Accusation that Jesus was serving the devil

[cloudyday2]

Seriously? My answer would be "no" to your first question above.

To be honest your answer of "no" left me at a loss for words. That Christianity was distinct from other religions such as Judaism and Hellenistic (pagan) religions in its indifference to the current world in preference for a future world seemed pretty obvious to me. I recently watched a series of Great Courses lectures by Kenneth W. Harl ("Great Ancient Civilizations of Asia Minor") and this was a point he emphasized in one lecture. He said that most Hellenes expected their religious practices to reap practical benefits in the current world. Even most Jews hoped that obedience to the Law of Moses would reap rewards (so that it was assumed that a man born blind was being punished for somebody's sin). Christianity was entirely focused on a future world after some great cataclysmic war between good and evil. Christianity was the religion that idolized martyrs, that encouraged celibacy, that called itself "the poor", etc.

What does the "Parable of the Pearl" mean to you? I looked up this verse in Geza Vermes' "Authentic Gospel of Jesus", and he evaluated the verse to be likely an authentic saying of Jesus. (@FireDragon76 in his post above made an excellent point about the need to distinguish the theology of Jesus from the later generations of Christians, but according to Vermes this parable was from Jesus.)
Parable of the Pearl - Wikipedia

I wonder if you misunderstood what I was saying and that is why you said "no", or maybe what seems obvious to me isn't true? Hopefully you can clarify what you meant. I guess there are many different spins on Christianity, and maybe I am not seeing the others.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To be honest your answer of "no" left me at a loss for words. That Christianity was distinct from other religions such as Judaism and Hellenistic (pagan) religions in its indifference to the current world in preference for a future world seemed pretty obvious to me. I recently watched a series of Great Courses lectures by Kenneth W. Harl ("Great Ancient Civilizations of Asia Minor") and this was a point he emphasized in one lecture. He said that most Hellenes expected their religious practices to reap practical benefits in the current world. Even most Jews hoped that obedience to the Law of Moses would reap rewards (so that it was assumed that a man born blind was being punished for somebody's sin). Christianity was entirely focused on a future world after some great cataclysmic war between good and evil. Christianity was the religion that idolized martyrs, that encouraged celibacy, that called itself "the poor", etc.

What does the "Parable of the Pearl" mean to you? I looked up this verse in Geza Vermes' "Authentic Gospel of Jesus", and he evaluated the verse to be likely an authentic saying of Jesus. (@FireDragon76 in his post above made an excellent point about the need to distinguish the theology of Jesus from the later generations of Christians, but according to Vermes this parable was from Jesus.)
Parable of the Pearl - Wikipedia

I wonder if you misunderstood what I was saying and that is why you said "no", or maybe what seems obvious to me isn't true? Hopefully you can clarify what you meant. I guess there are many different spins on Christianity, and maybe I am not seeing the others.

By "no," I mean to say that I don't think Jesus meant for Christians to adopt some kind of ascetic indifference to the world. But even if there is at least some amount of expected "withdrawal" from the world Christians are supposed to make the effort to achieve........................and I use the term "withdrawal" loosely .........................this doesn't mean they are supposed to also avoid any kind of social activism. And ironically, this is inferred somewhat by Jesus quote from the Old Testament where he says, "The poor you will always have among you."

What does this mean for Christians? If it means one thing, it doesn't mean passively sitting at home sobbing, shrugging their shoulders and simply decrying the "state of the world" around us, such as it is.

 

[cloudyday2]

By "no," I mean to say that I don't think Jesus meant for Christians to adopt some kind of ascetic indifference to the world. But even if there is at least some amount of expected "withdrawal" from the world Christians are supposed to make the effort to achieve........................and I use the term "withdrawal" loosely .........................this doesn't mean they are supposed to also avoid any kind of social activism. And ironically, this is inferred somewhat by Jesus quote from the Old Testament where he says, "The poor you will always have among you."

What does this mean for Christians? If it means one thing, it doesn't mean passively sitting at home sobbing, shrugging their shoulders and simply decrying the "state of the world" around us, such as it is.

O.k. let me give you an analogy. Let's say you are making sandwiches to feed the hungry. There are millions of hungry, so you might devote your entire life to making sandwiches, and then you would have no time to read the bible or attend worship services. The Sabbath was partly to highlight the necessity of rest, but it was also to highlight the necessity of Torah study, prayer, worship, etc. Let's say Jesus came in to a synagogue with his boisterous disciples and began noisily making sandwiches to feed the hungry. What's that saying? It's saying screw the Torah study, prayer, worship, etc. All we need is sandwiches. Man lives on bread alone. God is unnecessary unless he wants to help us make sandwiches to feed the hungry.

You can hardly blame the Pharisees for wondering if Jesus was serving the devil.

BTW, as I'm sure you know, when Jesus said, "the poor you will always have among you", he was rebuking Judas for criticizing the woman who poured expensive perfume on Jesus rather than selling the perfume and giving the money to charity. The activities of the synagogue might seem like a waste of time to people who only care about healing the sick and feeding the hungry, but God said they were important enough for everybody to reserve one day per week.

