Good Friday

Why is today Good? Because we remember the forgiveness of sins.

You already know today’s story and how its ends, but briefly recapping the story so far: Jesus has been betrayed, arrested, and beaten, and Peter chickened out at the last minute — which foreshadows some important things much later in the gospels, but that is not part of the Easter story.

Luke 22:
63. And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.

64. And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?

65. And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.

66. And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,

67. Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:

68. And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.

69. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

70. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

71. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

Luke 23:
1. And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.

2. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.

3. And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

4. Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

5. And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.

6. When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.

7. And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.

8. And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.

9. Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.

10. And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.

I will interject a little background here. Israel suffered from divided sovereignty, which not long after these events became considerably more divided.

Herod theoretically ruled as King, but he was a clearly illegitimate King and dependent on Roman soldiers, not his own. The hereditary priesthood, the Sadducees, theoretically ruled, and had legitimacy, but lacked capability. The pharisees, open entry priests, roughly equivalent to lawyers and legacy newsmen today in the political sense, and to today’s Orthodox Rabbis in the religious sense, were pushing on the hereditary priesthood’s turf, and getting away with a fair bit of actual rule, which rule Jesus complains about in the previous Easter posts. The Romans had the swords, and actually ruled, but were, like today’s Global American Empire, reluctant to admit to ruling and tried to rule through proxies, but their proxies were weak and quarrelsome. The Pharisees had a mob, the Romans an army. Herod not much of an army, the hereditary priesthood even less. Any power Herod had, the Romans gave it to him to keep their hands off events, and when those events might cause trouble for Herod, he dumped them back on the Romans. The Sadducees were sane and not particularly evil, unlike the Pharisees, but they did not really believe their faith, so no one else believed it either, analogous to today’s Anglican Church. Which left them with considerably less power that their legitimacy supposedly provided them, hence the frequent chaos in Jerusalem that the Romans and Herod found difficult. And, like the Pharisees, they did not want any religious competition.

Because Jerusalem was a problem that Herod was unable to handle, the Romans were openly and directly ruling Jerusalem, but they did not want to. Since the Romans had the actual rule, in this sense it was not the Jews that killed Christ but Italians that killed Christ, but the Romans had no interest in Jewish religious disputes, and viewed the heresy and blasphemy charges against Jesus Christ as silly and incomprehensible. They were trying to accommodate the demands of their proxies. It was the proxies (Pharisees, the religious faction in Israel that survived as today’s Jews) that demanded the crucifixion. The Romans thought that this was all just more incomprehensible Jewish trouble, of which they had had plenty, and in the coming years would have plenty more.

Luke 23:
11. And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.

12. And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

13. And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,

14. Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:

15. No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.

16. I will therefore chastise him, and release him.

17. (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)

18. And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:

19. (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)

20. Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.

21. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.

22. And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.

23. And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.

24. And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.

25. And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.

26. And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.

27. And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.

28. But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.

29. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.

30. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.

31. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

Recall in the Palm Sunday post Jesus weeping for Jerusalem as he drew nigh. For their collective sins, the Jews were going to suffer collective punishment. Also recall the fig tree in the Maundy Thursday post that was green, but without fruit, and soon was withered.

32. And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.

33. And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

34. Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

35. And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

36. And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,

37. And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.

38. And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

39. And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

40. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41. And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

And this is the good news that makes this Good Friday.

Jesus was crucified between two thieves; One was hardened to the last, one repented of his sins. The one that repented and accepted Christ stands for us.

44. And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

45. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

46. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

47. Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.

48. And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.

49. And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.

50. And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:

51. (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.

52. This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.

53. And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

54. And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

55. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.

56. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

84 Responses to “Good Friday”

  1. Cloudswrest says:

    BTW, Biden just pronounced Easter Sunday this year as tranny celebration day! They’re going to keep shoving shit down Christians’ throats until they revolt, or die. I hope it’s not the latter.

    • Hesiod says:


      Fairfax County, VA voted a week or two ago for this very same thing.

      Fire, btw, provides quite a bit of illumination.

    • Dr. Faust says:

      They are desperate for a reaction and reaching to get one. The right just has to be wait and be patient now. Both sides are looking for a casus beli which will determine where the military moves. Don’t give them a reason. Kindle your fire but bank the coals for the cold nights to come. There is a season for all things.

