Was Jesus “sinless”? Eh…not quite.

Over at BloggingTheology, the issue of the Biblical Jesus’ alleged “sinless” nature is being discussed.  I pointed out that the Bible actually shows Jesus committing a few sins, and thus, he could not be the “perfect” or “sinless” sacrifice Christians make him out to be. 

  1.  Jesus beat up the money changers and overturned their tables.  [Violence and anger]
  2. Jesus made some demons enter into pigs and then jump off a cliff. [Animal cruelty and willful destruction of property]

Hence, since their savior is disqualified as a sacrifice for their sins, they are still in their sins and thus going to hell.  Sorry Christians, but your religion fails its own criterion for salvation.

 

    • How could Jesus have been sinless if he overturned the tables and whipped people in the temple? True, they shouldn’t have been there in the first place, but the way he beat them out…wasn’t that a sin?

      And how about animal cruelty? Letting demons possess some pigs and then have them jump off a cliff seems pretty cruel. Another sin…

      Like

       
  • there is such a thing as righteous anger.

    so, no, it was sin.

    Like

    • No it was NOT sin; neither one.

      Like

       
    • Just saying it was not sin does not make it so. Isn’t animal cruelty a sin? Couldn’t “righteous anger” coupled with violence be seen as a sin?

      Like

       
    • Jesus as God can kill the pigs if He wants to. God does this all the time in history through disasters, hunting, etc.
      “The Lord kills and makes alive” – 1 Samuel chapter 1
      God is sovereign over death.

      Death is God’s judgment on sin. Genesis 2:16-17; chapter 3; Romans 3:23; Ezekiel 18; Revelation chapter 20:10-15

      Like

       
    • First, the question is not about whether Jesus is a sinless man or not. The question is whether the sinless human part of Jesus is equal with God or not.

      Again, it’s very obvious that you’re not honest, Ken. You want Jesus to prove that he’s not God philipahsically for the jews in the first century while Jesus by default is a man(i.e. not God) for the jews the first century.

      Do you know what that means?
      In other words, it means when you meet a man in your church, he has to prove that he’s not a potato philosophically to convince you that he’s not a potato. I hope you got what I mean.

      May Allah guide you in this holy month.

      Like

       
    • Problem with the way you argue is that you are not seeing all the massive material in the text of the New Testament that testifies to the truths of the Messiahship of Jesus, and that the Messiah is also the Son of God (Psalm 2, Mark 14:60-64), and that demonstrated the Deity of Christ, which leads to the doctrine of the Trinity –
      Both Islam and Christianity believe God spoke through prophets and books; so your parallel takes your argument outside of written revelation (prophetic, inspired books)

      John 1:1 – John 20:28
      Matthew 1:1 to Matthew 28:16-20
      Mark 1:1 – End – Son of God theme.
      Luke 1:1 to 24:53 & Acts – Virgin Birth – Luke 2:10-11 – the baby is Messiah, Lord (kurios) and Savior (from sin)

      It all points to these things in hundreds of verses.

      Very different from the dumb parallel of trying to prove a man is or is not a potato.
      What a dumb illustration or analogy.

      Like

       
    • OMG!
      I almost swear by God that you’re in denial. You know what you wrote is irrelevant. We have nothing to do with your misinterpretation for the texts in your bible. Why do you do that , Ken?
      Moreover, all my points, which you have not dealt with any, are based on (your answer).

      It’s a very old christian tactic, btw. When christians got cornered, they always avoid the main points to scatter the opponents. However, the reality is that they avoid the truth which eats their falsehood. You can’t stand the truth when it comes.

      Explain how my example is a different parallel?
      Jesus is a man for the jews by default, so when you say Jesus should have said “I am not good; I am only a man; only God the Father is inherently good” to deny his alleged divinity, that means you assume Jesus for the jews is God by default, which is very dumb idea to have.
      Also, I challenge you to give us one reason why we cannot have the same conclusion when Jesus said “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” ?

      If you think asking your fellow in the church to provide an evidence to prove that he is not a potato is very stupid, then try to be in our shoes when christians say Jesus said to a jewish man in the first century
      ” Why do you call me good?” , “No one is good—except God alone”? is an evidence for Jesus’ deity!

      Like

       
    • “Jesus as God can kill the pigs if He wants to. God does this all the time in history through disasters, hunting, etc.
      “The Lord kills and makes alive” – 1 Samuel chapter 1
      God is sovereign over death.

      Death is God’s judgment on sin. Genesis 2:16-17; chapter 3; Romans 3:23; Ezekiel 18; Revelation chapter 20:10-15”

      LOL!! I knew eventually you would go this route, and you didn’t disappoint! I was waiting for a Christian to say this. But it amounts to nothing more than a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT. Your argument is that Jesus was “sinless”, so whenever someone points out a sinful behavior, you can just excuse it by saying “well, he can do whatever he wants because he is God”.

      Thus, the “Jesus is sinless” argument is complete nonsense because it nothing more than a logical fallacy.

      Like

       
    • Problem for you is that killing the pigs was not sinful behavior.
      God kills people in tornadoes, hurricanes, wars, etc. – by allowing evil people to do evil things, etc.

      God is just and holy and never sins. God cannot sin nor lie (Titus 1:2; James 1:13-14; I John 1:5; Isaiah 6; Habakkuk 1:13) but He allows people to kill people for His own secret purposes and is sovereign over nature and the weather.

      Like

       
    • LOL, so killing animals by making them jump off a cliff is not sinful? OK, thanks for proving that your Bible is not against animal cruelty!

      Again, your argument is pathetic. It is nothing but a circular argument.

      Like

       
  • Faiz: “True, they shouldn’t have been there in the first place, but the way he beat them out…wasn’t that a sin?

    And how about animal cruelty? Letting demons possess some pigs and then have them jump off a cliff seems pretty cruel. Another sin…”

    It was a soft whip so they felt no pain. The whip was primarily used so he didn’t have to lay fingers on them.

    Your concern for pigs is heart-rending.

    What about halal slaughter? No qualms about that?

    Like

    • LOL, Ignoramus keeps jumping from thread to thread to make a fool of himself!

      So a whip made out of cords would be painless? There goes Ignoramus again, lying for Jesus! Even if it was painless, he made a mess in the temple by turning the tables over in a violent fit of rage and drove those people out of there. Ergo, it was a sinful act.

      Your deflection about the pigs is heart-rending. There is a difference between killing animals for food (by the way, halal and kosher slaughtering are very similar) and forcing them to jump off a cliff. It was animal cruelty to drive them off a cliff. Ergo, it was a sinful act.

      Nice job defending your “sinless” savior!

      Like

       
  • No it wasn’t sinful. Which law did Jesus break by sending the pigs over the cliff? Sharia law for animals 🙂

    Muslims prolong the pain and suffering of animals in death so you sticking up for animals is a joke.

    If Jesus is God he can kill and make alive as he pleases.

    Like

    • Bwhahaha, so now we have 2 Christians saying it is okay to send animals to their deaths by throwing them off a cliff! So there you have it!

      Hey Ignoramus, was it cruel to kill animals for the temple sacrifices? How were they killed? (Hint – It probably involved a sharp knife 😉 ).

      So in the end, the two Christian jokers cannot explain how Jesus was sinless besides resorting to personal opinions and logical fallacies. Ergo, their savior was not sinless and thus they are still in their sins and will go to hell. That sucks!

      Like

       
    • Oh and by the way, since those pigs did not belong to Jesus or any of his followers, he deliberately killed someone else’s pigs. Willful destruction of someone else’s property…ooh, that’s sin. Tsk, tsk, tsk…

      Like

       
    • You just have to stand back and be in awe, in awe of the absolute deceitfulness of these people.
      They’ll say hey Jesus did this or he didn’t do this or he said this or he didn’t say this while Muhammad did/didn’t. So now they want to compare him to Muhammad (saw). But when you point out a major inconsistency of their biblical Jesus then all of a sudden it’s shirk cus you can’t compare Muhammad to God (= allegedly Jesus). What an absolute bulls**t!

      Liked by you

       
  • “June 3, 2018 • 7:36 am
    Bwhahaha, so now we have 2 Christians saying it is okay to send animals to their deaths by throwing them off a cliff! So there you have it!”

    I’m sure Allah would have done it differently but unfortunately he didn’t intervene by all accounts.

    “Hey Ignoramus, was it cruel to kill animals for the temple sacrifices? How were they killed? (Hint – It probably involved a sharp knife 😉 ).

    FYI the temple was destroyed in AD 70 so we are told.

    Like

    • Hahahaha, running away again? It doesn’t matter if the temple was destroyed or not. The question is how were the animals killed when the temple sacrifices were being offered?

      And FYI, Ezekiel says that the temple will be rebuilt and the sacrifices reinstated, so we are told.

      Regardless, your savior killed someone’s animals. That’s a willful destruction of property, which is a sin last time I checked. Ergo, your savior was not a “perfect” or “sinless” sacrifice and you are still in your sins and thus going to hell. Sorry…

 

 

109 thoughts on “Was Jesus “sinless”? Eh…not quite.

      1. yes, please continue to list these comments.

        this “righteous anger” spin can justify any type of violence. i haven’t read all the responses (maybe you already addressed this ) , but jesus attacks the temple at busiest time and it is obvious he is STOPPING torah mandated practice . these guy say “prince of peace”
        “sinless”
        “loving”
        yet his actions at the temple could have started riots and additional violence which would have angered the romans and this could have lead to deaths of innocents people

        we are just pointing out the hypocrisy of christians.

        Liked by 1 person

  1. lol when you are stopping a torah MANDATED practice, the last thing the pilgrims are going to think is “righteous anger”

    quote :

    He was preventing people from carrying anything across the courtyard and preventing people from buying and selling animals for sacrifice. He was trying to shut down the Torah mandated function of the Temple altogether at its most busy time and as using physical violence to do so. If a bunch of Muslims went through a church whipping people with bullwhips and trying to shut it down, nobody would say it was not a terrorist attack.

    now some will say that jesus didn’t use violence on the humans, but whipped out animals instead. this would be cruel, because it wasn’t the animals sinning, it was the humans. jesus is TAKING his anger out on innocent animals.

    “It was a soft whip so they felt no pain. The whip was primarily used so he didn’t have to lay fingers on them.”

    sorry, but this is lie. lets see how much “soft whip” will be able to move herd of animals, if it were so “soft” the people would have easily toppled jesus and DEFENDED their businesses. jesus’ actions at the temple make no sense because they would have continued “business as usual” if it was “soft whip”

    the whipping had to have had an affect on innocent traders

    quote :

    I’m not speaking out of any hostility to Christianity. The challenge was to find something “immoral” about the literary character of Jesus in the Gospels. The assault on the Temple is an example of pointless violence against innocent civilians – low-level functionaries doing a necessary job, to make some entirely symbolic point. I call that terroristic but it doesn’t really matter if you accept that word. The point is that it was, in my view (and I was asked for my view) immoral. Unprovoked violence against innocent people is immoral and even more so during the week of Passover because the city was packed with people from the country, the Romans were greatly outnumbered. The city was a powder keg and the Romans were paranoid about any kinds of riots or disturbances and they reacted swiftly and ruthlessly to stop any potential unrest the second it started. They were big bud-nippers, those Romans. Causing that kind of commotion at the Temple could have gotten hundreds or thousands of innocent people killed. It would be an entirely reckless act which would have engendered great tension or dare I say it, terror among the Jewish crowds.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Paulus

    Eerily quiet round here 😂😂

    Two question…

    Which specific law from Torah did Jesus break in your above two scenarios?