And, I don't mean to disagree only for the sake of disagreeing. As you mentioned, there is that "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" as well. Perhaps seeking God in the Torah is a little bit silly when He is physically present at your synagogue in the person of Jesus. I'm not certain what Jesus meant by saying "the Sabbath was made for man". Of course it was made for man. The Law of Moses was made for man. That doesn't mean the Law of Moses should be pushed aside casually. Jesus could have easily told any sick people to wait until the day after the Sabbath, but he didn't. He chose to be confrontational for some reason.

 

[FireDragon76]

O.k. let me give you an analogy. Let's say you are making sandwiches to feed the hungry. There are millions of hungry, so you might devote your entire life to making sandwiches, and then you would have no time to read the bible or attend worship services. The Sabbath was partly to highlight the necessity of rest, but it was also to highlight the necessity of Torah study, prayer, worship, etc. Let's say Jesus came in to a synagogue with his boisterous disciples and began noisily making sandwiches to feed the hungry. What's that saying? It's saying screw the Torah study, prayer, worship, etc. All we need is sandwiches. Man lives on bread alone. God is unnecessary unless he wants to help us make sandwiches to feed the hungry.

I don't think that's what Jesus was doing at all. Jesus was a religious person and participated in Jewish religion. What he did not do is turn that into an idol that circumscribed his response to human need.

The scribes and pharisees were not sincere, good hearted, well meaning people. They resented potential threats to their power, and sought to entrap Jesus because of it based on logic that they themselves would never want to live by, as Jesus himself demonstrated.

You can hardly blame the Pharisees for wondering if Jesus was serving the devil.

Sure you can. Healing is never wrong. Alleviating suffering is never wrong. Yet the pharisees criticized this, proving they were blind spiritually.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

O.k. let me give you an analogy. Let's say you are making sandwiches to feed the hungry. There are millions of hungry, so you might devote your entire life to making sandwiches, and then you would have no time to read the bible or attend worship services. The Sabbath was partly to highlight the necessity of rest, but it was also to highlight the necessity of Torah study, prayer, worship, etc. Let's say Jesus came in to a synagogue with his boisterous disciples and began noisily making sandwiches to feed the hungry. What's that saying? It's saying screw the Torah study, prayer, worship, etc. All we need is sandwiches. Man lives on bread alone. God is unnecessary unless he wants to help us make sandwiches to feed the hungry.

You can hardly blame the Pharisees for wondering if Jesus was serving the devil.

BTW, as I'm sure you know, when Jesus said, "the poor you will always have among you", he was rebuking Judas for criticizing the woman who poured expensive perfume on Jesus rather than selling the perfume and giving the money to charity. The activities of the synagogue might seem like a waste of time to people who only care about healing the sick and feeding the hungry, but God said they were important enough for everybody to reserve one day per week.

And, I don't mean to disagree only for the sake of disagreeing. As you mentioned, there is that "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" as well. Perhaps seeking God in the Torah is a little bit silly when He is physically present at your synagogue in the person of Jesus. I'm not certain what Jesus meant by saying "the Sabbath was made for man". Of course it was made for man. The Law of Moses was made for man. That doesn't mean the Law of Moses should be pushed aside casually. Jesus could have easily told any sick people to wait until the day after the Sabbath, but he didn't. He chose to be confrontational for some reason.

I think I get what you're saying, but I wouldn't say that making Sandwiches to feed the starving on the Sabbath would be also saying "Screw the Torah." Jesus explained more than once to the Pharisees (and to the Scribes and Sadducees) that they had either added to the Torah themselves or had misunderstood some of the spirit of the Torah when they read it and they thereby mis-approppriated various principles within it.

To say that Jesus flouted the understanding of the Torah that was then held by religious leaders isn't truly to say that Jesus flouted the Torah.

As far as Jesus' address to Judas over the money spent on "perfume," Jesus was essentially telling Judas, "Why yes, go ahead and let her spend that money on me, at least just this once!" One would think that if Jesus was wanting everyone to conserve for specific, non-personal purposes in ALL and EVERY case of life, like some ascetic person, He'd have said, "Hold the the bus, Missy! You take that nard (or whatever it was back) back to the shop, get a refund and then give the money to the poor. But no, He didn't say that to Judas ...

And you know what's interesting to me about this little te-tif that Jesus has with Judas? It's that it's not only in the Synoptics, but it's also in the Gospel of John.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

O.k. let me give you an analogy. Let's say you are making sandwiches to feed the hungry. There are millions of hungry, so you might devote your entire life to making sandwiches, and then you would have no time to read the bible or attend worship services. The Sabbath was partly to highlight the necessity of rest, but it was also to highlight the necessity of Torah study, prayer, worship, etc. Let's say Jesus came in to a synagogue with his boisterous disciples and began noisily making sandwiches to feed the hungry. What's that saying? It's saying screw the Torah study, prayer, worship, etc. All we need is sandwiches. Man lives on bread alone. God is unnecessary unless he wants to help us make sandwiches to feed the hungry.

You can hardly blame the Pharisees for wondering if Jesus was serving the devil.

BTW, as I'm sure you know, when Jesus said, "the poor you will always have among you", he was rebuking Judas for criticizing the woman who poured expensive perfume on Jesus rather than selling the perfume and giving the money to charity. The activities of the synagogue might seem like a waste of time to people who only care about healing the sick and feeding the hungry, but God said they were important enough for everybody to reserve one day per week.