      • The Cominator says:

        I’m just numb to outrages from the Biden administration at this point, as I’ve said before the nicest thing that can be said is that Biden is better than Pol Pot…

        • Mayflower Sperg says:

          While I don’t agree with the Khmer Rouge that all eyeglass-wearers should be shot, being one myself, I sort of see their point of view. Because instead of using their superior intelligence to impartially seek out the truth, intellectuals flock to the stupidest ideologies like moths to a flame.

          • The Cominator says:

            The Khmer Rogue were intellectuals and like all the most viscious leftist regimes the redeeming feature was they killed each other too but they killed lots and lots of other people…

            I understand the idea of purging the priesthood (being the most uncompromising and fanatical proponent of doing it here) but the Khmer Rogue just kind of killed everybody…

      • Hesiod says:

        Jesus Christ is King. He bore the scourge of the world for our sake; we must endure at least for the nonce for His. His Fire is the most sacred of all and unlike Prometheus’ theft, we are given it freely.

        Thank you, Heavenly Father, for this fellowship while we wait in humble remembrance of the Resurrection of Your only begotten Son. Bless these brethren in Jesus Christ’s Name, amen.

  2. Humungus says:

    Humungus sends greetings.

    • Humungus says:

      Hear me initiates: The day of nuclear holocaust grows near. All elements are in place. We must prepare.

      You will acquire a suitable vehicle for yourself by whatever means. One with four wheel drive and a V8 engine. You will need extra gasoline for your journey. We shall meet in the deserts of former Texas just North of El Paso. From there we will find a suitable refinery to take for ourselves. Oil and gasoline are our lifeblood. Once we have established ourselves there you will all receive the title of War Dog. Then we will take what is ours.

      Gone are the ways of the old world. A new order awaits where only the strong survive. Fortune favors the bold. We must take before others take from us.

      Humungus has spoken!

      • jim says:

        As has been said too many times, those movies were fun movies, but a poor guide to military strategy.

        • Humungus says:

          Fun? Life can be fun again. Humungus will light your way with adventure and challenge.

          For too long we have listened to those who say it is impossible. For too long we have been denied our birthright of a future in our own land. Humungus offers you a simple plan and leadership based on The Art of War, not on some movie script.

          When the time is right, Humungus will signal you. After the war, we will rise from the ashes, reborn. Be ready my initiates.

          • someDude says:

            The response does not seem correlated to the comment it is supposedly replying to

  3. Adam says:

    Okay, so I’ve just seen the moderation policy, which is a nice touch that I hadn’t considered.

    My thought crime: The Catholic Church was infiltrated, corrupted, and taken over by Freemasons, culminating in the abomination that is Vatican II. Every pope and ordained priest since that time is illegitimate. In proportion to the global population, there are very few actual Christians in the world today.

    • Uriel says:

      Is there baptism by desire, fellow Popish schizo?

    • Jonas says:

      What are Freemasons and Freemasonry all about?

      And what are the better Christian Church denominations in the world these days?

      • jim says:

        Freemasonry is an old conspiracy It is now a several different and incompatible conspiracies, and figuring out what is going on is hopeless. It don’t think the conspiracy running the Roman Catholic Church is the freemasons. It is obviously the Lavander Mafia. Gays are innately conspiratorial. They plot together naked in a great big pile. The Roman Catholic Church is run by gay demon worshippers.

        All major denominations in the Global American Empire are hopelessly converged. Russian Orthodoxy is somewhat less converged, because protected by Russian Nukes, but the congregations are average American in their culture. It is not being converged from the top down like the other denominations, because the top is in Russia, but in America, it is being converged from the bottom up by the surrounding converged culture. The top is relatively based, but the American congregation is not particularly based.

    • The Cominator says:

      The Catholic Church other than the crusades was never good it was the original globohomo and its never changed and the Jesuits are the real Jews as Covid makes clear if you look into it (Vigano is either PR or allowed to remain as a token based catholic in the hierarchy but with no actual power). The average freemason in the United States is far more likely to be right wing than the average Catholic.

      The Catholic Church has structural issues which guarantee corruption and evil.

      1. Celibacy – Guarantees lots of homosexuals
      2. Global organization in all respects (dominated by homosexuals) – No loyalty or feeling for anything but the organization itself
      3. It has its own intelligence agency (the world’s oldest intelligence agency) in the Jesuit order but it has no real nation…

      Nothing good can really come of it, needs to be purged with fire.