    Since when is someone else held accountable for the actions of demons?

    Like

    1. Well, one can’t help it when the Christians get scared and run away. 😂😂

      But we both know that eventually you will get bored from being unemployed and come back here. By the way, are you married or divorced? 😉

      Hmmm, let’s see. Beating people and then killing someone’s animals. Those pigs must have belonged to someone. What does the Bible say about destroying other people’s property? Hmmm….

      So, it turns out poor Cerbie is not saved after all. You are still in your sins and will go to hell when you die. Bummer… 😂😂

      Like

    2. Paulus

      Again, which specific law did Jesus break? Please cite it for discussion.

      Second, since when is someone else held responsible for the actions of demons?

      Like

      1. Exodus 22 lays out property laws. For example, if you steal an ox and slaughter or sell it it, you have to give five oxen as expiation. The pigs belonged to someone, and Jesus allowed the demons to go into the pigs. Did he ask for the owner’s permission?

        And wouldn’t Jesus have known what would happen? If he did or didn’t, he still should have asked the owner for permission. I don’t think the owner would have wanted demon-possessed pigs, let alone have them drown. Either way, he would have suffered a financial loss.

        Like

      2. Paulus

        “Whoever steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.“

        “A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12 The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.” 13 He gave them permission, and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.“

        Please identify where Jesus stole property, as per Ex 22? Also please clarify why someone else is responsible for the actions of demons? What makes said person a “sinner”

        Like

      3. LOL, Cerbie is being willfully stupid. I didn’t say he stole the pigs. My point is that those pigs did not belong to him, and yet he allowed the demons to enter without consulting the owner. How is that not a violation of that person’s property rights? Does your savior allow you to use someone’s property without their knowledge?

        Even if we can say that Jesus was not responsible for the actions of the demons, the fact remains that he did NOT ask the owner’s permission. He let the demons go without permission. That is a violation of that person’s property rights. Ergo, your savior was a sinner.

        Like

      4. Paulus

        Ok, so you agree that Jesus’s didn’t steal anything so your citation of ex 22 is now irrelevant.

        So, please highlight the specific law that states one is to ask an owners permission before allowing demons to enter, if such is to be considered sinful.

        You will also notice that in all four gospel accounts no one thinks Jesus is a sinner nor does any owner appeal to Exodus 22.

        Battle lost. Argument over.

        Like

      5. Still being willfully stupid? Exodus 22 contains laws regarding property. Misusing someone’s property is a sin, you dingbat! Ergo, when your savior allowed demons to possess someone’s animals without their permission, he broke the law. I can see you are a little uncomfortable with this issue, which is why you are playing dumb. Poor, dumb animal…

        I ask you again: does your savior allow you to use someone’s property without their knowledge? Come, come. Answer me.

        Like

      6. “You will also notice that in all four gospel accounts no one thinks Jesus is a sinner nor does any owner appeal to Exodus 22.”

        LOL!!! Oh, this one is a GEM! You don’t think people would consider misusing someone’s property a sin? What fantasy world are you living in, you fool?

        Like

      7. Paulus

        “Misusing someone’s property is a sin, you dingbat!”

        Jesus didn’t misuse anything. That’s your first problem. You are blaming someone else for the actions of the demons. You keep making statements about Jesus “breaking the law”, yet you haven’t provided a single citation to prove such a claim. Because such doesn’t exist!

        And you dodge the logic of your conclusion which makes Allah a sinner as well. Good dawah there britney 😂😂

        Like

      8. Bwhahahaha, are you still stuck on the demons? I am not talking about what the demons made the pigs do. I am talking Jesus allowing the demons to possess the pigs in the first place! Those animals did not belong to him. Did he ask for the owner’s permission? How is that not a misuse of property?

        I can see why you won’t answer my question. Dodging is your style. No wonder you are trying desperately to change the topic. Good soul winning there Cerbie! 😂😂

        So I repeat the question: does your savior allow you to misuse someone’s property?

        Oh and just for the good measure, let’s also quote Leviticus to further condemn your sinful savior:

        “Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution—life for life.”

        Now you may say “well Jesus didn’t kill the animals”. But, he was still responsible for them. Therefore, he needed to make restitution to the owner for the loss of, hmmm let’s see…oh yes…2000 pigs! WOW! So did you savior reimburse the owner? Come, come Cerbie. Try to answer. Your salvation depends on it!

        Like

      9. so the owner of the pigs discovers that two thousand of his pigs have perished .

        would the owner think that jesus “loves his neighbor” after he discovers that the devils had NO AUTHORITY to enter into pigs (it was jesus who said “go” )?

        clearly 2000 pigs was required for INCOME purposes , the pigs weren’t there for play.

        did jesus give a damn about the suffering which the devils caused in these pigs?

        yhwhs little kid has CLEARLY MISUSED AN authority

        did the gospels tell us how jesus FINANCIALLY supported the pig owners after jesus caused their property to perish?

        jesus misused his fathers AUTHORITY.

        Like

      10. Paulus

        Your question is irrelevant because Jesus didn’t misuse property.

        So you’re moving the goalposts? The OP said Jesus was guilty of animal cruelty.

        Now clearly, if Jesus had authority of demons, as you admit, then that would make Jesus…

        What…?

        Go on, oh can admit it.

        Like

      11. LOL, still avoiding the clear facts? Let’s go slowly, so you can catch on:

        1. Jesus did not own the pigs. They belonged to someone else.
        2. The demons asked Jesus if they could go into the pigs.
        3. Without asking the owner, Jesus gave the demons permission.

        How is this not a misuse of property, you moron? Crosstians seem to love gymnastics, but they are not good at it!

        Your refusal to answer just goes to show you bankrupt and brainwashed you are.

        Oh and by the way, idiot, Solomon also had authority over demons. That doesn’t make him “God”. In fact, since your savior didn’t even know that a fig tree was out of season, that clearly means he is not its creator and thus not “God”.

        Did you get that?

        Go on, you can admit it.

        Like

      12. Trying to deflect again with irrelevant videos? Let me guess. You’re gonna run away now crying “censorship”, but really, you are running away because you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. You have a sinful savior who can’t save you from your sins. Your destination is hell. Whatever will you do?

        Like

      13. So to repeat:

        Cerbie thinks that the fact that 2,000 pigs were drowned would not have made people angry. And since it is highly unlikely that the owner would have been a Jew, that only leaves the possibility that he was a Gentile, mostly likely a Roman. So even if Jesus did not violate any specific Jewish laws (which actually he clearly did), he would have violated Roman law. Paul clearly stated that Christians had to obey the laws of their government, even if it was of non-Christians (Romans 13). Jesus violated this rule. Roman law was clear:

        “…the first chapter of the lex Aquilia provides that “[i]f anyone kills unlawfully a slave or servant-girl belonging to someone else or a fourfooted beast of the class of cattle, let him be condemned to pay the owner the highest value that the property had attained in the preceeding [sic] year.””

        http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=ealr

        Face it Cerbie. No matter how much you may protest as a brainwashed Christian zombie, the fact is that your savior broke the law and was thus a sinner. Therefore, you are still in your sins and will go to hell when you die. I know, it sucks to hear it. That’s quite a bummer.

        Liked by 1 person

      14. Paulus

        but Jesus never asked the owner’s permission.“

        Notice Britney’s claim here. If permission is not sought, then such is a sinful action. Remember that.

        “Narrated ‘Abaya bin Rafa’a bin Raft’ bin Khadij:

        “My grandfather said, “We were in the company of the Prophet at Dhul-Hulaifa. The people felt hungry and captured some camels and sheep (as booty). The Prophet was behind the people. They hurried and slaughtered the animals and put their meat in pots and started cooking it.”

        I don’t see Muhammad asking the owners permission to take their animals, kill them, and eat them, do you?

        So by applying consistent standards you have no option to admit muhammad was a sinner aswell.

        #anotherbritneyfail
        #islamthereligionifinconsistency

        Like

      15. Bwhahahaha, oh Cerbie is really getting desperate here! Your sinful savior is making you uncomfortable, eh?

        Notice Cerbie’s pathetic tu quo que. Even if the argument could be made that Muslims are guilty of double standards or “inconsistency” because the hadith Cerbie referred to does not say anything about permission (as we will see though, the hadith explains the context), that still does not solve Cerbie’s problem of the sinful savior. We have already seen that Jesus violated both Jewish and Roman law (and by extension, Christian law which states that Christians must follow the laws of their government), so deflecting to Islam does NOT change the fact that Christians are condemned by their own religion to hell.

        #anothercerbiefail
        #tuquoquecerbie
        #cerbieisgoingtohell
        #iscerbiemarried?

        So to repeat:

        Cerbie thinks that the fact that 2,000 pigs were drowned would not have made people angry. And since it is highly unlikely that the owner would have been a Jew, that only leaves the possibility that he was a Gentile, mostly likely a Roman. So even if Jesus did not violate any specific Jewish laws (which actually he clearly did), he would have violated Roman law. Paul clearly stated that Christians had to obey the laws of their government, even if it was of non-Christians (Romans 13). Jesus violated this rule. Roman law was clear:

        “…the first chapter of the lex Aquilia provides that “[i]f anyone kills unlawfully a slave or servant-girl belonging to someone else or a fourfooted beast of the class of cattle, let him be condemned to pay the owner the highest value that the property had attained in the preceeding [sic] year.””

        http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=ealr

        Face it Cerbie. No matter how much you may protest as a brainwashed Christian zombie, the fact is that your savior broke the law and was thus a sinner. Therefore, you are still in your sins and will go to hell when you die. I know, it sucks to hear it. That’s quite a bummer.

        Like

      16. Now, let’s look at the hadith. Cerbie can’t seem to read too well, because the hadith says:

        “The people felt hungry and captured some camels and sheep (AS BOOTY).”

        In other words, the animals were taken as spoils from the enemy! The context is a battle between the Muslims and the pagans. Since when is it required to ask “permission” to take spoils from your enemies? LOL!!! This one is a particularly embarrassing FAIL for Cerbie!

        Another hadith completely clarifies the situation:

        “Narrated Rafi bin Khadij:

        We were with the Prophet in Dhul-Hulaifa and there the people were struck with severe hunger. Then we got camels and sheep as WAR BOOTY (and slaughtered them).” (Bukhari, 7:67:406)

        So the context was war. Taking spoils from the enemy is perfectly allowed and legitimate. It would be silly to ask one’s enemies for “permission”. In contrast, Jesus allowed the demons to possess someone’s animals WITHOUT his permission. That is a gross violation of that person’s property. Ergo, Cerbie’s savior was a sinner. Of course, that probably wouldn’t have surprised Martin Luther! 😜😜

        Like

      17. Paulus

        Lol!!

        Precisely! If one is in authority over someone else, then you are happy to allow the first to not seek permission from the second.