And, I don't mean to disagree only for the sake of disagreeing. As you mentioned, there is that "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" as well. Perhaps seeking God in the Torah is a little bit silly when He is physically present at your synagogue in the person of Jesus. I'm not certain what Jesus meant by saying "the Sabbath was made for man". Of course it was made for man. The Law of Moses was made for man. That doesn't mean the Law of Moses should be pushed aside casually. Jesus could have easily told any sick people to wait until the day after the Sabbath, but he didn't. He chose to be confrontational for some reason.

And what do you think that reason for being "confrontational" was? That Jesus was working for Satan? Yeah, I think that's a very, very hard one for me to believe, Cloudy. Sorry, my friend, but that's just too edgy, even for me.

 

[cloudyday2]

And what do you think that reason for being "confrontational" was? That Jesus was working for Satan? Yeah, I think that's a very, very hard one for me to believe, Cloudy. Sorry, my friend, but that's just too edgy, even for me.

Here is a thought. Imagine that Jesus was essentially possessed by the Holy Spirit when he performed miracles. Jesus went into the synagogue without any intention of starting a ruckus, but then an odd dissociative feeling came over him as he watched himself almost being led by the hand of the Holy Spirit to a moment in time when it seemed that this healing or exorcism was God's will and must happen right then and there regardless. So it wasn't Jesus being confrontational but the Holy Spirit. As a prophet, Jesus had a duty to follow the lead of the Holy Spirit.

Imagining the story this way makes Jesus' remark about "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" seem more sensible.

 

[cloudyday2]

And you know what's interesting to me about this little te-tif that Jesus has with Judas? It's that it's not only in the Synoptics, but it's also in the Gospel of John.

This makes me wonder if this story of the woman anointing Jesus was part of the "Passion Narrative" ( The Passion Narrative ) that some imagine as an earlier source used by the gospel writers. ... If Jesus was crucified as "king of the Jews" then he needed to be anointed. This woman anointed Jesus. Did she anoint him as the Messiah? This might explain why Judas objected to the anointing and later betrayed Jesus. Maybe in reality Judas objected to the foolhardiness of this brazen act of sedition against Roman authority rather than the waste of money. That would explain why Judas decided to betray Jesus - he wanted to protect himself from being crucified along with Jesus.

 

[drich0150]

Most people are familiar with the scene in the synoptic gospels when the opponents of Jesus suggested that he was serving the devil and that was why his miracles often challenged a strict interpretation of the Jewish Law. Jesus responded according to Mark 3:23-27 RSV as follows:
'23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.'
Bible Gateway passage: Mark 3:23-27 - Revised Standard Version

Does this seem like a very weak argument to anybody else? Modern Christians routinely accuse miracle workers from other religions of serving the devil (knowingly or unknowingly). Empowering a false messiah to perform miracles in a way that would lead the Jews to disobey the Jewish Law would be a natural strategy for the devil. The expected behavior of the Antichrist is an example of this strategy. In our modern world the strategy is called a "false flag" quoting from Wikipedia:
'A false flag is a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility. ... The term today extends beyond naval encounters to include countries that organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression and foreign military aggression.'
( False flag - Wikipedia )

Any thoughts? It seems to me that Jesus could have responded better.

I would also be interested in discussing better responses that Jesus might have given. Maybe there isn't any better response. It seems that there should be a better response, but nothing is coming to mind yet.

This is only a weak or false flag argument if you are not in the position to see and understand the completed work.

Jesus changed the paradigm of righteousness from being a works based/follow the law which no one could do, (meaning this is the ideal form of winning righteousness for satan as most will fail) to an atonement based form of obtaining righteousness. IE it is a gift from God that no one deserves.

What Jesus said speaks directly to this and not so much what the pharisees where charging him with. because in the end when everything was said and done, All that Christ did, took Satan's game of morality and made it obsolete.

With that in mind look at the statement again 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.'

The works of Christ in total was making God's house the house of the stronger man. It did not serve satan to give Jesus power if Christ was indeed following the will of the father as again this would take Satan's greatest asset and devalue it. when it was replaced by atonement.

The pharisees wanted to attribute the works of Christ to satan so they could pretend to remain the 'moral example' but by undermining the 'moral' examples of the pharisees Jesus changed righteousness from what the pharisees taught and model a righteousness greater than that of the pharisees.. That righteousness came from atonement He offered as the supreme sacrifice/lamb of God.

So for them/pharisees to say. His/Jesus power came from satan was to assume their/pharisees deeds represented God. So conversely if you can see anything they did being in violation of God and or his law, then the pharisees were indeed not on God's side. and only further what Jesus said about a house divided. IE God and the Jewish leadership where a house divided.

 

[cloudyday2]

This is only a weak or false flag argument if you are not in the position to see and understand the completed work.

Jesus changed the paradigm of righteousness from being a works based/follow the law which no one could do, (meaning this is the ideal form of winning righteousness for satan as most will fail) to an atonement based form of obtaining righteousness. IE it is a gift from God that no one deserves.

What Jesus said speaks directly to this and not so much what the pharisees where charging him with. because in the end when everything was said and done, All that Christ did, took Satan's game of morality and made it obsolete.

