' teaching as normative against his own e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:10,12 “I give this command (not I, but the Lord)” vs “To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)”

Be aware that when Paul talks about 'faith' in Jesus, the image he's giving is of a soldier wearing a uniform- obeying his CO's orders.

You read it and you'll see there is no mention of Jesus there, nor Herod's slaughter of the innocents -- it's all in the heads of Christian readers who are using the technique of "wishful thinking".

I can't have explained things at all well. I'll have another go.
Jeremiah 31 is an immensely important passage. It talks about the suffering of the Jewish nation, including the deaths of Jewish children. However it also talks about how the Jewish nation will be forgiven, and the Kingdom of God will arrive. This Kingdom will be completely different to earlier versions, will involve a new relationship between God and His people, and this change will be permanent.
Now Jesus did inaugurate the Kingdom of God, establish a new relationship between God and His people, and it was in a permanent way. Matthew is looking at the Slaughter of the Innocents (BTW historically entirely in line with Herod's MO), and pointing out that Jeremiah talked about the coming together of the deaths of Jewish children and the inauguration of God's Kingdom.

What is fascinating is how the Early Church felt able to say that the Jeremiah prophecies had come true in Jesus, given his complete failure to achieve anything.

[Fake Messiah]

They are very good evidence of the wish to tie Jesus into the OT meta-narrative.

Wow, two conflicting genealogies about the same guy are a "good evidence".

Baptism was properly instituted by John the Baptist (Josephus),

Oh so that was proper, unlike those pagan baptisms which were improper. BTW it's not Josephus but Iōánnēs, you know very similar to Oannes the dipper whose priests were baptizing people.

The whole Mithras theory has long been discredited in academic circles.

Sure, Jan.