        So c’mon now, if Jesus has the authority to drive out demons as the Son of God, then….

        …c’mon Britney, don’t be a lame duck now.

        I’ve already made you transfer your argument three times now. What you got left? Hahahaha

        Like

      18. WOW!! Cerbie just can’t get it through his head! Who is talking about the demons? Poor Cerbie is so confused and disturbed by his sinful savior that all he can offer in response is fallacy after fallacy. Tu quo ques and red herrings.

        C’mon Cerbie, fallacies and lame repetition of laughable logic will not save your savior. Why didn’t he ask for PERMISSION from the OWNER of the pigs? Why did he BREAK JEWISH, CHRISTIAN and ROMAN laws all in one fell swoop?

        So to repeat again:

        Cerbie thinks that the fact that 2,000 pigs were drowned would not have made people angry. And since it is highly unlikely that the owner would have been a Jew, that only leaves the possibility that he was a Gentile, mostly likely a Roman. So even if Jesus did not violate any specific Jewish laws (which actually he clearly did), he would have violated Roman law. Paul clearly stated that Christians had to obey the laws of their government, even if it was of non-Christians (Romans 13). Jesus violated this rule. Roman law was clear:

        “…the first chapter of the lex Aquilia provides that “[i]f anyone kills unlawfully a slave or servant-girl belonging to someone else or a fourfooted beast of the class of cattle, let him be condemned to pay the owner the highest value that the property had attained in the preceeding [sic] year.””

        http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=ealr

        Face it Cerbie. No matter how much you may protest as a brainwashed Christian zombie, the fact is that your savior broke the law and was thus a sinner. Therefore, you are still in your sins and will go to hell when you die. I know, it sucks to hear it. That’s quite a bummer.

        And also to repeat:

        Oh and by the way, idiot, Solomon also had authority over demons. That doesn’t make him “God”. In fact, since your savior didn’t even know that a fig tree was out of season, that clearly means he is not its creator and thus not “God”.

        Did you get that?

        Go on, you can admit it.

        I’ve already made you commit multiple fallacies in your bumbling attempts to excuse your sinful savior. What you got left? Hahahahaha…

        Like

      19. Let’s go back to the step-by-step breakdown of the sinful savior, so that Cerbie the dumb animal can finally get it through his head:

        1. Jesus did not own the pigs. They belonged to someone else.
        2. The demons asked Jesus if they could go into the pigs.
        3. Without asking the owner, Jesus gave the demons permission.

        How is this not a misuse of property, you moron? Crosstians seem to love gymnastics, but they are not good at it!

        Like

      20. Paulus

        It’s rather simple. The texts (all four accounts) simply don’t draw the conclusion you do. No one thought Jesus broke any laws, Jewish or otherwise. I asked you to provide a text from Torah and you failed miserably. Now your objection is simply your biased opinion, which is about as reliable and persuading as dipping fly wings in your drink to get healed 😂😂

        They feared Jesus and asked him to leave the area because they were amazed that he had authority of the demons who had been terrorising people.

        Now, as I’ve shown multiple times now, since muhammad didn’t ask permission for others people property he is a sinner. Worse still, since Allah allows iblis to harm humans, he is also a sinner. And since muhammad killed critics, gouged eyes and was generally an awfully violent human being, you simpym don’t have a leg to stand on.

        Like

      21. LOL, Cerbie is living in a fantasy world! What better way to escape the uncomfortable truth that his savior is sinful? 😂😂

        Your savior broke Jewish, Christian and Roman laws! A trifecta of sinfulness!

        Have you taken the stupid pill lately? Your gospels are propaganda tracts. They are not honest reports. Do you HONESTLY think that the people would not have been upset when 2,000 pigs were killed because of his actions? The Romans especially would have been angered!

        So to repeat again:

        1. Jesus did not own the pigs. They belonged to someone else.
        2. The demons asked Jesus if they could go into the pigs.
        3. Without asking the owner, Jesus gave the demons permission.

        Your pathetic deflections don’t change the fact that your sinful savior has failed to save you. You are still in your sins and will go to hell.

        Oh and by the way, your sinful savior also told his followers to kill babies and allowed them to cut-off thumbs, and then came down as a man and sinned like any other human, so sorry to burst your bubble, but Christianity does not have a leg to stand on.

        Like

      22. edward

        “Precisely! If one is in authority over someone else, then you are happy to allow the first to not seek permission from the second.”
        So c’mon now, if Jesus has the authority to drive out demons as the Son of God, then….”

        you are sad case of crosstian. there is AUTHORITY and then THERE IS ABUSE OF AUTHORITY .

        let me demonstrate

        mark

        He begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country.

        Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; 12 and the unclean spirits[c] begged him, “Send us into the swine; let us enter them.” 13 So he gave them permission.

        mathew:

        Now a large herd of swine was feeding at some distance from them. 31 The demons begged him, “If you cast us out, send us into the herd of swine.” 32 And he said to them, “Go!” So they came out and entered the swine; and suddenly, the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and perished in the water.

        LUKE :

        And they begged Jesus repeatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss.

        you sinful “savior” KNEW full well what the evil ones did to the POSSESSED man .
        man, they EVEN got what they desired, not to go into ABYSS or SENT out of the country

        they BEGGED, BEGGED….

        jesus is here portrayed as ABUSING his authority and control.
        he knows they are DEPENDANt on his fathers authority (i can of my ownself DO nothing ) to get into a HOST . now they have been caught, they NEED A host , and they can’t get a host unless jesus allows them to get into one. jesus could have LET THEM PERISH WITHOUT PUTTING THEM into a HOST!

        they are NOW caught because of “son of god” and they can’t GET into a HOST. jesus says “go possess the pigs”

        THAT is like i have MIRACULOUS power to stop you from causing pain and suffering unless i put you into a HOST.

        ANYONE WOULD CALL ME A CRIMINAL IF THEY KNEW WHAT I DID . but jesus gets away with it?

        meaning while you are NOT IN a host you are SCREWED.

        and those DEVILS don’t die , just like sins live in the wilderness, the devils live in the sea and are blocked from coming back to the land, but jesus COULD have made the devils SUFFER by not giving them a HOST lol

        WHAT DOES THE TORAH SAY WHEN IT COMES TO CAUSING UNNECESSARY HARM AND SUFFERING ON ANIMALS WHICH DON’T BELONG TO YOU OR THE DEVILS?

        Like

      23. the POINT IS THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR jebus to ABUSE his fathers authority by Saying “go” to the DEVILS !
        THIS WOULD BE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY
        WHY CAN’T YOU GET THIS IN YOUR THICK SKULL?
        WHY CAUSE THE HARM OF INNOCENT ANIMALS WHEN THERE WAS NO NEED TO ?
        THE DEVILS COULD HAVE BEEN SENT OUT OF THE CITY, PUT IN ABYSS OR REMAIN HOSTLESS BECAUSE THEY NOW NEED AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO NEW HOST .

        WHY CAN’T AN IDIOT LIKE YOU GET THIS?

        Like

      1. pagan blood god worshiper, people would give up their business easily if THEY WERE NOT WHIPPED ? they EASILY gave up their businesses ? they said , “no problem, turn over our tables, whip out our animals…” they became PACIFISTS ? do these people at the temple become PACIFISTS as soon as jesus enters? LOL ?
        your gospel BS has been EXPOSED !

        yes, jesus was VIOLENT and did use violence on animals and people

        Like

      2. Did you not read the comments from BT, honey? I referred to two incidences: the one with the pigs and the money changers in the temple. Your savior whipped those people and overturned their tables in a fit of anger.

        No running to your ex-wife now Cerbie… You are divorced, right?

        Like

      3. Paulus

        “Then Jesus entered the temple[a] and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. 13 He said to them, “It is written,

        ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’;
        but you are making it a den of robbers.”

        “Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,

        ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’?
        But you have made it a den of robbers.”

        “Then he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling things there; 46 and he said, “It is written,

        ‘My house shall be a house of prayer’;
        but you have made it a den of robbers.”

        “The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. 15 Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!”

        Notice, that not a single account describes Jesus “beating people”. This is Muhammadan wishful thinking.

        And if such an account makes Jesus a sinner, what do we make of Muhammad who gouged people’s eyes out, chopped off limbs and assissinated critics? Another case of muhammadan hypocrisy clear at work.

        Like

      4. Hahahaha, or the Crosstians are too embarrassed to think that their savior took the time to make a whip and then didn’t use it! Another case of Crosstian special pleading at work!

        Like

      5. 1. did the people become PACIFISTS when they saw their TORAH MANDATE get STOPPED ?
        2. did the people become PACIFISTS as soon as jesus entered?
        3. did the people become pacifists when your SINFUL “savior” VANDALIZED ?
        4. if jesus did not use VIOLENCE, then why did john find it NECESSARY to add in a WHIP ?
        5. if the animals were not whipped which caused WOUNDS, the people could have DONE business as usual , so what was the POINT of chasing everyone out? ONLY to have them RETURN again and do business as usual?

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Paulus

    “Allah ] said, “Go, for whoever of them follows you, indeed Hell will be the recompense of you – an ample recompense“

    According to the Koran, Allah allows Iblis to go for humans. Ergo, Allah is also sinful according to the logic of this thread.

    Like

    1. Paulus

      “And incite [to senselessness] whoever you can among them with your voice and assault them with your horses and foot soldiers and become a partner in their wealth and their children and promise them.”

      In this Koranic text, Allah is encouraging Iblis to harm humans.

      And poor Britney is desperate to blame Jesus for the actions of demons for simply allowing them to enter the pigs when his own holy book contains this!! Gotta love muhammadan hypocrisy. A totally illogical and impractical religion is muhammadanism.

      Like

      1. honestly, you are a DUMB pagan crosstian. you are embarrassing yourself quoting those quranic verses which have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with TELLING the devils to go into body of INNOCENT animals . when does satanic whispering EQUATE to a human being as “fully human” telling EVIL ones to go into INNOCENT pigs?

        your pagan HUMAN god TELLS the EVIL ones to go INTO pigs WHO DID NOT sin. WHAT DOES the bible say about BEING RESPONSIBLE for suffering and pain on innocent animals ?

        why jesus “new COVENANT” krist “prince of peace” HOGWASH NONSENSE had sympathy for the possessed human, but no SYMPATHY for swines who CRASHED INTO the rocks?

        jebus “new covenant” krist came to REPLACE the “old ways” lol

        Like

      2. Sahih International: And [mention] when We said to the angles, “Prostrate to Adam,” and they prostrated, except for Iblees. He said, “Should I prostrate to one You created from clay?”

        Sahih International: [Iblees] said, “Do You see this one whom You have honored above me? If You delay me until the Day of Resurrection, I will surely destroy his descendants, except for a few.”

        THE ARABS who were listening to these verses are TOLD about satans intentions , at the same time they are told about the INTENTIONS of those who DID OBEY ALLAH. OBVIOUSLY Allah wants the people to be like the angels who OBEYED.

        QUOTE :
        Sahih International: [Allah] said, “Go, for whoever of them follows you, indeed Hell will be the recompense of you – an ample recompense.

        so when the arabs heard this , what did they think? WHOEVER OF THEM FOLLOWS YOU (THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY WANT SATAN in their hearts )

        quote :

        Sahih International: And incite [to senselessness] whoever you can among them with your voice and assault them with your horses and foot soldiers and become a partner in their wealth and their children and promise them.” But Satan does not promise them except delusion.