      • Uriel says:

        1. Clerical celibacy not a dogma, changed once, can change again. Current form incorrect, but not necessarily heretical.
        2. Church inherently supranational, yes, though intended to respect sovereigns sovereignty. Benedict XV only one with Karl I trying to negotiate rational peace talks in WWI.
        3. Once did, if there’s ever a real Pope again we should gladly facilitate giving him the donation of Pepin back. Current sacredotal monarchy likely the seven kings (Pius XI-Benedict XVI [Francis is not a validly ordained priest, ergo cannot even validly claim to be head of state]) in Revelation. Current Novus Ordo cult the Whore, Cathedral the Beast.

        • Fidelis says:

          not necessarily heretical.

          How do you square this with Paul’s comments?

          • Uriel says:

            I don’t. Paul also says it would be better if men were all celibate like him, which cannot be the case, because most driven by very human impulses (not a bad thing) and celibacy would drive the great majority of men bonkers. That was the rationale behind the formalization (again. not a dogma) of mandatory clerical celibacy. Priests-as-holy-order supposed to carry on apostolic succession, ergo more like apostles than normal men, ergo higher standards. Obviously, population growth, higher number of priests needed, natural law, human nature etc. make this an impossible standard and a holiness spiral. Lots of Popes, before 12th century, including the first Pope, Peter, were married. Either before, during their papacy, those there isn’t a lot of specific records regarding that fact that I can cite offhand. Coincidentally 12th century is also when the marriage/consent doctrine crept into the church. Perhaps getting exact dates in my head wrong.

            Anyway. clear it doesn’t work, my point is that mandatory clerical celibacy is not a dogma or inherent to the Catholic church (I am aware of how ridiculous thie sounds, but it is true) and is not a strict heresy, but it is bad, leads to evil, big piles of gay, hostility to marriage. We should be rid of it. In the same way that teaching baptism of desire is not strictly heresy (man is bound by sacraments, God is not), but in teaching, tends to damn more souls than it saves. I hope that makes sense.

            • jim says:

              > Paul also says it would be better if men were all celibate like him,

              This is classic example of snatching a phrase out of its context and using as justification for throwing the rest of the bible into a ditch and driving off as if it was radioactive.

              Since most men are not like him, Paul says that Bishops should be recruited from married men with well behaved children. That is a biblical mandate. If you ignore it, you are a heretic.

              And if we look back at the arguments in favour of that heresy, in particular the fraudulent protoevangelium of James, they came from sexual deviants.

              The claim that Joseph, Mary, and the apostles were celibate is directly contradicted by the Bible, and by the martyrdom of the wife of James the Just, and comes from the protoevangelium of James, which is known to be a fraud, a fraud that we first hear of from a man strongly suspected of being a pervert.

              If someone is “celibate” chances are he is having sex in a great big pile of similar celibates.

              • jim says:

                > and is not a strict heresy

                Bible wants a Church leadership composed primarily of married men with well behaved children. If you want a different kind of leadership, surely heretical?

                What is heresy? Heresy is the Bible sayx X, and you say not X. There is considerable room for interpretation of the Bible, and most alleged heresies are not black and white, but this seems fairly black and white.

                What is our authority for a married clergy with well behaved children? Paul.

                What is our authority for a Church with celibate leadership? The protoevangelium of James, a fraud pushed by a pervert.

                • Uriel says:

                  I see what you’re saying, yeah, and this really isn’t a hill I’m willing to die on. Moreso my point is that mandatory clerical celibacy wasn’t always the case, doesn’t need to be the case, and is not dogmatised, ergo can be changed. If one fancies keeping the Roman Church around. The argument in this case would be Matthew 19:12. I must attend to Earthly Matters, so I can’t give an in depth rebuttal, but since this is an active conversation I felt a need to reply.

                • Jamesthe1st says:

                  The basis for celibacy theologically is to radically follow the life of Christ who was celibate.
                  Now as for it being the chosen discipline of the Roman Church is a discipline/legal matter that flows from the binding and loosening authority given to the Apostles and their successors the bishops. It is something that could change and be debated if the discipline is needed for the Roman clergy in general. The priesthood is a high calling, many fail that take that path for good or ill intentions.

