Egregoros

@Goalkeeper @ChristiJunior @matty jesus ate and forgave criminals and publicans. jesus said that you should love like he loves. you harp on a single insignificant quotation to argue that paul, who is not divine, who was engaging in a manner of polemic, would say that unbelievers are not worthy of your love.

here's a paul quote I just found.

"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." Corinthians 13:13.

do you know what charity meant? it doesnt mean "giving money to the poor". it means "love". the original word is agape, which is the greek word for divine love. if you look at any concordance agape is the same love that God showed for humanity by dying on the cross. paul literally says that the commandment to (divinely) love one another is more important than faith here. https://biblehub.com/greek/26.htm

"Rather, it denotes a holy, self‐giving disposition that originates in God, is displayed perfectly in Jesus Christ, and is implanted in believers by the Holy Spirit. The frequency of the term in the writings of John and Paul underscores its centrality to apostolic theology and ethics."

@Goalkeeper @ChristiJunior @matty if God only loved people who repented or if He only loved Christians He would not be all-loving. God showers grace on the virtuous and the sinners alike, and Jesus advises christians to be like God in that regard.

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.  For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:44-48

do you know what Jesus says of people who break his commandments given in his sermon? he says "they will be called least in the kingdom of heaven".

> do you know what Jesus says of people who break his commandments given in his sermon?

The sermon on the mount wasn't intended as a set of commandments. It was a long exposition of what complying with the law requires of a person. And thus an explanation of why we could never do so and needed Christ's intervention for our salvation.

> he says "they will be called least in the kingdom of heaven".

I have absolutely no problem with actually being the least in heaven, not just called such, as long as I and my loved ones are there.

@James_Dixon @ChristiJunior @Goalkeeper @matty @Frondeur just want to say that I appreciate you engaging with me in a serious manner instead of being actively cruel and just calling me a jew or saying refugees should be murdered. I dont believe this interpretation though, that the jews (besides Judas and others who knew jesus personally) all knew exactly what they were doing and that jesus only referred to the romans. they didnt believe that jesus was God, if they knew He was God they likely wouldnt have been involved in his death. many of the romans were doing what they thought was right and snuffing out the movement of a man who many thought was a dissident king, and many of the jews were doing what they thought was right and snuffing out what they thought was a man who committing a grave sin by claiming to be I AM, God. in the bible unintentional sins are treated much more leniently than intentional sins, and jesus saying "forgive them father" is an extension of that. of course, for judas, he was not only betraying a friend, but committing to death the man who he knew to be God himself, holy and perfectly sinless.

> just want to say that I appreciate you engaging with me in a serious manner instead of being actively cruel and just calling me a jew

Give me time.

> or saying refugees should be murdered.

You are aware that the only "refugees" we should accept are from Mexico and Canada, are you not? That's the international definition of who should accept refugees. The last I saw neither Mexico nor Canada were overflowing with people who had to flee for their lives.

All others have the option of leaving peaceably or, yes, they can be shot.

> I dont believe this interpretation though, that the jews (besides Judas and others who knew jesus personally) all knew exactly what they were doing and that jesus only referred to the romans.

I don't care what you believe. You've already demonstrated your interpretation of Scripture is not to be trusted.

> they didnt believe that jesus was God,

They had no excuse for not believing, especially after he himself told them he was (before Abraham was, I am). They knew exactly what he meant.

> if they knew He was God they likely wouldnt have been involved in his death.

And if they knew but refused to believe they would have done exactly what they did.

> many of the romans were doing what they thought was right

The Roman soldiers were following lawful orders. Pilate was doing what he thought was right and avoiding a revolt that would have killed hundreds or thousands of jews and possibly dozens of Roman soldiers.

Which is why Christ forgave them.

> and snuffing out the movement of a man who many thought was a dissident king,

Pilate knew better. But he didn't want a revolt on his hands, see above.

> This is f and many of the jews were doing what they thought was right and snuffing out what they thought was a man who committing a grave sin by claiming to be I AM, God.

In spite of his meeting every single one of the biblical requirements for meeting that claim. Requirements they knew and knew he had met. They knew. They refused to believe anyway.

> in the bible unintentional sins are treated much more leniently than intentional sins, and jesus saying "forgive them father" is an extension of that. of course, for judas,

His crucifixion was not "unintentional". They carefully planned it out and had the Romans do it because the feared the populace if they killed him themselves.