        WHEN THE ARABS heard this, they KNEW it was talking about those who DISOBEY GOD AND FOLLOW SATAN …., BUT

        Sahih International: Indeed, over My [believing] servants there is for you no authority. And sufficient is your Lord as Disposer of affairs.

        now what does this have to do with yhwhs little boy who told the EVIL ones to do what they wanted to do?

        TWO THOUSAND PIGS CRASHED INTO THE ROCKS because jesus said “go and do WHAT you want”

        “send US TO the swine….LET US ENTER THEM…”

        SMASHED AND DROWNED !

        why SYMPATHY FOR the human being but no sympathy for the swine ,pork muncher?

        it is like jesus is ABUSING yhwhs miracles. if yhwh gave jesus AUTHORITY, then jesus should be careful how he uses an AUTHORITY which does not BELONG to him .

        Like

      3. Now, now Cerbie, don’t try to deflect. We are talking about your savior’s sinfulness. Deflecting to Islam does not serve as a logical argument. Surely if your savior was not a sinner, you can explain why without resorting to red herrings.

        Like

      4. Paulus

        I’ve demonstrated that both your points are wrong. Quite easily actually.

        The point of citing the quaran is to demonstrate consistency. If Jesus is a sinner for those two points, than so is Allah and Muhammad. What I’ve proven is you won’t apply your same reasoning to Islam. Hypocrisy.

        You claim Jesus is a sinner for casting out demons into swine, because he didn’t ask permission. Yet Allah gives Iblis permission to actively harm humans according to the Quran. (Side note- I don’t actually have a problem with this idea I merely point it out to show your hypocrisy)

        You claim Jesus beat up people when he drove them from the temple for actually sinning. Yet when muhammad kills critics, gouges eyes, slaughters dogs and geckos he is apparently sinless?

        Like

      5. LOL, oh man I am dying from laughter! You are very clearly uncomfortable with this topic. Once again I ask: does your savior allow you to use someone’s property without their knowledge? Answer this question. Stop running away and changing topics like a typical Crosstian coward.

        Like

    2. “According to the Koran, Allah allows Iblis to go for humans. ”

      no retard, “followers of satan” are those who have satan in their hearts, followers of God are those who have God in their hearts.
      yhwhs little child said to evil ONES, go ENTER into innocent pigs who have NOTHING to do with the man GETTING possessed.

      yhwhs little biological son BROKE yhwhs rules.

      what does the torah say about a jew who came down to “perfectly keep torah” yet knew full well that his DECISION would cause the MURDER AND RAPE of thousands of ANIMALS FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON?

      what does the torah say about jesus’ DECISION ?

      Like

    3. Now, now Cerbie, don’t try to deflect. We are talking about savior’s sinfulness. Deflecting to Islam does not serve as a logical argument. Surely if your savior was not a sinner, you can explain why without resorting to red herrings.

      Like

  4. 1. ATTACKS people who did not attack him. WRECKS their temple. BREAKS torah instructions :

    quote :

    People traveled throughout the known world to go to the Temple. On some holidays people were to bring sacrifices — and the sacrifices had to be personally owned by them, a kosher domestic animal. If you were traveling from Egypt or Babylon you would not drag a sheep all that way (the animal had to be without blemish, and that is unlikely on such a long journey). There were people who sold animals for sacrifice and who traded foreign currencies for these people.

    quote :
    You’re quite right about the money-changers. They performed a NECESSARY service in two respects.

    1) Sacrifices cost money, right? I mean, animals don’t come for free, right? If you want a sacrifice, you have to pay a fair price for the critter, and probably to the priests too.

    This required MONEY. And the only form of money in those days were coins. But there were literally hundreds of different kinds of coins. All sizes, all with varying precious metal content, sometime chipped away. It required the services of a professional to sort them all out and assign a fair value.

    2) Many coins bore graven images of gods or deified emperors, and were wholly unsuitable to be used for paying for Temple sacrifices. The money-changers were there to accept these base coins in exchange for kosher coins — naturally for a reasonable fee.

    the gospels say that jesus used violence on those who SOLD AND those who BOUGHT.

    those who bought were doing torah mandated practice, jesus precedes to show how to “love NEIGHBOR” by CAUSING damage to the skin of the animal and skin of the people.

    can you purchase an ANIMAL which is WHIPPED ? the whip did not cause any damage? if not, why didn’t the jews pin jesus on the floor and KILL him/stone him to death ?

    //////////////

    if NT jesus was a GOOD jew, he would have come out with a SOLUTION that did not PREVENT innocent BUYERS and traders from NOT doing torah mandated practices, but jesus doesn’t give a damn about torah practices, so his DESIRE was to STOP INNOCENT pilgrims doing TORAH mandate, causing DAMAGE and CREATING blemish on animal. jesus TRASHED yhwhs mandate.

    jesus’ “philosophy” is that if there is one BAD apple or a couple or a FEW, lets TRASH the WHOLE lot.

    lets TRASH the animals too who had NOTHING TO do with the sin .

    ////////////////////

    a pagan crosstian WROTE :

    “A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12 The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.” 13 He gave them permission, and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.“

    Please identify where Jesus stole property, as per Ex 22? Also please clarify why someone else is responsible for the actions of demons?

    END QUOTE

    1. how was jesus LOVING his neighbor when he did what EVIL ones REQUESTED of him ? how was jesus “new COVENANT” krist, treating his neighbor with LOVE , when he ALLOWED their property to be DAMAGED ?

    2.
    “to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force”

    jesus COULD have said “no” to the DEVILS and told them to DUMP themselves into the sea. he said, “i give you permission to go into SWINE which DO not belong to you or to me”

    that is TAKING THE property SECRETLY …..

    if i have magical powers, and i ALLOW invisible FORCES TO destroy SOMEBODY else’S PROPERTY, i would be CALLED criminal .
    I would be CALLED a thief .

    ALL the person who saw VANDAL jesus “new covenant ” krist, saw him as a HUMAN being, not as yhwh in the body of human.

    or “angel of the lord”

    they saw him as a MAN. a human being. a creature.

    the pagan crosstian god MADE use of SOMEONE ELSE’S property and got it TRASHED through someone else.

    he is portrayed as one who TAKES his anger out on INNOCENT animals because of human SINS (in this case he does the desire of the evil ones, what happen i thought jesus REPLACED the “old covenant” ? )

    WHAT sinful act did the swine commit?

    the demons BEGGED jesus to send them in the pigs , jesus could have SAID “no”

    jesus is giving permission to EVIL ones to go HARM innocent pigs .

    what does bible say about CAUSING UNNECESSARY pain and suffering on INNOCENT animals *********

    why jesus did not have sympathy for the pigs like he had sympathy for the devil possessed man? i thought jesus does not do the OLD way anymore , he came to bring NEW BS covenant?

    those pigs CRASHED into ROCKS . jesus didnt give a damn.

    Like

  5. pork muncher, i am going to keep on POUNDING you with this question :

    what does bible say about CAUSING UNNECESSARY pain and suffering on INNOCENT animals *********

    don’t play your BS ” he was god”
    no he wasn’t, he came down as a jew, who according to you “perfectly kept torah”

    WHAT DOES torah say about causing UNNECESSARY PAIN AND SUFFERING of innocent animals who had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE possession of the man?

    we are JUNDING jesus “perfectly kept torah” krist and jesus “new covenant” krist”
    and jesus “fully human” krist

    Like

    1. Paulus

      Oh, I LOVE munching pork!

      I see you are blaming Jesus for the actions of demons. I guess you also hate Allah for allowing Iblis to attack humans?

      Or what about muhammad commanding the killing of dogs? Or how about him encouraging Muslims to kill geckos for reward? I guess you just ignore the inconsistency?

      Killing geckos with one blow brings more reward than killing them with two blows. This was narrated in Saheeh Muslim via Khaalid ibn ‘Abd-Allaah from Suhayl ibn Abi Saalih from his father from Abu Hurayrah, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever kills a geckos with one blow will have such and such hasanah (good deeds); whoever kills it with the second blow will have such and such hasanah, less than the first; and whoever kills it with three blows will have such and such hasanah – less that the second.”

      Like

      1. “I see you are blaming Jesus for the actions of demons. I guess you also hate Allah for allowing Iblis to attack humans?”

        KILLING dogs? those pigs were FARMED , not wild you dumb crosstian pagan idiot. what were TWO THOUSAND pigs doing together? they had an OWNER you filthy bacon muncher.

        “I see you are blaming Jesus for the actions of demons. I guess you also hate Allah for allowing Iblis to attack humans?”

        crosstian , WHAT DOES THE TORAH SAY ABOUT CAUSING UNNECESSARY SUFFERING AND HARM TO ANIMALS WHICH WERE SINLESS?

        your jesus “new COVENENAT” krist

        and jesus “obeyed torah law perfectly” krist done what the evil ones wanted, but what jesus DID, it caused the SUFFERING of innocent animals. jesus’ human MOUTH caused UNNECESSARY SUFFERING . why didn’t the gospels tell us how jesus gave money for all the DESTRUCTION he caused ?

        i already ADDRESSED you bs about iblis being allowed to ATTACK humans , you are CONFLATING two different things.

        i repeat :

        crosstian , WHAT DOES THE TORAH SAY ABOUT CAUSING UNNECESSARY SUFFERING AND HARM TO ANIMALS WHICH WERE SINLESS?

        crosstian , WHAT DOES THE TORAH SAY ABOUT CAUSING UNNECESSARY SUFFERING AND HARM TO ANIMALS WHICH WERE SINLESS?

        crosstian , WHAT DOES THE TORAH SAY ABOUT CAUSING UNNECESSARY SUFFERING AND HARM TO ANIMALS WHICH WERE SINLESS?

        crosstian , WHAT DOES THE TORAH SAY ABOUT CAUSING UNNECESSARY SUFFERING AND HARM TO ANIMALS WHICH WERE SINLESS?

        crosstian , WHAT DOES THE TORAH SAY ABOUT CAUSING UNNECESSARY SUFFERING AND HARM TO ANIMALS WHICH WERE SINLESS?

        crosstian , WHAT DOES THE TORAH SAY ABOUT CAUSING UNNECESSARY SUFFERING AND HARM TO ANIMALS WHICH WERE SINLESS?

        crosstian , WHAT DOES THE TORAH SAY ABOUT CAUSING UNNECESSARY SUFFERING AND HARM TO ANIMALS WHICH WERE SINLESS?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “I see you are blaming Jesus for the actions of demons.”

        THE demons had no AUTHORITY to enter into the property of someone else and cause its destruction , jesus did not CARE about how the farmers would make their money after they discovered that their animals had perished. your jesus CAME down to earth to OBEY torah law, how much “love thy neighbor” did he do after he CAUSED the deaths of thousands of animals?

        “I guess you also hate Allah for allowing Iblis to attack humans?”

        the verse says that it is referring to those who have iblis in THEIR hearts and FOLLOW him.

        how is satanic whispering the same as giving satan PERMISSION to DESTROY the property of someone? show ONE place in the quran where ALLAH tells satan to go into a human and abuse it (those who WORSHIP the devil are INVITING the devil in their houses ) , show one place in the quran where satan is given permission to DESTROY property which does not belong to him .

