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.

@georgia @ChristiJunior @Goalkeeper
The commandment given at the Last Supper is to love other true Christians as Christ loved us true believers through His suffering, death, and sacrifice on the Cross.

He has already made known what He thinks of the reprobate:
"For forty years I loathed that generation
and said, 'They are a people who go astray in their heart,
and they have not known my ways.'
Therefore I swore in my wrath,
'They shall not enter my rest [i.e. most of the Israelites that originally left Egypt went to Hell].'" (Psalm 95:10-11)
"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me." (Luke 19:27)

> the commandment is love as Christ loved. if you think Christ only loved people who werent sinners youre reading a different bible.

Yes, the word in question is agapate a form of agape, the love God has for us. And Christ is God.

But God's "love" drowned the world, destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and killed all but one family in Jericho. It allowed the Israelis of the southern kingdom to be dragged off to Babylon in chains and the temple to be destroyed when they abandoned him for other gods. And when he sent his son to guide them back to worshiping him properly and they killed him he allowed the second temple to be destroyed, Jerusalem to be leveled, most of the jews in Judah killed and the remainder scattered to the four winds.

I'm not sure his definition of "love" matches yours.

@James_Dixon @ChristiJunior @Goalkeeper Jesus isnt just the same as YHVH, YHVH is Jesus. people reap the punishment of their own misdeeds, but never does that mean God does not love them or does not want them to eventually return to Him. God said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, yet you hate your enemies. you know what He also said?

"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."
Matthew 25:40-45

All of you are saying "I will not take the stranger in". you condemn the Jews for what they did to Christ their brother but when you do not help the least among you, you do the same to Jesus.

perhaps even worse, some among you, admitted atheists and bound for a terrible afterlife, say "I will take the stranger in solely if he is white". you know what Jesus said? He said your neighbor, who you should love as yourself, is more a samaritan (who had enmity with the jews) than a jewish priest as long as he shows you compassion. and paul said there is neither Jew nor Greek, for all are one in Christ Jesus.

plainly stated the jews of jesuss time were xenophobes, but jesus was not xenophobic. he loved the stranger. do you?

> Jesus isnt just the same as YHVH, YHVH is Jesus.

I'm an American, I don't speak Hebrew. The English word is Jehovah.

> God said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

He said that was what the law required of us. He knew we couldn't do it.

> yet you hate your enemies.

On those rare occasion where I do it's a sin which can be forgiven.

> All of you are saying "I will not take the stranger in".

I will give the stranger of my excess in the manner I judge best when my own are taken care of, as 1 Timothy 5:8 says I should:

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

My home and land are not excess.

> you condemn the Jews for what they did to Christ their brother but when you do not help the least among you, you do the same to Jesus.

I'm perfectly willing to provide charity to the "least among us". But foreign invaders are not "among us". And they can receive my charity in the own lands.

> you know what Jesus said? He said your neighbor, who you should love as yourself, is more a samaritan (who had enmity with the jews) than a jewish priest as long as he shows you compassion.

And you deliberately misconstrue the clear meaning of the text.

> and paul said there is neither Jew nor Greek, for all are one in Christ Jesus.

He also said there is neither male nor female in Christ, so I guess all the Christians died out in the first century, huh? Again, you misstate the clear meaning of the text.

> he loved the stranger. do you?

I'm willing to give of my excess to the stranger, just as the good Samaritan did. I'm not willing to take him into my home or homeland. That doesn't give him what's best for him.

@James_Dixon @ChristiJunior @Goalkeeper

>The English word is Jehovah.

Jehovah wasnt how the name is pronounced though. YHVH is a direct latinization of the ineffable name. we dont know the vowels.

>He said that was what the law required of us. He knew we couldn't do it.

the sermon on the mount wasnt a mere expounding of the existing law, it was a summation of jesus's teachings which radically reformed the law. jesus never spoke empty words, when you say of all his moral precepts "he knew we couldnt follow his words" you are saying his teachings were meant for an audience of no one. this is a protestant invention, that jesus is solely meant to be "believed" and not meant to be actually followed. love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you means exactly that.