With that in mind look at the statement again 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.'

The works of Christ in total was making God's house the house of the stronger man. It did not serve satan to give Jesus power if Christ was indeed following the will of the father as again this would take Satan's greatest asset and devalue it. when it was replaced by atonement.

The pharisees wanted to attribute the works of Christ to satan so they could pretend to remain the 'moral example' but by undermining the 'moral' examples of the pharisees Jesus changed righteousness from what the pharisees taught and model a righteousness greater than that of the pharisees.. That righteousness came from atonement He offered as the supreme sacrifice/lamb of God.

So for them/pharisees to say. His/Jesus power came from satan was to assume their/pharisees deeds represented God. So conversely if you can see anything they did being in violation of God and or his law, then the pharisees were indeed not on God's side. and only further what Jesus said about a house divided. IE God and the Jewish leadership where a house divided.

Thanks for the detailed reply. To be honest, I can't follow some of it, but I suspect that is due to my unfamiliarity with some of the theological thinking that is assumed.

Here is a question you might answer. You say that atonement was an innovation of Christianity that wasn't present in Judaism, but is that actually true? In the OT, a person who broke the Law of Moses could make a sacrifice at the Temple as an admission of guilt, beginning step towards repentance, and atonement. The innovation of Christianity was the belief that the Crucifixion of Jesus was somehow a one-time sacrifice for all people and for all sins past and future. Another innovation of Christianity was the idea that it was a sin to be human - that humans were so vile that they needed to atone for their very existence. And a third innovation might be the idea that it was a sin to have even wished to sin regardless of whether you acted-on that wish or not.

 

[FireDragon76]

This makes me wonder if this story of the woman anointing Jesus was part of the "Passion Narrative" ( The Passion Narrative ) that some imagine as an earlier source used by the gospel writers. ... If Jesus was crucified as "king of the Jews" then he needed to be anointed. This woman anointed Jesus. Did she anoint him as the Messiah? This might explain why Judas objected to the anointing and later betrayed Jesus. Maybe in reality Judas objected to the foolhardiness of this brazen act of sedition against Roman authority rather than the waste of money. That would explain why Judas decided to betray Jesus - he wanted to protect himself from being crucified along with Jesus.

In the narrative, Jesus himself indicates why he is being anointed, it's for his death, reminiscent of the Jewish custom of perfuming the body of the dead.

 

[drich0150]

Thanks for the detailed reply. To be honest, I can't follow some of it, but I suspect that is due to my unfamiliarity with some of the theological thinking that is assumed.

Here is a question you might answer. You say that atonement was an innovation of Christianity that wasn't present in Judaism, but is that actually true?

If you divide the word into works of atonement through blood sacrifice Moses provided though animals and did an apples to oranges comparison what Jesus offer, meaning a one time perpetual perfect sacrifice yes. You can say the word atonement can be used here to include the OT.

In the OT, a person who broke the Law of Moses could make a sacrifice at the Temple as an admission of guilt, beginning step towards repentance, and atonement.

this is in conflict with hebrews 10
The law gave us only an unclear picture of the good things coming in the future. The law is not a perfect picture of the real things. The law tells people to offer the same sacrifices every year. Those who come to worship God continue to offer those sacrifices. But the law can never make them perfect. 2 If the law could make people perfect, those sacrifices would have already stopped. They would already be clean from their sins, and they would not still feel guilty. 3 But that’s not what happens. Their sacrifices make them remember their sins every year, 4 because it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5 So when Christ came into the world he said,

“You don’t want sacrifices and offerings,
but you have prepared a body for me.
6 You are not pleased with the sacrifices of animals killed and burned
or with offerings to take away sins.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am, God.
It is written about me in the book of the law.
I have come to do what you want.’”A)" data-cr="#cen-ERV-29771A" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">

8 Christ first said, “You don’t want sacrifices and offerings. You are not pleased with animals killed and burned or with sacrifices to take away sin.” (These are all sacrifices that the law commands.) 9 Then he said, “Here I am, God. I have come to do what you want.” So God ends that first system of sacrifices and starts his new way. 10 Jesus Christ did the things God wanted him to do. And because of that, we are made holy through the sacrifice of Christ’s body. Christ made that sacrifice one time—enough for all time.
11 Every day the priests stand and do their religious service. Again and again they offer the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But Christ offered only one sacrifice for sins, and that sacrifice is good for all time. Then he sat down at the right side of God. 13 And now Christ waits there for his enemies to be put under his power. 14 With one sacrifice Christ made his people perfect forever. They are the ones who are being made holy.

15 The Holy Spirit also tells us about this. First he says,

16 “This is the agreement I will make
with my people in the future, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts.
I will write my laws in their minds.”B)" data-cr="#cen-ERV-29780B" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">

17 Then he says,

“I will forget their sins
and never again remember the evil they have done.”C)" data-cr="#cen-ERV-29781C" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">

18 And after everything is forgiven, there is no more need for a sacrifice to pay for sins.

The innovation of Christianity was the belief that the Crucifixion of Jesus was somehow a one-time sacrifice for all people and for all sins past and future. Another innovation of Christianity was the idea that it was a sin to be human - that humans were so vile that they needed to atone for their very existence. And a third innovation might be the idea that it was a sin to have even wished to sin regardless of whether you acted-on that wish or not.