                • jim says:

                  > The basis for celibacy theologically is to radically follow the life of Christ who was celibate.

                  Fine. God obviously prefers celibates when he calls people to martyrdom. But if you are celibate, you should be at the bottom of the list when the Church is looking for a Bishop, and the top of the list when the Church is calling for martyrs. If you are celibate, not necessarily a heretic, but whoever puts your application for Bishop near the top of the list, rather than the big round filing cabinet, is a heretic.

                  You want to radically follow the life of Christ? Fine. We could do with more skinny martyrs. We don’t have a shortage of fat bishops.

              • Uriel says:

                I mean, I agree Jim, I think mandatory clerical celibacy is wrong and leads to bad things. I just think it is wrong in the same way that baptism of desire is wrong. If we are constructing ideal state churches, yes, married priests. I do believe, as a Catholic, in the pertual virginity of Mary, that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph’s from a previous marriage. However, Mary’s celibacy, like Paul’s, is the exception, not the rule. Especially in Marys case, she is the only woman ever, or will ever forever have that status. 99.9% of people should be banging and if they are not likely to become sex perverts with hair plugs. I don’t think the Apostles were all celibate.

        • jim says:

          > we should gladly facilitate giving him the donation of Pepin back.

          That the Pope coveted that which is Caesar’s is the root cause of the troubles that divide Christendom to this day. Popes started making up doctrine to meet the exigent needs of war and politics, eventually leading to the great schism and the protestant revolution. And the donation of Pepin — when Pepin granted the pope temporal sovereignty over regions that Pepin did not in fact control, and that it is unclear who controlled them, was the root of all that, resulting in Popes leading armies in the field.

          The Church has traditionally had collegial governance, with Bishops representing the Churches of different nations and Kings in attendance. War and politics required a head of the Church with Kingly powers. And this remains a problem to this day, with a demon worshipping Pope. Russian Orthodoxy could survive Stalin and bad Primates, but can Roman Catholicism survive the current Pope and Vatican?

          No one today knows exactly what lands Pepin granted the Pope, and likely Pepin himself had only a vague idea. He donated to the Pope a big bag of trouble, which could only dealt with by a Caesar.

          It was standard operating procedure of Carolingian Kings and Emperors to issue grants of big bags of trouble to other Kings, princes, and successful bandits, to people in the business of war. War is not the proper business of the Bishop of Rome. What the Pope got was not secure land, but permission to make war and peace, a letter of marque. Which permissions the Carolingian Kings were apt to dish out very liberally to all manner of people.

          Having permission to make war and peace, and then going forth at the head of armies and making war and peace, had an immensely damaging effect of the governance of the Church, and, over time, an immensely damaging effect on Church doctrine (treasury of Christ, indulgences, among other things, with Christology being bent to support the treasury of Christ, and the treasury of Christ applied to fund war.)

          What happened was the Pope went to Pepin, and asked Pepin to defend the Pope, and the Donation of Pepin was Pepin telling the Pope to defend himself.

          • Jamesthe1st says:

            As a Catholic I lean towards Francis being an anti-pope due to conclave law now being followed. The problem is there is hardly anyone woth spine in the Catholic leadership, maybe only Bishop Schnider and Williamson who is an outcast.

          • Uriel says:

            I agree with the historical reality surrounding it and the trouble that came with it and it is an unfortunate fact that the investiture controversy ever happened, though bound to happen eventually. Main argument in favor of temporal power of the Pope (in theory, of course; the only thing we should give Jorge Bergolgio is a swift kick in the pants) is the need for the actual, physical structures of material Rome to be defended. If First Daughter of the Church, or some other Sovereign, defender of the faith, less need for temporal power. Should not be Caesar, and likewise should have safeguards in place to make sure Caesar does not take what is God’s, though the latter usually happens more often.

            >The Church has traditionally had collegial governance, with Bishops representing the Churches of different nations and Kings in attendance. War and politics required a head of the Church with Kingly powers.

            Right, but clear bishop of Rome always first among equals, had primacy, when Church 9-1-1 was called it was (usually) always a Roman operator.

            > but can Roman Catholicism survive the current Pope and Vatican?