> he was not only betraying a friend, but committing to death the man who he knew to be God himself, holy and perfectly sinless.

The same arguments you make for the Pharisees could also apply to him. They knew as much as he did. Yet he was not forgiven.

Whether he would have been if he had repented and asked is another matter.

@James_Dixon @ChristiJunior @Goalkeeper @matty @Frondeur I'll not address your initial threat to me with more than this, but I must direct you to acts 3:17 "Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers". jesus forgave the jews, except obviously judas, who certainly resides in hellfire.

your statement that the romans were uniquely ignorant and thus blameless is unrealistic. you know pilate was said in luke to have mixed the blood of murdered jews with their animal sacrifices right? all contemporary sources about him show he was a very evil man. you are interpreting the romans as upright but thats just not true. they were a powerful empire, they were not likely browbeat into executing anyone. the roman guards humiliated and beat jesus, the soldiers divided his clothes. pilate is only made partly sympathetic in the bible to appeal to the new roman converts according to nearly all historians, and I'm interested in what happened to the actual jesus, a man who lived, died, and was ressurected.

as far as the guilt of the pharisees goes, most jews werent lawmakers and scribes, but were lay-believers.

here's more reading for you:

https://biblehub.com/q/Why_did_Jesus_forgive_His_crucifiers_2.htm

> I'll not address your initial threat to me

You have a strange view of what constitutes a threat.

> jesus forgave the jews, except obviously judas, who certainly resides in hellfire.

But Judas was no more guilty than the Pharisees who paid him, which is one of two reasons I don't accept that as the case. The other being what Jesus told Pilate in John 19:11.

> your statement that the romans were uniquely ignorant and thus blameless is unrealistic.

My statement is that they had no idea Jesus was the Son of God. They didn't even believe in his Father.

> you know pilate was said in luke to have mixed the blood of murdered jews with their animal sacrifices right? all contemporary sources about him show he was a very evil man.

You are judging evil by modern standards. He was a man of his time and a pagan.

> you are interpreting the romans as upright but thats just not true. they were a powerful empire, they were not likely browbeat into executing anyone.

At the very least Pilate would have been removed from his post if he had allowed an uprising he could have easily prevented. At worst he would have been responsible for the deaths of dozen or hundreds of Roman soldiers and possibly executed. In either case he would have failed in his duty to Caesar. It was an easy decision for him to make.

> the roman guards humiliated and beat jesus,

The were ordered to scourge him. What do you think that involves, exactly?

> the soldiers divided his clothes.

As was their right under Roman law.

> pilate is only made partly sympathetic in the bible to appeal to the new roman converts according to nearly all historians,

The Gospel wasn't written to appeal to new Roman converts. That was Paul's job. And Pilate doesn't come across as sympathetic unless you understand his role as a Roman and what it involved. In which case he is more to be pitied than sympathized with. He was trapped by circumstances far beyond his control. That's why Christ didn't blame him.

> as far as the guilt of the pharisees goes, most jews werent lawmakers and scribes, but were lay-believers.

Most jews accepted Christ after the resurrection. The Pharisees and their ilk didn't.

@James_Dixon @ChristiJunior @Goalkeeper @matty @Frondeur

>But Judas was no more guilty than the Pharisees who paid him, which is one of two reasons I don't accept that as the case. The other being what Jesus told Pilate in John 19:11.

I mean, youre disregarding what peter said in acts, he said that the Israelite leaders were also ignorant. I dont believe that the chief priests (who weren't pharisees but were probably saducees, I could be wrong though) who paid judas were quite as guilty as he, and i dont think many commentators would argue this, judas was unique in his degree of guilt and of sin, though they were certainly guilty also. judas intimately knew jesus and was treated with divine love by him. he had no excuses.

>My statement is that they had no idea Jesus was the Son of God.

neither did the sanhedrin. jesus more or less told him he was in the synoptics, but they didnt believe and they werent in the intimate position judas was in to know this. I still think this constitutes ignorance.

>You are judging evil by modern standards. He was a man of his time and a pagan.

murdering worshippers of God and mixing the blood of sacrifices with their blood is evil, period. its strange of a christian to be morally relativist here.

>Most jews accepted Christ after the resurrection. The Pharisees and their ilk didn't.

many many hellenized jews converted to christianity, actually, including many pharisees.