Heb 10 tells us the animals were never enough they where place holders/reminders of the cost.
So yes Christianity introduces a one time sacrifice Jesus makes.

Christianity/The bible does not say it is a sin to be human. it say all humans (man sins.) They you should ask how old one needed to be to be considered a man in that first century church. As sin is identified as a conscious decision. that is what the tree of knowledge of Good and evil was about. Giving man the knowledge of sin and subsequently the responsibility for it.

I will not argue that later generation added it is a sin to be a man but again, no where in the bible does it say this. the idea is a doctrinal one most can not agree on.

 

[cloudyday2]

If you divide the word into works of atonement through blood sacrifice Moses provided though animals and did an apples to oranges comparison what Jesus offer, meaning a one time perpetual perfect sacrifice yes. You can say the word atonement can be used here to include the OT.

this is in conflict with hebrews 10
The law gave us only an unclear picture of the good things coming in the future. The law is not a perfect picture of the real things. The law tells people to offer the same sacrifices every year. Those who come to worship God continue to offer those sacrifices. But the law can never make them perfect. 2 If the law could make people perfect, those sacrifices would have already stopped. They would already be clean from their sins, and they would not still feel guilty. 3 But that’s not what happens. Their sacrifices make them remember their sins every year, 4 because it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5 So when Christ came into the world he said,

“You don’t want sacrifices and offerings,
but you have prepared a body for me.
6 You are not pleased with the sacrifices of animals killed and burned
or with offerings to take away sins.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am, God.
It is written about me in the book of the law.
I have come to do what you want.’”A)" data-cr="#cen-ERV-29771A" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">

8 Christ first said, “You don’t want sacrifices and offerings. You are not pleased with animals killed and burned or with sacrifices to take away sin.” (These are all sacrifices that the law commands.) 9 Then he said, “Here I am, God. I have come to do what you want.” So God ends that first system of sacrifices and starts his new way. 10 Jesus Christ did the things God wanted him to do. And because of that, we are made holy through the sacrifice of Christ’s body. Christ made that sacrifice one time—enough for all time.
11 Every day the priests stand and do their religious service. Again and again they offer the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But Christ offered only one sacrifice for sins, and that sacrifice is good for all time. Then he sat down at the right side of God. 13 And now Christ waits there for his enemies to be put under his power. 14 With one sacrifice Christ made his people perfect forever. They are the ones who are being made holy.

15 The Holy Spirit also tells us about this. First he says,

16 “This is the agreement I will make
with my people in the future, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts.
I will write my laws in their minds.”B)" data-cr="#cen-ERV-29780B" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">

17 Then he says,

“I will forget their sins
and never again remember the evil they have done.”C)" data-cr="#cen-ERV-29781C" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">

18 And after everything is forgiven, there is no more need for a sacrifice to pay for sins.




Heb 10 tells us the animals were never enough they where place holders/reminders of the cost.
So yes Christianity introduces a one time sacrifice Jesus makes.

Christianity/The bible does not say it is a sin to be human. it say all humans (man sins.) They you should ask how old one needed to be to be considered a man in that first century church. As sin is identified as a conscious decision. that is what the tree of knowledge of Good and evil was about. Giving man the knowledge of sin and subsequently the responsibility for it.

I will not argue that later generation added it is a sin to be a man but again, no where in the bible does it say this. the idea is a doctrinal one most can not agree on.

Another important distinction between OT and NT ideas on sin is this:

In the OT there was a Covenant with God. God had delivered the Israelites from Egypt into the Promised Land (promised to their ancestor Abraham), and in return the Israelites were supposed to remember God by adhering to practices that distinguished them from surrounding cultures (dietary practices, clothing practices, kindness to foreigners living among them, etc.). The Sabbath was one day per week reserved to remember God and all He had done for the Israelites.

It was not impossible for a person to follow the Law of Moses perfectly (unless I am missing something). A person didn't need to be morally perfect to follow the Law of Moses, and sins were not necessarily evil actions. Eating pork was not evil, but it was sinful.

In the NT the definition of "sin" changed. Sin became an act of evil, and a person could not satisfy the NT ideals without being morally perfect. A person would spend their life singing "mea culpa" for any morally imperfect thought or deed. A one-time solution such as Jesus became necessary.

I'm getting sleepy, and I can't remember where this was going. ... Why wouldn't a false Messiah perform benevolent miracles in an effort to lead the faithful astray?

 

[FireDragon76]

Another important distinction between OT and NT ideas on sin is this:

In the OT there was a Covenant with God. God had delivered the Israelites from Egypt into the Promised Land (promised to their ancestor Abraham), and in return the Israelites were supposed to remember God by adhering to practices that distinguished them from surrounding cultures (dietary practices, clothing practices, kindness to foreigners living among them, etc.). The Sabbath was one day per week reserved to remember God and all He had done for the Israelites.

It was not impossible for a person to follow the Law of Moses perfectly (unless I am missing something). A person didn't need to be morally perfect to follow the Law of Moses, and sins were not necessarily evil actions. Eating pork was not evil, but it was sinful.