        SHOW ONE PLACE WHERE ALLAH ALLOWS SATAN TO POSSESS AN INNOCENT BODY AND SAY “GO AND DO IT”

        Like

      3. Paulus

        Hi Tony.

        Here you go.

        “And incite [to senselessness] whoever you can among them with your voice and assault them with your horses and foot soldiers and become a partner in their wealth and their children and promise them.”

        Allah gives Satan permission to “invite WHOEVER you can among them…”

        Your own scholars admit this.

        “And tempt, to the end of this [verse]: Satan’s ability to lead servants astray divides into several aspects, because preparednesses [themselves] vary. And so he whose preparedness is weak, he [Satan] tempts, that is, he fools him with his voice: it is sufficient for him [Satan] to insinuate [to him] with evil whisperings, murmurings and the occasional evil thought. As for the one whose preparedness is strong, if he purifies his preparedness of the taints of ego-centric attributes or if God, exalted be He, has purified him of the taints of otherness, then he [Satan] has no power to lead them astray whatsoever, as He Himself says:“

        Like

      4. “And incite [to senselessness] whoever you can among them with your voice and assault them with your horses and foot soldiers and become a partner in their wealth and their children and promise them.”

        you dumb pagan crosstian WHY ARE you not looking at the COMPLETE context?
        WHAT does “with your VOICE mean” ?

        LOOK AT THE VERSE BEFORE

        Sahih International: [Allah] said, “Go, for whoever of them follows you, indeed Hell will be the recompense of you – an ample recompense.

        why are you DISREGARDING context? THOSE who have satan in their HEARTS will FOLLOW satan …..

        those who do the DEED of satan will LISTEN to satan

        AND LOOK AT THIS VERSE :

        Sahih International: Indeed, over My [believing] servants there is for you no authority. And sufficient is your Lord as Disposer of affairs.

        you see , you pagan crosstian? the believers who have ALLAH in their hearts are not the same as those who have SATAN in their hearts.

        yhwhs little PAGAN puny boy ABUSED yhwhs AUTHORITY.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. i gave you explanation for this verse (QURANIC) 2 days ago and you completely ignored it .

        your pagan SINFUL saviour ABUSED the “miraculous authority” yhwh had GIVEN him

        the “human person” of jesus was COMPLETELY a sinner and abuser of a GIFT given to him

        WHAT DOES THE TORAH SAY ABOUT CAUSING THE UNNECESSARY SUFFERING AND PAIN OF TWO THOUSAND ANIMALS WHICH DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MAN WHO WAS POSSESSED ?

        THE POSSESSED MAN SUFFERED, so jesus DECIDES TO say “okay” to DIRTY EVIL ONES TO CAUSE HORRENDOUS PAIN TO TWO THOUSAND ANIMALS WHICH DID NOT BELONG TO him AND WHICH WERE PROBABLY USED TO SUPPORT SOMEONE ELSE’ LIVELIHOOD

        WHERE WAS THE “LOVE THY NEIGHBOR PRECEPT ” ?
        IMAGINE YOU DONE THAT TO YOUR NEIGHBOR , WOULD YOUR NEIGHBOR BE EXTREMELY HAPPY?

        they say “power corrupts” and it sure CORRUPTED jesus

        Liked by 1 person

      6. you know, no where in that verse does it say that satan actually had authority to cause one to do suicide or kill himself.
        no where does it say in that verse that Allah said “go in them and cause their DESTRUCTION like jesus caused the DESTRUCTION of two thousand pigs by telling evil ones to POSSES them….”

        look at it from the persecptive of the FIRST hearers of that verse, would they have gone away with , they would CLEARLY see it as those who LOVE to INVITE satan in to their hearts and FOLLOW him … it is like someone knocking on your door (you know it is evil) an d you LET him in…..

        this is the PICTURE the verses are painting.

        yhwhs little PUNY boy caused the DESTRUCTION of ANIMALS and DESTRUCTION of someones INCOME (TWO THOUSAND animals)

        this is AN ABUSE of AUTHORITY given to him .

        Like

      7. Paulus

        “you know, no where in that verse does it say that satan actually had authority to cause one to do suicide or kill himself.
        no where does it say in that verse that Allah said “go in them and cause their DESTRUCTION like jesus“

        And nor does the biblical text suggest Jesus told the pigs to go kill them selves. Remember, you guys are making the claim that Jesus is culpable for the actions of demons. I’ve shown Allah has the same responsibility.

        “the believers who have ALLAH in their hearts are not the same as those who have SATAN in their hearts.“

        Duh! That’s irrelevant silly. The point is Allah gave Satan permission to enter and harm humans. Only by Allah’s will. Ergo, if Jesus is a sinner for allowing demons to enter pigs then Allah is a sinner for allowing Satan to enter humans. See the logic?

        Like

  6. “You are blaming someone else for the actions of the demons. You keep making statements about Jesus “breaking the law”, yet you haven’t provided a single citation to prove such a claim. Because such doesn’t exist!”

    the demons had no AUTHORITY TO enter into the pigs, if they did, they wouldn’t need jesus.
    yhws little kid MISUSED miracle of authority given to him (kid) , the pigs HAD ABSOLUTELY done no evil .
    why did jesus do what the evil ones wanted and that is possess pigs which did not belong to either jesus or the evil ones?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Exactly. The demons entered the pigs with Jesus’ permission, but Jesus never asked the owner’s permission. Cerbie keeps avoiding this problem. I think he realizes in the back of his mind that this story presents serious problems for Christianity. I mean really, in one short story, the entire foundation of Christianity is destroyed. You can’t be saved with a sinful sacrifice. The Levitical sin offering had to be free of “blemish” (not to mention female not male). If Jesus was a sinner, then he could not be the sacrifice.

      Cerbie thinks that the fact that 2000 pigs were drowned would not have made people angry. And since it is highly unlikely that the owner would have been a Jew, that only leaves the possibility that he was a Gentile, mostly likely a Roman. So even if Jesus did not violate any specific Jewish laws (which actually he clearly did), he would have violated Roman law. Paul clearly stated that Christians had to obey the laws of their government, even if it was of non-Christians (Romans 13). Jesus violated this rule. Roman law was clear:

      “…the first chapter of the lex Aquilia provides that “[i]f anyone kills unlawfully a slave or servant-girl belonging to someone else or a fourfooted beast of the class of cattle, let him be condemned to pay the owner the highest value that the property had attained in the preceeding [sic] year.””

      http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=ealr

      Face it Cerbie. No matter how much you may protest as a brainwashed Christian zombie, the fact is that your savior broke the law and was thus a sinner. Therefore, you are still in your sins and will go to hell when you die. I know, it sucks to hear it. That’s quite a bummer.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. imagine by the click of a button you can WIRELESSLY terminate two thousand animals,but first you need someone else to give you that ability. you get the ability , then crosstian says “you pressed the button”

    But you crosstians MISSED THE POINT

    note that:

    mark 1.34 – jesus hush up evil ones
    The demons can even request that they dont get sent out of the country

    like solomon jesus seems to be deciding what action the evil ones take.

    it was something jesus Wanted.

    mark has his jesus CONTROL what devils can and cannot do

    when the man was possessed he was caused HARM by the devils (jesus KNEW this)
    If the devils could cause the man harm, then they could cause the pig harm too, jesus would know this, the pigs PANICKED like the man panicked and they CRASHED to their DEATHS.

    This is UNECECCESARY suffering and could have been avoided

    where was “love thy neighbour ” precept gone when jesus abused someone elses property?
    how is jesus obeying torah “perfectly” when he is giving evil ones allowance to harm innocent animals and destroy business?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Paulus

    “but Jesus never asked the owner’s permission.“

    “Narrated ‘Abaya bin Rafa’a bin Raft’ bin Khadij:

    “My grandfather said, “We were in the company of the Prophet at Dhul-Hulaifa. The people felt hungry and captured some camels and sheep (as booty). The Prophet was behind the people. They hurried and slaughtered the animals and put their meat in pots and started cooking it.”

    I don’t see Muhammad asking the owners permission to take their animals, kill them, and eat them, do you?

    So by applying consistent standards you have no option to admit muhammad was a sinner aswell.

    #anotherbritneyfail
    #islamthereligionifinconsistency

    Like

  9. this dirty pork muncher has been completely exposed. it is sad that when you make god into flesh, you try to “clean up” all his DIRTY human actions even when your religion says that jesus was “BORN of a woman” and that which is “born of a woman” = sinner
    jesus was, according to the bible, a man who said “why do you call me good”
    throughout the nt , we see how your pagan “god man” treated people

    1. noah TURNED THE other cheek for 900 years, does he have an abusive record like jesus?

    2. jesus PUBLICLY called a HUMBLE woman “little DOG” in the PUBLIC….IN THE PUBLIC……IN THE PUBLIC……IN THE PUBLIC, he included her ILL daughter too….

    since it is her ILL DAUGHTER WHO WOULD BE THE RECIPIENT OF THE BREAD AND jesus said ” it is not right /fair to take the childrens bread and cast it to the dogs….”

    jesus pictures dogs having bread CAST at them like REAL dogs have bread CAST at them

    jesus said “why do you call me good”

    when your bible says jesus had a human nature and when we have evidence of jesus’ SINFUL behaviour, one should admit and put” trust” in your bible that jesus was a SINNER .

    Liked by 1 person

  10. cerbie, you missed these questions :

    1. did the people become PACIFISTS when they saw their TORAH MANDATE get STOPPED ?
    2. did the people become PACIFISTS as soon as jesus entered?
    3. did the people become pacifists when your SINFUL “savior” VANDALIZED ?
    4. if jesus did not use VIOLENCE, then why did john find it NECESSARY to add in a WHIP ?
    5. if the animals were not whipped which caused WOUNDS, the people could have DONE business as usual , so what was the POINT of chasing everyone out? ONLY to have them RETURN again and do business as usual?

    just for your reminder

    Like

    1. Paulus

      Hello Tony.

      Please provide a citation from Torah that people were to sell and trade inside the temple?

      Don’t worry. It doesn’t exist. You are lieing.

      Jesus drove out the traders and animals because they were desecrating the temple. He used a whip. But no where does it say he beat the people or the animals. That’s the pathetic date munching muhammadan lies.

      Like

      1. “Jesus drove out the traders and animals because they were desecrating the temple. He used a whip. But no where does it say he beat the people or the animals. That’s the pathetic date munching muhammadan lies.”

        so let me get this straight, WHERE is your EVIDENCE that anyone WHO purchased an ANIMAL or changed a coin because it had IMAGE of an IDOL, had DESECRATION in his hEART and not TORAH mandate?

        jesus DROVE OUT THOSE WHO BOUGHT AND SOLD .

        so when the pilgrims after that LONG journey to jerusalem went to make change and purchase animal, saw a jesus READY to whip them, my question is,

        you said

        “say he BEAT the people or the animals ….”

        think about this now

        a violent TERRORIST VANDALIZES AND STOPS YOUR “holy torah” MANDATED practices .