>I will give the stranger of my excess in the manner I judge best when my own are taken care of, as 1 Timothy 5:8 says I should:
"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

first off, these are the words of paul, not jesus, jesus said to take the stranger in and this doesnt abrogate jesus. paul is just saying you are first responsible for your own, which was historically interpreted not in the manner of a nuclear family home, but to mean your distant relations and friends as well, provided they were believers.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_timothy/5-8.htm

"The words "his own," refer to those who are naturally dependent on him, whether living in his own immediate family or not. There may be many distant relatives naturally dependent on our aid, besides those who live in our own house"

"The circle of those for whose support and sustenance a Christian was responsible is here enlarged: not merely is the fairly prosperous man who professes to love Christ, bound to do his best for his nearest relations, such as his mother and grandmother, but St. Paul says 'he must assist those of his own house,' in which term relatives who are much more distant are included, and even dependents connected with the family who had fallen into poverty and distress."

theres nothing objectionable about this, its your interpretation of it which abrogates christ which is objectionable:

>My home and land are not excess.

you are interpreting your entire country as the same as your own household, which is an error. God in the old testament told the israelites to welcome strangers. “the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” Leviticus 19:34
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/19-34.htm I would read the entire commentary on this verse if I were you.

jesus's words were similarly clear: take in the stranger. that means into your own home if necessary, and when I have my own home I will take in strangers if I have the room. I promise you this.

>I'm perfectly willing to provide charity to the "least among us". But foreign invaders are not "among us". And they can receive my charity in the own lands.

immigrants aren't invaders, this is dehumanizing language. most immigration violation in the US is overstaying a legal welcome. the meaning of the stranger among you hasnt changed since Leviticus. do you give charity to the needy in other countries? I have.

>He also said there is neither male nor female in Christ, so I guess all the Christians died out in the first century, huh?

this is a sophistic imitation of reductio ad absurdum. paul meant that jewish and greek believers were equal, equal in Gods promise and equal in the church, so its only logical that you should also treat Jew and Greek alike in friendship, and likewise you yourself should not have preferences for Jew or Greek, for Israelite and stranger, for authorized and unauthorized immigrant, provided the person has shown you no unfriendliness.

>I'm willing to give of my excess to the stranger, just as the good Samaritan did. I'm not willing to take him into my home or homeland. That doesn't give him what's best for him.

giving in excess is good, not taking refugees into your "homeland" is unbiblical. its your opinion that its not what's best for him, its Gods opinion that the needy ought to be provided for when they entreat you.

> Jehovah wasnt how the name is pronounced though. YHVH is a direct latinization of the ineffable name. we dont know the vowels.

Exactly, we have no idea how it was pronounced. And as I said, I don't speak Hebrew. The English word is Jehovah.

> when you say of all his moral precepts "he knew we couldnt follow his words" you are saying his teachings were meant for an audience of no one.

If you're going to lie about what I'm saying this is going to be short conversation.

> first off, these are the words of paul, not jesus

2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

> paul is just saying you are first responsible for your own, which was historically interpreted not in the manner of a nuclear family home, but to mean your distant relations and friends as well, provided they were believers.

Which is exactly what I said.

> its your interpretation of it which abrogates christ which is objectionable:

Again with the christ. My interpretation of it is correct.

> you are interpreting your entire country as the same as your own household, which is an error.

You just said the verse didn't refer to only my own household but to my extended kin. Thus, not in error.

> I would read the entire commentary on this verse if I were you.

Yes, you would.

> jesus's words were similarly clear: take in the stranger. that means into your own home if necessary, and when I have my own home I will take in strangers if I have the room. I promise you this.

Except he never says that.

> immigrants aren't invaders,

Yes, they are. This has been undeniably demonstrated over the past 60 years.

> this is dehumanizing language.

Too fucking bad.

> do you give charity to the needy in other countries? I have.

I've never had enough for more than my own kin.

> this is a sophistic imitation of reductio ad absurdum.

Which is perfectly appropriate because your usage of the incomplete verse is absurd.

> paul meant that jewish and greek believers were equal, equal in Gods promise and equal in the church,

Which is not what you're saying as you proceed to demonstrate.

> and likewise you yourself should not have preferences for Jew or Greek, for Israelite and stranger, for authorized and unauthorized immigrant, provided the person has shown you no unfriendliness.

See what I mean.

> giving in excess is good, not taking refugees into your "homeland" is ?unbiblical.

And again you lie.

> its Gods opinion that the needy ought to be provided for when they entreat you.

The needy you're talking about are lying thieves. God opines accordingly.