In the NT the definition of "sin" changed. Sin became an act of evil, and a person could not satisfy the NT ideals without being morally perfect. A person would spend their life singing "mea culpa" for any morally imperfect thought or deed. A one-time solution such as Jesus became necessary.

I'm getting sleepy, and I can't remember where this was going. ... Why wouldn't a false Messiah perform benevolent miracles in an effort to lead the faithful astray?

Why would a false messiah have spiritual power to do so? If a false messiah has that kind of power over life, then God wouldn't be who he says he is.

 

[Sketcher]

Most people are familiar with the scene in the synoptic gospels when the opponents of Jesus suggested that he was serving the devil and that was why his miracles often challenged a strict interpretation of the Jewish Law. Jesus responded according to Mark 3:23-27 RSV as follows:
'23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.'
Bible Gateway passage: Mark 3:23-27 - Revised Standard Version

Does this seem like a very weak argument to anybody else? Modern Christians routinely accuse miracle workers from other religions of serving the devil (knowingly or unknowingly). Empowering a false messiah to perform miracles in a way that would lead the Jews to disobey the Jewish Law would be a natural strategy for the devil. The expected behavior of the Antichrist is an example of this strategy. In our modern world the strategy is called a "false flag" quoting from Wikipedia:
'A false flag is a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility. ... The term today extends beyond naval encounters to include countries that organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression and foreign military aggression.'
( False flag - Wikipedia )

Any thoughts? It seems to me that Jesus could have responded better.

I would also be interested in discussing better responses that Jesus might have given. Maybe there isn't any better response. It seems that there should be a better response, but nothing is coming to mind yet.

Matthew's version gives us more, which the "false flag" argument fails to account for.

"And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." - Matthew 12:27-28

Contemporary Jewish teachers also did exorcisms. Yet, they would have always attributed those exorcisms to God. But when Jesus got equal or better results with his exorcisms, all of a sudden they were saying it was from the devil. If Jesus's exorcisms were deceptions from the devil, then how could anyone who ascribed the other Jewish exorcisms to God's power do so? In both cases, the supernatural actor was unseen. In both cases, the people praised God when they saw the results. If we're going to be generous to the Jewish exorcists, the people they helped got better and didn't get worse again, just like with the people Jesus helped. If that was enough to credit the Jewish exorcists with driving them out through the finger of God - though they would invoke the devil's name directly in doing so - it should have been enough to credit Jesus with driving them out through the finger of God as well.

And if that's not enough for anyone, they would also have to agree with the Pharisees on everything that Jesus disagreed with them on, including and especially what they taught about the Sabbath, and ceremonial washing. I'm not talking about liberal Jewish levels of dealing with those issues today, I'm talking about the onerous levels of what it meant to keep the Sabbath and what it meant to remain ceremonially clean back in Jesus's day. They made the accusation of witchcraft based on these disagreements, so if anyone is going to buy their accusation, they have to agree with them on these other matters as well, and bind themselves to them.

 

[cloudyday2]

Why would a false messiah have spiritual power to do so? If a false messiah has that kind of power over life, then God wouldn't be who he says he is.

Well, in the case of an exorcism it is easy. The false Messiah gives the demons the secret handshake, and then he makes a show of "forcing" the demons to leave, and then the demons come out of the person whining about how they know this is the "holy one of God", and then the false Messiah modestly tells the demons to be silent.

In the case of an illness, this is also fairly easy. In that time many illnesses were attributes to demons, so curing an illness was the same as an exorcism.

On the issue of power, why shouldn't the devil have power to do both good and evil? Doesn't the devil have freewill? How scary can the devil be if he can't do anything? And sometimes a good deed can serve an evil end.

 

[drich0150]

Another important distinction between OT and NT ideas on sin is this:

In the OT there was a Covenant with God. God had delivered the Israelites from Egypt into the Promised Land (promised to their ancestor Abraham), and in return the Israelites were supposed to remember God by adhering to practices that distinguished them from surrounding cultures (dietary practices, clothing practices, kindness to foreigners living among them, etc.). The Sabbath was one day per week reserved to remember God and all He had done for the Israelites. It was not impossible for a person to follow the Law of Moses perfectly (unless I am missing something).

if it where not impossible to live perfectly then why the advent of the atonement sacrifice with animals? Why was Christ heralded to be so special? why was he the only sinless sacrifice that could have taken away the sins of the world?

Why does the Gospels identify John the baptist as the most righteous man on the planet at the time? and He himself said he was not even worthy enough to untie the shoes of Jesus? That Jesus should be baptising him rather than he baptising jesus? Why did Jesus ask any more of the rich young ruler inorder for him to be a disciple?

The fact of the matter was the law made it easy to fool one's self into thinking they where holy when evil could perminate their souls. The pharisees where perfect examples of this. Which again is why Jesus railed on them without mercy and used very harsh and disparaging words against them without shame all the time!

A person didn't need to be morally perfect to follow the Law of Moses, and sins were not necessarily evil actions. Eating pork was not evil, but it was sinful.

I think you are confusing the pop culture understanding of the word moral against the actual defination.
mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
   • a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

In this case the literal moral law of the OT is the "paticular system of values and principles of conduct held by the entire Jewish kingdom"
So yeah... One had to be "morally perfect" As moral perfection was 1/3 of the Jewish covenant/laws.