        1. do you become pacifist and non- resistant?
        2. do you resist and attempt to defend what god told you to do?

        if jesus DID not INJURE the animals , the people would REUSE them because they would not be BLEMISHED. the POINT of a whip is to CAUSE damage to the SKIN SKIN SKIN SKIN SKIN

        are you imagining your savior like those GAY poughters who hit lightly? this was a CARPENTER !

        THINK about this MAN worshipper

        just think

        jesus JUST PUT his life on the line by his TERRORISM in the temple, no whip would mean INSTANT MOB TAKE OUT . they would have done your gods “plan ” PREMATURELY .

        that whip SAVED jesus’ life and it had to cause MAXIMUM damage to prevent “DESECRATION which jesus had in mind”

        the “zeal ” lan guage is ASSOCIATED with VIOLENCE in ot.

        so i repeat my questions again :

        1. did the people become PACIFISTS when they saw their TORAH MANDATE get STOPPED ?
        2. did the people become PACIFISTS as soon as jesus entered?
        3. did the people become pacifists when your SINFUL “savior” VANDALIZED ?
        4. if jesus did not use VIOLENCE, then why did john find it NECESSARY to add in a WHIP ?
        5. if the animals were not whipped which caused WOUNDS, the people could have DONE business as usual , so what was the POINT of chasing everyone out? ONLY to have them RETURN again and do business as usual?

        Like

  11. My friend and brother Faiz, it would be great to create an article on islamic “minimal facts”

    this should make paulis very jealous:

    I will start off quoting :

    The famous Mu’tazilite scholar Qadi ‘Abdul Jabbar (d. 415 AH) in his book “The Establishment of Proofs for the Prophethood of Our Prophet Mohammed” (تثبيت دلائل نبوة نبينا محمد رسول الله صلوات الله عليه وسلامه) responds to an argument which we still come across quite often today.
    Did the Prophet (peace be upon him) only or mainly attract followers by promising them war booty?
    Qadi ‘Abdul Jabbar said that this is nonsensical. How could one believe that these people chose to unconditionally obey the Prophet and be prepared to fight against their own tribes, parents, brethren, etc. just for the sake of material wealth so easily? Furthermore, if they were only interested in the spoils of war they could have told the Prophet that they themselves have more experience than him in fighting such wars and gaining war booty. In addition, why on earth would they choose the side of the Prophet and sacrifice their women, wine, silk, etc. and adopt a religion which derides the religions of their beloved ancestors for wealth which they could attain by fighting other wars without making such compromises? Why should they risk their lives and be willing to spill their blood for defending such a controversial figure such as the prophet when they don’t’ even believe in him? Moreover, if they didn’t truly believe he was a prophet, what guarantees would they have had that he would even be victorious and fulfill his word of disseminating war booty to them?
    It makes no sense. It makes no sense.

    Today Shaykh Sayed read a verse commanding the Prophet to tell the Muslims: “If you love Allah, then follow me [Muhammad], so that Allah will love you” (Alli Imran, 31).

    Imagine that you’re a citizen of the Roman Empire in the 6th century. As a Roman, you are part of a civilization that appears to have reached the peak of human excellence. Roman architecture is beautiful and overwhelming; Roman scientific and philosophical thinking is advanced; Roman religion is, at this point in time, thoroughly Christian and has accepted Judeo-Christian history as their own. By contrast, the Arabs are a series of nomadic, illiterate pagan tribes that constantly are at war with each other and have no connection to a rich philosophical and scientific tradition, as well as to any kind of centralized government.

    But, within the course of 30 years, the Arabs are at your door step, ready to conquer and topple your empire. Furthermore, these once mostly illiterate pagan tribes are now unified: and they suddenly know a lot about Judeo-Christian history, and they claim to know and worship your God better than you know and worship Him.

    What in the world united barbaric, warring Arab tribes and caused them to become unified enough to topple and compete with an empire that reached the peaks of human excellence? What brought them from being pagans to being connected to Judeo-Christian history and thought?
    Muhammad.

    When I hear the verse Shaykh Sayed read, I don’t understand the verse to be telling me that I should follow Muhammad’s way and religion because that is how I can get God to love me. Instead, the verse makes me imagine—and truly imagine—who Muhammad is.

    I try to imagine what these Arabs were feeling and thinking when they decided to follow and to unite under the direction of Muhammad’s religion. And after transporting myself into their mind as best I can, I end up seeing a man whose beauty and virtue can’t be accounted for even by the best of what philosophical theory has to offer.

    I end up feeling for Muhammad a powerful love and devotion, a kind of love and devotion that makes me want to give up EVERYTHING—my values, my cultural norms, my friends, my family, and even my religion—to follow him to the ends of the earth if he so asked me to.

    I didn’t have any deep philosophical reflections when I heard this verse. I only felt an awe had an a-rational love and devotion for Muhammad: the man who took history into his hand; the man for whom I want nothing more but to fall at his feet in awe and servitude.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. “It’s rather simple. The texts (all four accounts) simply don’t draw the conclusion you do. No one thought Jesus broke any laws, Jewish or otherwise. ”

    this is what man worship does to your crosstian brains. you would probably drink urine and excrement of your “savior” like you do his blood and flesh!

    WHAT DOES THE TORAH SAY ABOUT CAUSING UNNECESSARY HARM AND SUFFERING ON INNOCENT ANIMALS AND TAKING SOMEONES PROPERTY AND ALLOWING IT TO BE DESTROYED?

    you said “no one thought….”

    SO IT IS FINE TO CAUSE ANIMALS UNNECESSARY HARM AND SUFFERING AND DESTROY PROPERTY OF SOMEONE (THAT SOMEONE HAD TO TAKE TIME AND EFFORT LOOKING AFTER THAT HERD , CLEANING, FEEDING , PURCHASING FOOD, ) because “no one thought….” this is where your standard has gone? right in the TOILET?

    “They feared Jesus and asked him to leave the area because they were amazed that he had authority of the demons who had been terrorising people.”

    what FILTH SCUM bag you are ! THEY asked him first not to SEND them OUT of the country WHICH would have been BETTER SENDING them OUT THE country , THEN allowing them to HARM innocent ANIMALS and killing of someone else’ PROPERTY

    “they FEARED jesus….” WHAT DOES THAT have to do with jesus TELLING THEM TO “GO into the pigs ” ?

    jesus “love thy neighbor ” krist just saw WHAT harm it was DOING to the POSSESSED individual, now jesus thought , “hey THEY fear me…. LET me give them what they want …. let me allow them to RAVAGE and RAPE pork ….”

    WHERE is the love and compassion ?

    jesus krist : “hey deviles DON’T take your RAPE out on humans, RAPE the SWINES which don’t belong to you ”

    you “logic ” works like this

    it is OKAY TO KILL THOUSANDS of INNOCENT ANIMALS and cause them UNNECESSARY SUFFERING AND CAUSE DAMAGE TO SOMEONES BELONGINGS BECAUSE evil ones “feared jesus and jesus had control over them” LOL

    Liked by 1 person

  13. edward

    QUOTE :
    “And nor does the biblical text suggest Jesus told the pigs to go kill them selves. Remember, you guys are making the claim that Jesus is culpable for the actions of demons. I’ve shown Allah has the same responsibility.”

    “the believers who have ALLAH in their hearts are not the same as those who have SATAN in their hearts.“

    Duh! That’s irrelevant silly. The point is Allah gave Satan permission to enter and harm humans. Only by Allah’s will. Ergo, if Jesus is a sinner for allowing demons to enter pigs then Allah is a sinner for allowing Satan to enter humans. See the logic?

    //////////////////////

    i honestly think you are a dumb retard. in one case the EVIL ones are given PERMISSION TO GO AND ENTER INNOCENT animals , in another case THE WHOLE CONTEXT is about OBEDIENCE AND DISOBEDIENCE AND ALLOWING SATAN INTO YOUR HEART AND FOLLOWING him. IT IS THE HUMAN WHO IS DOING THE CRIME YOU IDIOT, IT IS HE WHO IS SAYING “SATAN PLEASE COME IN AND HAVE DINNER”
    THE QURAN IN OTHER PLACES WARNS NOT TO WORSHIP THE DEVIL .
    YOU CAN’T conflate the two

    jesus, yhwhs PUNY boy could have LEFT them “HOSTLESS” and they would have perished because they NOW NEED someone ELSES AUTHORITY to do something. you can’t see this you DUMB crosstian retard?

    yes, jesus is CULPABLE, he as “fully human” WANTED the evil ones to HARM innocent animals. yes, your pagan meat god is a SINNER.

    Like

  14. “The point is Allah gave Satan permission to enter and harm humans. Only by Allah’s will. ”

    quote :
    And Satan will say when the matter has been concluded, “Indeed, Allah had promised you the promise of truth. And I promised you, but I betrayed you. But I had no authority over you except that I invited you, and you responded to me. So do not blame me; but blame yourselves.

    when you worship a jew , you already put satan in your heart. you already OPENED the doors/heart to satan. you RESPONDED to satan. you LEFT the truth. GOD LET YOU DROWN in your FALSEHOOD like you are DROWNING right now. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH jesus’ ABUSE of authority. humans HARM themselves like you are harming yourself and drowning in your satanic man worship.

    1. the devils BEGGED jesus not to send them out of the country or into abyss and they NEEDED a HOST. They NEEDED a host to HARM so they can LIVE in the sea where they BELONG.

    2. jesus could have left them hostless but he allowed them to do pig rape. TWO THOUSAND PERISHED. WHAT DOES THE TORAH SAY ABOUT CAUSING HARM AND UNNECESSARY SUFFERING TO ITEMS WHICH DO NOT BELONG TO YOU OR TO THE DEVILS?

    3. i am JUDGING YOUR pagan “fully human ” part of your pagan god. TELL ME WHAT TORAH SAYS ABOUT CAUSING UNNECCESSARY HARM TO ITEMS . IF HARM COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED WHY WASN’T IT AVOIDED?

    Like

    1. Heck, it’s even said that Vespasian healed people by the power of Serapis. So clearly, even if we were to assume the stories are true, it still does not prove that the person is divine. Christians are just trying to cling to their mangod like the pagans used to cling to their idols.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. it is funny isnt it when crosstians says jesus came to fix problems in first century when reality is that he called people pigs and dogs and even calls ILL INNOCENT little girl DOG!

    this is the guy who brought “new covenant” when what he really brought was old covenant in which he abuses his authority by allowing innocent life to perish even though there was ABSOLUTELY NO NEEEEEEED……..

    he insults, abuses in public, boasts he is “i am” (runz like chicken) , gets oiled coz he wants his body to stink nice, uses violence on animals and humans ….

    Tells ppl to watch their mouth then publicly calls womans daughter dog, HYPOCRITE!

    lies …. i said everything in the open….IE IMPORTANT RELIGIOUS TEchings , when all throughout gospel of mark he hides IMPORTANT RELIGIOUS TEachings…..hypocrite

    Gets oiled by a woman using her hair, having no shame she is not his relative.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. jesus the sinner with bad company and telling bad company to purchase swords

    Quote:

    I have to reply here since I have no link to the posting you made that I’m really replying to.

    You said, “Possibly (about Jesus having 2 swords).