            Yes, it will and is. Greatly diminished, but still kicking, will continue to kick. Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. I am grateful to witness it firsthand, but when I travel, usually not the case I can find an actual Catholic church. While the hand of Satan works overtly through that faggot Argentinian, smoke of Satan entered the Church with John XXIII, though, 1912ish saw the beginning of the slow creep from the depths of Hell into St. John Lateran. Rot set in when my great grandfather’s balls were smooth. Babylonian exile. Even when boomers say, “well, I went to Catholic school” I usually get around to saying, “no, I don’t think you did.”

  4. Adam says:

    Jim, this series is excellent. Well done and much appreciated.

    A blessed Easter to you.

  5. someDude says:

    Forgive them for they know now what they do.

    Is this for the Jews, for the Romans involved in the decision making, or for soldiers specifically under orders to carry out the crucifixion or for everyone?

    Seems it is specifically for the Roman soldiers under orders. Would that be correct?

  6. Tyrone says:

    I posted a comment a few minutes ago. Talking about Jesus doesn’t feel like the right occasion to lead with a thought crime. I’m willing to pass anti shill measures under another post, tomorrow when I have when I have a bit more time. I will also edit the post (It isn’t supposed to be a wall of text) and put it back up. Very eager to discuss this in the comments; I have struggled to bring it up productively in real life, but it’s a big issue for me as I explore my faith.

    • jim says:

      I approved the comment because though it did not pass the shill test, nonetheless did not smell of shilling. Smelled like you are struggling with your faith. Not going to ask you for the affirmation either, for I smell that you are not at all sure whether you are a Christian or not, whether you should be or not, and what Christianity is.

      There are rather too many things that claim to be Christianity, and a lot of them are converged to Globohomo. Globohomo is demonic, so a lot of things that claim to be Christianity are starting to smell demonic.

      • Tyrone says:

        Thanks, I’d say your sense of smell hasn’t failed you this time.

        Every few years I circle back to this stuff. I get pumped up on apologetics, I could probably pass whatever affirmation you got. Not just copy pasting something in a comment section but face to face, looking in your eyes.


        But then I go to Church and it’s so terrible.

        I try another Church, it’s just as bad.

        Usually in the middle of a service I snap out of it and back into nietzschean agnostic but leaning atheist default mode.

        I would certainly be better off if I could end the cycle an sit firmly in a specific camp.

        But often enough, it’s not even the Church that throws me off, it’s sitting down and reading Mark or John and frankly wishing I was reading the same thing, but written by Plato or Thucydides or Tom Wolfe or practically anyone else.

        “I could fill an infinite number of pages with all the things Jesus did and said.”

        Why don’t you then, I’m starving here lol

        • Jamesthe1st says:

          Pray and ask God for faith my man, you can’t come to have the faith by your own ability.
          Also go find a Catholic Church that just does the old Latin Mass. They are pretty based.

          • Tyrone says:

            I say the Lord’s Prayer pretty often, but I don’t ask for anything.

            I attended a Sedevacantist mass once. I wanted to like it but I was unfortunately unmoved, and the congregation was unpleasant.

            With friends I make at church I have never ever succeeded in steering the conversation to the homily, to Jesus, to the good news. Invited to coffee after church, I bring up Jesus and I won’t say they panic, but they sure get back to small talk as soon as possible. At best we can talk about the church itself and why they moved there from another one or why they like this pastor more than the last, and that they’re very happy here.

            Often I’m approached by someone who’s job is clearly to be the guy who approaches new faces. These guys have been just as reluctant to talk about Jesus. They tend to refocus the conversation back on me, my plans. If I’m not feeling social and no one comes to me, I try to catch the drift of what other people are talking about, to get as sense for the place. But even thinking back to my childhood, I doubt I have ever overheard an earnest conversation about Jesus, the good news, or anything, inside a church.

            On the other hand, when I explain to art hoes that I’m on a spiritual journey and have been to a lot of churches, most of the time they are full of curiosity and we often have a nice conversation about it. It’s not just about trivia about different denominations. Often we go much deeper, and they’re up for it. Back and forth about various things He said, episodes from His life, how they feel about it. Even before a Friday night out I’ve got people talking about Jesus, quite naturally.

            For a while I had a regular lunch date with a pastor, but again and again we would end up talking about his kids or my business.

            When I started visiting churches I didn’t expect people to be passing shit tests within 30 seconds of introducing myself, but I thought it would come up eventually. It never ever ever does in my experience.

            Looking for a hard sell but all I get is tepid friendship

  7. Tyrone says:

    I’ve always been puzzled by Jesus’ silence in these and other moments.