In the NT the definition of "sin" changed. Sin became an act of evil, and a person could not satisfy the NT ideals without being morally perfect. A person would spend their life singing "mea culpa" for any morally imperfect thought or deed. A one-time solution such as Jesus became necessary.

book chapter and verse that says all sin is evil?

Jesus himself makes 2 seperate distinctions between sin and evil in mat 12 and mat 16 Referring to two types of people wanting to see signs and wonders sinful men and evil men.
In fact According to Paul in Romans 8 not all sin is evil. in fact he separates sin from evil in that we are all slaves to sin, he identifies we in this form are the embodiment of sin, but where evil comes in is to embrace and love that sin. We are forgiven those sins if we learn to hate and repent of those sins.

Paul even says there is no hope for him as a sinner as he is powerless to do the good he knows he should do, but rather does the sinful thing instead. But because the new man in him hates that sin, he is redeemable by Christ. because the new man is not evil enven though we are slaves to sin.

I'm getting sleepy, and I can't remember where this was going. ... Why wouldn't a false Messiah perform benevolent miracles in an effort to lead the faithful astray?

Jesus' implied answer would work here as well.. look down the road and see why this prophet is doing all that he does.. Does it help the body or does it destroy the body. If helping people out in a benevolent miraculous way destroys families faith and lives is it a work of God? If giving a poor family a billion dollars has the husband cheat the kids on drugs and the wife loose her mind would that lottery ticket be a benevolent deed, even if it seemed so?

If a false prophet does work to actually bring people to Jesus/god repentance and faith, then is he then a false prophet?

It is not the signs and wonders that should be judged but the reason and the results of the message. that is what a house divided means.. Doing good here need to also do good in the long term/bring people to God.ex: If doing good here also destroys an obstacle between people and God it is a good deed and represents a house united. As This is the ultimate reason for the gospel..

However if doing a good deed here and now destroys faith later is it then a good deed? Helping now destroying later would be an example of a divided house. as God is more concerned with your eternal 'later' than your current comfort level now.

 

[cloudyday2]

if it where not impossible to live perfectly then why the advent of the atonement sacrifice with animals? Why was Christ heralded to be so special? why was he the only sinless sacrifice that could have taken away the sins of the world?

Why does the Gospels identify John the baptist as the most righteous man on the planet at the time? and He himself said he was not even worthy enough to untie the shoes of Jesus? That Jesus should be baptising him rather than he baptising jesus? Why did Jesus ask any more of the rich young ruler inorder for him to be a disciple?

The fact of the matter was the law made it easy to fool one's self into thinking they where holy when evil could perminate their souls. The pharisees where perfect examples of this. Which again is why Jesus railed on them without mercy and used very harsh and disparaging words against them without shame all the time!

I think you are confusing the pop culture understanding of the word moral against the actual defination.
mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
   • a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

In this case the literal moral law of the OT is the "paticular system of values and principles of conduct held by the entire Jewish kingdom"
So yeah... One had to be "morally perfect" As moral perfection was 1/3 of the Jewish covenant/laws.

book chapter and verse that says all sin is evil?

Jesus himself makes 2 seperate distinctions between sin and evil in mat 12 and mat 16 Referring to two types of people wanting to see signs and wonders sinful men and evil men.
In fact According to Paul in Romans 8 not all sin is evil. in fact he separates sin from evil in that we are all slaves to sin, he identifies we in this form are the embodiment of sin, but where evil comes in is to embrace and love that sin. We are forgiven those sins if we learn to hate and repent of those sins.

Paul even says there is no hope for him as a sinner as he is powerless to do the good he knows he should do, but rather does the sinful thing instead. But because the new man in him hates that sin, he is redeemable by Christ. because the new man is not evil enven though we are slaves to sin.


Jesus' implied answer would work here as well.. look down the road and see why this prophet is doing all that he does.. Does it help the body or does it destroy the body. If helping people out in a benevolent miraculous way destroys families faith and lives is it a work of God? If giving a poor family a billion dollars has the husband cheat the kids on drugs and the wife loose her mind would that lottery ticket be a benevolent deed, even if it seemed so?

If a false prophet does work to actually bring people to Jesus/god repentance and faith, then is he then a false prophet?

It is not the signs and wonders that should be judged but the reason and the results of the message. that is what a house divided means.. Doing good here need to also do good in the long term/bring people to God.ex: If doing good here also destroys an obstacle between people and God it is a good deed and represents a house united. As This is the ultimate reason for the gospel..

However if doing a good deed here and now destroys faith later is it then a good deed? Helping now destroying later would be an example of a divided house. as God is more concerned with your eternal 'later' than your current comfort level now.

It seems that you are assuming Christian theology is true, and then using that assumption to explain why the Jewish authorities were wrong to be concerned that Jesus was serving the devil. Put yourself in their shoes. They didn't believe or even know about Christian theology. You can't blame them for being concerned about Jesus.

EDIT: Instead of assuming Christian theology is true, you should assume some form of Jewish theology common among Pharisees and Sadducees of that time.

 

[drich0150]

It seems that you are assuming Christian theology is true, and then using that assumption to explain why the Jewish authorities were wrong to be concerned that Jesus was serving the devil.