    But I don’t think so.

    It doesn’t fit the overall pattern of behavior. Jesus rejected violence. Over and over.

    The point of the swords is that there is no point to the swords. To have them and not use them. If you don’t have the potential to fight back, there is no virtue in not fighting back.

    ***

    With regard to Jesus’ alleged non-violence — THERE’S ANOTHER topic for Professor! — I point out to you the following:

    * At least 5 of Jesus’ 12 innermost disciples were VIOLENT men. Simon “Cephas” aka Simon Peter — but we KNOW that Simon was ALREADY known as “Cephas” or “rock” even before he met Jesus, because John 1 tells us so. There are the two sons of Thunder (Boanerges) — a street name if I ever heard one. There is Simon the Zealot — and in the 1st century, to be known as a Jewish “zealot” was a loaded expression, like being known today as an ISIS jihadist. Josephus talks at GREAT length about the Zealots who revolted and fought against Rome. It is INCONCEIVABLE that any 1st century evangelist would EVER have called him “Simon the Zealot” without knowing EXACTLY what he was saying — that Simon was ONE OF THEM, the ZEALOTS. And above all there is Judas the Daggerman aka Judas Iscariot.

    That is VERY strange company indeed for a so-called “Prince of Peace” to be keeping.

    * Jesus used violence to chase the money-changers from the Temple.

    * Jesus AUTHORIZED carrying 2 swords into the Garden of Gethsemane.

    Your explanation — that there is no virtue in resisting the temptation to use violence unless one consciously brings weapons so that one can consciously refuse to use them.

    I find that INCREDIBLY WEAK. That is like saying, I have a weakness for hookers and cocaine, but if I resist these temptations, I get no credit in Heaven for resisting unless I place temptation literally into my pocket by carrying cocaine and actively seeking hookers for companionship — and only then, if I resist, do I then get great credit.

    It is a sin to place oneself in the proximity of sin. That is why the Catholic Church says, avoid the near occasion of sin. If I have a problem with alcohol, I ought not walk past a barroom on my way home; it might tempt me. Pirkei Avot aka Ethics of the Fathers says, “ya-asay siyug ha-torah” — “Build a fence around the Law.” In other words, do not do merely the minimum of what the Law requires; do MORE than it requires, for it keeps away the possibility of sinning.

    Subjecting oneself to near occasion of temptation in order to build one’s moral character is a BOGUS way to build character.

    ////

    the truth is this christian god was full of hate,anger,racism, warring, blood thirsty and wanted violence

    sinful jesus never told pilate about his terrorist plans, NOTICE HOW he REMAINS SILENT IN MARK AND NEVER TELLS PILATE THAT he GAVE ORDER TO PURCHASE WEAPONS WHICH CUT THROUGH FLESH !

    Imagine pilate FINDING THAT OUT

    JUST IMAGINE

    Like

  17. Since Cerbie has run away after failing miserably to defend his sinful savior, let us look at another example of the sins his savior committed. It turns out, he also lied on occasion!

    “You go to the festival. I am not[b] going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee. 10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret” (John 7:8-10).

    Jesus told his brothers, who did not believe in him, to go to the festival but that he would not go. But after his brothers left, he went to the festival anyway. Now you could say that this was a harmless lie, but it was a lie nevertheless.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. tells pilate that his “kingdom is not of this world”
      but goes around telling people “thy kingdom come,thy will be done hear on earth”

      lies to pilate….tells his followers to arm themselves, when it comes to his interrogation, tells pilate that his followers would fight if…. they did fight, you told them to ARM themselves REMEMBER? you never revealed that part to pilate, did you? see how jesus conceal information which would implicate him ?

      Liked by 1 person

  18. hey joel and paulus,

    https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/06/cold-case-christianity-bible-is-racist.html

    please do comment on this blog, joel became chicken sh*t on the canaanite massacre….

    Jesus held off granting a healing request to a Gentile women until she cleverly responded to his racist remark by admitting it was correct to characterize the Jews as children and herself as a dog:

    22 And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.”
    23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.”

    24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
    25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”

    26 And He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
    27 But she said, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”
    28 Then Jesus said to her, “O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed at once. (Matt. 15:22-28 NAU)

    Inerrantist scholar has to trifle that the wording here suggests the Gentiles are not wild dogs, but pet dogs, as if this reduces the stigma!

    15:25–28 The woman merely repeats her plea for help but also kneels. Whatever her intention, Matthew will see some kind of worship here. Jesus pursues the question of the distinction between Jews and Gentiles (v. 26). Jews frequently insulted Gentiles by calling them “dogs,”— the wild, homeless scavengers that roamed freely in Palestine. But the diminutive form here (kynarion rather than kyōn) suggests a more affectionate term for domestic pets, particularly since these dogs eat under the children’s table. Even at best, Jesus’ remarks still strike the modern reader as condescending. Jesus apparently wants to demonstrate and stretch this woman’s faith. The “children” must then refer to Israel and the “bread” to the blessings of God on the Jews, particularly through Jesus’ healing ministry. The woman disputes none of Jesus’ terms but argues that, even granting his viewpoint, he should still help her (v. 27). The Gentiles should receive at least residual blessings from God’s favor on the Jews. In fact, the Old Testament from Gen 12:1–3 onwards promised far more than residue. The woman reveals a tenacious faith even as a Gentile (v. 28). Jesus explicitly commends this faith, closely paralleling the narrative of 8:5–13 (as does also his instantaneous healing from a distance). Matthew’s distinctives underline her faith by the addition both of her words in v. 22 and of Jesus’ praise here. “Your request is granted” more literally reads let it be done for you as you wish.
    Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).
    Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 244).
    Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

    Evangelical scholar Hagner admits what “dog” really meant:

    This word, used first by Jesus and then by the woman, recalls that Gentiles were sometimes likened to the unclean dogs that roamed the streets (cf. 7:6). κυρίων, “masters,” suggests the superiority of Israel as the people of God over the Gentiles.
    Hagner, D. A. (2002). Vol. 33B:
    Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 14-28.
    Word Biblical Commentary (Page 442). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

    Like

  19. And Jesus dishonorably refused to agree with somebody who considered his mother honorable:
    27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.”
    28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” (Lk. 11:27-28

    Like

  20. stewjo004

    @ QB
    Ouch… so using his same standard he gave me in regards to his concept of God:
    Jesus is alleged to have told a lie and thus die in sin. So who is Paulus going to go to? According to him, God couldn’t even keep his own “righteous standards”?

    Like

  21. krist ignores the begging woman, his pals mediate on her behalf and say “send her away ” i.e give her what she wants so she goes away…..

    krist replies , ” i can’t help her, i have come ONLY for the LOST sheep”

    ” i was SENT ONLY to the lost sheep”

    “it is not fair to take the children’s bread and THROW it to the LITTLE ANIMALS/dogs”

    Thom Stark :

    Jesus began with a myopic vision: he was sent only to care for Israelites. The Canaanite “dogs” were out of his purview. But it wasn’t until he was confronted with one of these dogs, face to face, that he discovered, to his surprise, that they are humans too, and dignified, even in their despair, capable of greater faith even than the so-called “faithful.”

    He was tempted in all ways as we are, tempted to see the Other as less dignified, less worthy, less faithful, less capable of faithfulness, less inclined to tolerance. He was tempted to see the Other as Other, rather than as Self. At first, he couldn’t see his own people, couldn’t see himself, in her. But confronted with that Other, Jesus learned. He learned to sympathize. To sympathize with the enemy. Jesus learned.

    an interesting response on the MARKAN VERSION of the story :

    In this story, Jesus never agrees to the equality of gentiles, or the equality of women, or the equality of gentile women with Jewish men. Jesus called the woman a dog. And she made her point by agreeing with him, not saying that she deserved equality or fairness, but merely begging for crumbs.

    It is a very, very common thing for someone who is oppressed to have to placate and pretend to agree with the oppressor in order to gain some small benefit. And that’s what we see happen here.

    Once she had admitted to and agreed with his understanding of her place in the world, a dog who can at most expect crumbs, Jesus gave her what she begged for. It does him no harm to show a bit of kindness to a lesser person who acknowledges their subordinate nature. But there is no evidence that his behaviour patterns changed in the long-term to reflect a change in belief and a letting-go of prejudice. Jesus did not then reach out to other Gentiles in his lifetime. He did not, in his lifetime, work to send apostles to Gentile communities. This incident was an aberration in his behavior, a single time when, on a whim, he decided to indulge an inferior person who amused him with her clever response but did not challenge his privileged world-view.

    The woman may have bested Jesus in this argument, in the sense that she convinced him to give her what she desperately needed.

    But she did not best him by arguing for her equality. And she did not best him by convincing him that she was equal. She did not best him by arguing for fairness. She did not convince him to treat gentile women, as a group, fairly.

    Saying that a dog may claim crumbs that fall from the table is a very, very different thing from saying that a dog is equal to a human child eating at the table. She used the time-honored technique of the oppressed and enslaved of flattering their oppressor in order to gain favor.

    ***

    And Jesus’s initial rejection of her request is not merely prejudiced. It is cruel. And evil.
    This is a woman who is desperate. Her child is severely ill, in a way that was not understood at that time. She believed her child to be not just physically ill, but possessed by evil spirits.

    Any interpretation of the story that suggests that Jesus was using this woman to illustrate a point
    requires recognizing that he considered making a point to be more important than the welfare of a desperately ill child. It requires recognizing that Jesus considered making a point more important than basic kindness and good manners to a woman asking a favor.

    Scoring points in a debate can never be more important than kindness and caring for actual human beings.
    ***

    Imagine being desperate to find a cure for your sick child. You muster your courage, and approach a doctor well-known for being able to cure conditions that others find impossible to treat.

    And that doctor calls you a dog, who has no right to take treatment that might be given to real people.
    That doctor is, at best, a prejudiced arse hole At worst, he’s advocating a sort of low-level genocide, providing medical care to worthy people but leaving those of a lesser race to die.

    And in situations of great oppression, there are always many stories of oppressors showing occasional acts of small kindness to this or that oppressed individual. And then using those occasional small acts as a way to tell themselves and others that they aren’t really oppressors, because there is this or that lone individual among the many they oppress to whom they’ll give an occasional and small bit of kindness while still treating them badly in the larger picture.

    we note that the woman’s request–healing for her daughter–is granted not on the basis of faith but on the basis of her argument. Jesus says, “For such a reply…”

    Liked by 3 people

  22. “pastor” mansur , destroys 3 crosstians on this issue .

    some points which he made i didn’t think of before. the woman clearly NEW jesus did not come for the non-jews, thats why she works with jesus’ ABUSE and insult and TURNS it around to win her a cure. she AGREED that he did not come for her and that she would PICK up crumbs from masters/loss sheep/ prostitutes, gamblers, tax collectors…
    in other words, she would come as a DOG looking for food. the truth is that jesus got refuted on this big time. she taught him about GRAVITY. she taught him how crumbs UNINTENTIONALLY fall….