    If not Jesus’ silence, the Evangelists’ decision to be silent.

    Herod asks questions (what questions?):
    Jesus doesn’t answer.
    Jesus must speak for more than 20 minutes:
    summarized in 300 words.
    Dozens of other sermons:
    not even summarized (or was it literally just those parables, with no preambles, no elaboration?)

    In John there are a few dialogues, but they are slow moving, repetitive, and yet still cloudy. The Apostles seem clueless and Jesus frustrated. Compare to Plato with multiple lines of questions explored, personalities delineated, the playfulness of the irony, Socrates never frustrated or flustered. . .

    Jesus rises and reappears to the faithful. He speaks about death and glory but the Evangelists don’t elaborate. John asks Him something specific in private. Jesus says “what is it to you?”

    No further questions. No further teachings.

    John ends it there. He tells us exactly how many fish they caught that day, but leaves everything else so vague. We could be pondering Jesus’ last words but instead we’re scratching our heads or doing schizo analysis on the significance of the boys having caught precisely 153 fish.

    To be fair, Jesus has a long monologue (the longest?) in Revelations, but it’s rarely discussed, and surrounded by mountains of schizo-bait even aside from numerology.

    The silence or refusal to elaborate has such serious consequences. What is the nature of the authority He gives to Peter? In fairness, that’s tricky.

    But is it appropriate to baptize infants? Could have been clarified in an instant, and avoided so much conflict for individuals and societies.

    Endless things that would be good to know.

    Did no one ask? Did they ask, and the answers went unrecorded? Were they already fighting about what was said, and wrote the bare minimum everyone could agree on?

    Did he leave it for Paul? But even Paul leaves so many questions open. Was it left to churches, to the Helper, the Holy Spirit? To individual conscience, to the spirit of the age?


    Why isn’t the embodiment of the λόγος more wordy. I don’t get it.

    • jim says:

      Too much specifics was the problem with Moses and the law. That did not work out. Christianity was a hostile reaction to its failure to work out.

      Jesus evades specifics by using parables. Paul evades specifics by just flat out contradicting himself. It is a feature, not a bug.

      God needed to give rulers and religious leaders room to deal with things in a way appropriate to their history, culture, people, and the circumstances of their times.

      Sure it is appropriate to baptise infants. Why should it not be? Worrying about that assumes a strictly individualist society, that a strictly individualist society is right and good, and that Christianity mandatess strict individualism. But most people belong to a faith because they were born into it, because their entire tribe was born into it. We are not naturally all that individualistic. We seldom make personal choices as to who and what we will be.

      You can make an argument that in our society and in our time infant baptism is not appropriate. Whereupon it is immediately obvious why Christ and the apostles did not want to get into that stuff. If we had a Christian society, most people would not make an individual decision to choose Christianity. It would just be who they were. And if it is just who they were, because born to a Christian family in a Christian society, of course they should be baptised at birth.

      • Tyrone says:

        Thanks for the response.

        Your point about the value of ambiguity is well taken

        But does it ever frustrate you, or did it ever?

        The Bible’s most colorful, detailed passages concern the end of the world. Incredible imagery, Jesus is fired up. The Revelator is beyond fired up. And for every warning that you shouldn’t try to predict the timing, there is at least one tantalizing hint of signs and numbers to look out for. Autists and normies through the ages have been unable to resist, huge movements of people have focused on it, political movements even now.

        Whatever their value, those passages are also stumbling blocks, empirically, for lots of people.

        What if, instead of those passages, or in addition, there were one or two colorful warnings or parables about homosexuality?

        Or the woman question?

        Or just two or three extra verses to clarify who our neighbors are?

        Globohomo heresies might be inevitable, and I’m not second guessing Jesus for not warning us about niggers.

        But don’t you think that with a bit more emphasis directly in the text, certain heresies would have been marginalized, or fizzle out faster? Like, instead of X% of Christianity having been captured as of today, X could have remained in the single digits? And Jimiantiy, rather than being a single digits figure, would have been a major force, if not the dominant force?

        Or maybe you have confidence and faith that the current dominance of heresy is fleeting in the scheme of things? I can see how birth rates would make you confident that this will pass sooner than later.

        I’m not saying that God is Love is a legit take on Jesus’ teaching. The warnings to faggots are there for sure.