Here's the thing.. If they had evidence He was serving satan they would have his killed ASAP. (look at how he did died, they got him on a trumped p charge of claiming to be the messiah which is a far lessor crime than working for the devil) and they had him crucified.

also look at all the times they where ready to stone him and he backed them down or vanished from the scene. The beginning of the chapter was one such event where Jesus healed a life long twisted cripple man and straightened him out on a sabbath and they plotted to kill him! They plotted to kill him because he healed a man by claiming to do so with the power of God on the 'wrong' day.. and you say look at it from their perspective.

What i see is a impotent religious establishment being userpt by not only good deeds but by things that will over turn the corruption ingrained into a system that demands a man's death for doing good deeds in the name of God and bringing people to the faith.

This is the only instance where he is accused of working for the devil.. Meaning what they saw was so fantastic so unexplainable so beyond the anything they ever experienced They were forced to acknowledge most everything they knew of God was wrong and everything they had been doing was wrong... Or make the claim out of desperation he worked for the other guy. The evidence was so strong here nothing else could explain what they all could not deny what happened!!

What Jesus did was God level stuff and to them (god or their god had never done such a thing) so to them it had to come from the devil. Again they wrongly assumed they where the good guys.

Look what Jesus said that proves He was working for God..
27 You say that I use the power of Satan to force out demons. If that is true, then what power do your people use when they force out demons? (this is rhetorical as they could not force any of these demons out. these people where sometimes stricken from birth with their afflictions for the sole purpose that everyone in the city knew these people where not plants or faking it.
Here Jesus is brought a man undoubtedly that has gone before the jewish leadership many many times and they could do nothing. But here with a word Christ Envokes the power of God. Something in their bibles only men of the highest regaurd could do. Men like the father's of their faith.. expelled the demons and sets the man right by a word.

Again God level stuff as they knew there was nothing they could do anything like that. as God did not back them like he was backing Christ..

So your own people will prove that you are wrong.
So here Jesus is saying if I and drawing out demons in the name of satan by what impotent deity are you calling on who can't get the job done? IE the fact that they call on God and cant cast out these demons shows they are not on the side of God. Rather;
28 But I use the power of God’s Spirit to force out demons, and this shows that God’s kingdom has come to you. Then he says infact I am using the power of God I give god the glory and it is by his name these demons are expelled. the fact I use God's name... is proof God is working with me. and not you. I hold the power and authority you pretend to be, and God supports me and the evidence of this is by my word men are set free from demons and ailments that some had had for life!

The way everyone can know God does not support you is no matter what you do or say you can not do any of the things I have done.

Then the eye witnesses that began to believe Jesus was the promised messiah is what prompted the need to say he works with satan as the leadership was endanger of loosing control to Christ.

Put yourself in their shoes. They didn't believe or even know about Christian theology. You can't blame them for being concerned about Jesus.

Because Jesus did not come in under the banner of Christian theology. Jesus came waving the flags of the messiah. Everything Jesus did checked a box in the prophesy of the coming king. They knew this and it is ultimately why after several tries got a death order authorized by the overseeing roman government. They knew what Jesus was supposed to be and despite witnessing everything he did with God's power they did not want to loose out on what they had, so they killed Jesus with the title 'king of the jews' above his head. if they did not know who jesus was they could not have mocked him this way. plus they would not have known to put roman guards at his tomb to guard it.

EDIT: Instead of assuming Christian theology is true, you should assume some form of Jewish theology common among Pharisees and Sadducees of that time.

Well point 1..
You didn't look at the OP you quoted the bible to set up a red herring and when it was explained now you want to move the goal posts to try and bring out a pov that only exists in speculation..
Otherwise:

examples? what surviving texts are you referring? You do know in or around 70 AD there was one last insurrection and Rome sent an army to destroy everything to burn all of the buildings and libraries to kill all the jewish leadership (sadducees) and loot anything of value?

The point Jesus is making you do not seem to get is why would God allow Satan to do something that would destroy the church before it got underway? Like wise why would satan do something that God wanted done intentionally?

Why would satan pretend to be God to do a good work just to make it possible for Christianity to get started after Jesus leaves, which destroys the old religious paradigm that allows him to infiltrate and control the religious? What would satan help create a system that eliminates religious structure and put the believe and God together directly with out priest or prophet? (no middle man to corrupt)

Then why would God allow satan (even dressed up as acting leader of the jewish religion) perform miracles that would bring conflict to Christ trying to change the religious paradigm?

Answer: neither happened. God gave Jesus the power to cast out demons as Jesus claimed the power to do so came from God.

Like wise when the jewish leadership (who according to Christ was not of God but ruled by satan) could not do any of the things Christ did. (Satan could not cast out his own demons even if he wanted too as he is not all powerful) which is why Jesus could do so with a word from God and all of the jewish leaders where unable to help these life long afflicted people.

Which is why the poeple saw him as the messiah (and so did the leadership) which was for the reason of the desperate attack on Jesus character.

Do you get what I am saying here?

 

[cloudyday2]

Do you get what I am saying here?

Unfortunately, I don't get it, but I will hopefully read it again when I am more energized mentally. I have mood swings, and when I am on the downward swing even small things like reading a forum post seem insurmountable.