    Liked by 2 people

    1. the christian sister was more intelligent than the two bafoons on each side. she was , like the non-canaanite willing to listen. she even said it was a “difficult story”
      accepting that jesus does things which are difficult (abuse /insult) is commendable. respect to her.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. funny isn’t it that crosstians try to lesson jesus’ racist, unneighborly , unloving behaviour by looking at the bs in mat 28 . lol

      “hey man, i called your mum a little b***h, but i took her to hospital in my ferrari f40 ”

      amen!

      Liked by 2 people

  23. mr.heathcliff

    https://ehrmanblog.org/when-did-jesus-become-sinless/

    quote :
    The long story of Jesus healing the man born blind in John 9 has the Pharisees concluding that “this man is a sinner,” since Jesus violated the Sabbath law when he healed the man (9:24)

    quote :
    And Jesus’ disrespect of the Torah is not restricted to this incident. While Christians have a hard time understanding the problem with John 9 and the healing of the blind man, Jesus makes a serious breach of the Sabbath. Here the severity of the crime will not be the enormity of the act but the meaning of it, the vanity of it.
    Jesus heals a blind man on the Sabbath. But before doing so, Jesus makes a mixture of dirt and spat that he smears on the eyes of the blind man. Here the problem is not the healing. It is the mixture, the making of which violates the Sabbath. It must be understood that the mixture is wholly unnecessary. Jesus has healed many people. They can just touch him and his power flows into them, even. And of course, it is not a property of mud to restore sight. If Jesus wished to heal the blind man, he could have just done it.
    But he made a deliberate choice to violate the Sabbath. He made an entirely useless mixture. Such an act is a pure act of rebellion. This is what makes the action so horrifying. If making the mixture produced some good, one might be able to find some justification for it. But the mixture does nothing. Jesus made it only to break the Sabbath.
    These are not the acts of a Torah scholar. His arguments show him to not understand Torah well. His actions show that he did not respect Torah.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. mr.heathcliff

        ” Mark seems more to presume a sinless Jesus after the baptism scene, rather than cleaning up the baptism like Matthew or Luke chose to do. But then they had miraculous birth stories that seemed to make Jesus’ baptism and anointing there superfluous. But the tradition of Jesus’ baptism was so strong that they had no choice but to include it, and then explain why he was getting baptized at all (at least in Matthew). Luke simply passes over the rationale for the baptism.”

        https://ehrmanblog.org/when-did-jesus-become-sinless/

        Liked by 2 people

  24. stewjo004

    @ Shad

    Assuming this happened (which Allah hu alim I think it did as baptism was retained in Islam) yes it is proof he (as) “sinned” like how all prophets (making accidental mistakes). Later scribes we’re uncomfortable and added in “dialogue” between them.

    Also hey QB, regarding the lie of Jesus(as) in John later scribes tried to adjust it to “I’m not going to the festival YET” lol and yet they want to claim to not have altered text.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. mr.heathcliff

    quote :
    Have you counted jesus predictions of his death in each gospel starting with mark, then Matthew, luke and John? I think you will find that the number of predictions increased and also start to begin sooner in his ministry, very soon indeed in the fourth gospel john, with the baptist in the first chapter declaring jesus to be the lamb of god, a sacrificial lamb. Mark has no such early prediction. Let me know what you find when you study the gospels in the chronological order I suggested. The tell me how you see the story growing over time.

    quote :

    “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”

    But on a much deeper level the early Christians developed a rationale that linked the death of Jesus to human sin. Not only did they have the Jewish scriptures for reflecting on Jesus’ death, with Isaiah 53 playing a prominent role. They also had the ongoing sacrificial system of the Jerusalem Temple against which to understand Jesus’ death, a death that took place in the immediate context of Passover. Here the key passage is the witness of John the Baptist in 1:29 of the Gospel of John, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” Clearly the reference to the “Lamb of God” invokes the Passover tradition that celebrates God’s freeing of the Israelites from bondage in Egypt. But the point of John’s Gospel is that this Lamb of God “takes away the sin of the world.” And yet, we know that the Passover tradition has nothing whatsoever to do with the forgiveness of human sin. Forgiveness of sin, rather, is the central concern of another Jewish holy day, Yom Kippur – the Day of Atonement. What the Gospel of John has done in 1:29, then, is to have John the Baptist “Yom Kippur Passover.” The meaning of Yom Kippur’s atoning sacrifice invoked from the ritual spelled out in Leviticus 16 is here applied by John to the death of Jesus at Passover. This blending of two different sacrificial traditions creates a brand new one – the atoning death of Jesus for human sin. Paul hints at the same connection in 1 Cor 5:7, “Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed,” especially when seen in connection with Paul’s claim in Romans 3:25 that God offered up Jesus as a “sacrifice of atonement.”

    Not only that, but the characteristics of an appropriate animal sacrifice known so well in early Judaism were now applied to Jesus. Every animal sacrifice had to be unblemished, without spot or physical defect – a ritual category of perfection. But when applied to Jesus as a human being, this ritual category took on moral overtones of perfection. To say that Jesus was a perfect sacrifice was to say nothing about his physical attributes, rather it became a theological claim about his moral attributes. He is unblemished, sinless, perfect. Therefore just as the High Priest could confess the sins of the people over the head of the scapegoat in the Yom Kippur ritual from Leviticus 16, a goat that bears away the sins of the people into wilderness, so now did God lay upon the sinless Jesus all the sins of the people, and he bore them away by means of his sacrificial death, only to be vindicated by God in resurrection.

    /////

    the recipe = use and abuse of ot to make torah breaker into a sinless lamb.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. mr.heathcliff

    so i read that “why do you call me good, there is only one who is good that is the father in heaven” did not make it in matthews versions but the church fathers in their commentaries did mention it.

    quote :
    You’d actually be shocked at the sort of things the church fathers believed were in the Biblical texts: just search for the agrapha (many of which were just unusual variations or twists on existing Biblical texts). And good luck finding, for example, a great number of early quotations of Matthew 19:17 that don’t include the line “there is only one who is good, my Father in heaven” — which implies that Jesus isn’t even omnibenevolent.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. mr.heathcliff

      am i correct to understand these guys either paraphrased it or their was actual text in matthew, in time of fathers, which said

      “my father in heaven” identifying one person ahahahahahahah

      Liked by 2 people

      1. stewjo004

        Hmmm…very interesting I’ll check those variants out. But yeah the amount of alterations is ridiculous. What b.s. reason did their scholars state they were wrong?

        Like

  27. mr.heathcliff

    “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good, my Father in heaven”

    christians done lot dirty dirty with bible. feel sorry for the book.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. mr.heathcliff

    the
    Did jesus kill an INFANT ?
    Does jesus work hand in hand with satan?

    ::::::::::::::

    I don’t really see how anything in my comment can be construed as a “failed try, taking yet another swipe at God.” I simply said that the linked article fails to address the major crux of the issue re: 2 Samuel 12 (the passage with God and David’s child). How is that a “swipe” or anything?

    And on that same note, you write of your now “definitive” response to this. But instead of even offering your own analysis of the passage, it looks like you’re again simply deferring to the apologetics you find from a simple Google search: I note that your link is the first or second one that comes up when you search ”God kill David child.”

    You don’t so much as even quote anything from the actual Biblical passage (again, 2 Samuel 12) here. And amazingly, neither does the article with the “better and fuller answer” to this, either. The closest it comes is a reference to 2 Samuel 12:5, when it suggests that David is the one to actually pronounce the sentence of death. But of course later, in 12:13, God then re-frames this, telling David that he “shall not die,” and that his child will instead.

    The article goes on to say “we are not told what actually caused the infant’s death, only that the infant died and God did not intervene to stop this death” — and then shortly thereafter that Nathan’s pronouncement “did not mean God would kill the child or cause the child’s death.” But this blatantly ignores what follows in the text. 12:15 explicitly says “the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David” (ויגף יהוה את הילד אשר ילדה אשת אוריה לדוד) and that it was gravely sickened. Of course, the article can’t deny that the punishment is “transferred” from David to the child (though it seems to prefer to only speak euphemistically about the child entering into “sleep” when it dies). Yet it justifies this by making the child a pawn whose death simply serves as ethical lesson to David: its death “brought home to David the reality of sin’s deadliness.”

    Again though, the language of 12:15 is unambiguous that God did have active agency in bringing the fatal illness onto the child; and incidentally, the verb used to describe God’s “striking” the child here (יגף) is related to the one used in Job 1:11, where God gives orders to satan to afflict Job.

    And one important thing to realize about the book of Job is that God and satan act in concert to afflict Job here. We actually see a significant expression of this later in 2 Samuel itself (vis-à-vis its parallel in 1 Chronicles), too. In 2 Samuel 24:1, God “incites” David against the Israelite populace. Yet in the parallel to this passage in 1 Chronicles 21:1, it uses the exact same language (…יסת את דויד ל), only now satan is the (intermediate?) subject of the inciting, not God himself! But if the text in 2 Samuel is true — and if it can be harmonized with what’s said in 1 Chronicles — this can only mean that God does have an ultimate and direct agency here.

    In any case, back to Job: as you also make reference to in your comment, in both 1:11 and 2:6 it’s God who gives the authorization for satan to afflict Job. In fact though, God was the one who originally offered up Job as a candidate for the affliction to begin with (1:8)! Of course, even though God and satan clearly act in concert here — and even though satan still seems subordinate to God — this doesn’t mean that their intentions are aligned. Quite the opposite in some places. This is most poignantly seen in Job 2:3, where in light of Job’s persistence in righteousness despite his affliction, God actually blames satan for having “incited” him against Job “for no reason.” (The verb used for “incite” here, תסיתני, is actually the same one used in 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, too.)

    Considering this and other things, there’s a voluminous academic literature about how the portrayal of God in Job and elsewhere goes beyond just a kind of metaphorical anthropopathism (as in later Jewish and Christian apologetics), but genuinely evinces an understanding of God in which he doesn’t possess the omniscience ascribed to him elsewhere, etc. Satan seems to have really “tricked” God in Job, forcing him into an unjustified action. Incidentally, that God is “outsmarted” also appears in Genesis 2-3, where the serpent appears to foil God’s plans to restrict knowledge from humans — which, when later in counsel with the divine assembly, God reveals to have been the product of a protective selfishness in the first place.

    Again though, these are all precisely the sorts of things that one would be familiar with if they had a robust academic knowledge of the Biblical texts in their wider ancient Near Eastern context: precisely the kind of “[early] Hebrew thinking” that you accuse others of being ignorant of. (As it pertains to a few of the things I’ve talked about in these last paragraphs, you may want to look into the work of David Penchansky, or something like Whybray’s article “The Immorality of God: Reflections On Some Passages in Genesis, Job, Exodus and Numbers” in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament.)

    Like

  29. mr.heathcliff

    “Considering this and other things, there’s a voluminous academic literature about how the portrayal of God in Job and elsewhere goes beyond just a kind of metaphorical anthropopathism (as in later Jewish and Christian apologetics), but genuinely evinces an understanding of God in which he doesn’t possess the omniscience ascribed to him elsewhere, etc. Satan seems to have really “tricked” God in Job, forcing him into an unjustified action. Incidentally, that God is “outsmarted” also appears in Genesis 2-3, where the serpent appears to foil God’s plans to restrict knowledge from humans — which, when later in counsel with the divine assembly, God reveals to have been the product of a protective selfishness in the first place.”

    GOLD!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s