        But compared to the detail and the fire behind the Apocalypse, which really doesn’t concern us, the passages about sexual immorality are so short that I can see how motivated readers, let alone demon possessed freaks, can try to fudge them.

        That, compounded, certainly has an effect on the size and momentum of modern heresy.

        This line of thinking isn’t the main difficulty I have with faith, but it is certainly discouraging. I might get to my personal stuff later, but I wonder how Jim and co think about this instance of ambiguity in the Bible.

        I may be framing it all backwards, and the gay stuff might be distracting, but wouldn’t more detail on “who are my neighbors” have been extremely helpful, to practically all past and future societies.


        why isn’t there mor fedposting in the Bible? like, a little more could have gone a long way, no?

        • jim says:

          > Or just two or three extra verses to clarify who our neighbors are?

          The parable of the Good Samaritan does an excellent job of clarifying who our neighbours are (How to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner) but people stubbornly misinterpret it or misapply it. Any “clarification” would give them more material on which to build a talmudic tower of evasions, lies, and fog.

          Your neighbour is those people near you, plus those people far away who act neighbourly, minus those people near you who act unneighbourly.

          And as for homosexuality: Bible says kill them. What more clarification do you want?

          Nothing is ever going to be clear to those that do not want to understand it.

          • Tryone says:

            It says kill them, but who’s going to throw the first stone?

            There was a Chinese translation of that passage, maybe it was a fake.

            But in that translation, Jesus picks up the rock and says “I’ll be the first”

            And then the crowd kills the adulteress, side by side with Jesus

            Not saying that’s how I wish it had gone down, but it it had, it would have made both situations more clear.

            • jim says:

              The problems with that adulteress was
              1. Absent husband. It is the husband that is supposed to take care of adulterers. Should the religious authorities be butting in to a family matter?
              2. Roman law. Religious authorities were not allowed to kill people.

              Those assembled lacked jurisdiction according to Old Testament law and Roman law.

              This ruling does not blanket ban killing adulterers and gays — it just gives Christian authorities wiggle room. You cannot turn wiggle room into equal rights for adulterers and gays.

              • FrankNorman says:

                What some people misunderstand, I think, is the part where Jesus says that He will not condemn her.
                Condemn there does not mean saying that what she did was wrong, it would have meant sentencing her to death!

                “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more” could be read as “I got you off this time, but don’t do it again!”

                In any case the whole thing was a setup. A trick question. If Jesus had simply said no to stoning her, they’d have said “See? Jesus doesn’t actually uphold the Law!”
                And if He’d said yes, they’d have gleefully run off to the Romans and told them “Jesus is leading a revolution, He’s setting up His own theocratic government with its own courts!” etc etc.

                Most of the questions the Pharisees came to Jesus with were of that nature. But every time, Jesus gave an answer that they could not use against Him.

                • Tyrone says:

                  In our Bibles, Jesus crosses the Rubicon when He throws out the money changers.

                  Disturbing the Roman peace, messing with the Jewish rackets.

                  So there are some lines He will cross.

                  In the Chinese version, Jesus cleverly diffuses the money changing situation, refusing to start a riot and interfere with commerce. The money changers walk home ashamed, resolving to sin no more.

                  A while later during Passover Jesus catches a faggot molesting a kid and He gathers a group to righteously stone him on the spot, leading to a riot that cleans out the gay brothels.

                  That’s the Rubicon, the spark that leads to crucifixion

                  In the Chinese version it’s also strongly implied that Judas is gay, or some kind of closeted simp, and his fucked up wife recalls the Fall of Adam thanks to Eve.

                  “Jesus is fully without sin. Yes, even after killing that one dude with his bare hands and castrating the other one. What did you expect lol, He’s the same Being that handled Sodom with brimstone.”

              • i says:

                In addition the Law of Moses implicates both men and women in the act of adultery in which both involved must be killed.

                But they only found a woman. Who likely went to the wrong tent during that day but not in the actual act of adultery itself.

                Even by the Standards of the Law of Moses aside from the lack of Husband involvement it was illegitimate.

            • Johnny Caustic says:

              What is this “Chinese bible” where “Jesus catches a faggot molesting a kid and He gathers a group to righteously stone him on the spot”? Please help me find this! I want to read this! Thanks.

              • Contaminated NEET says:

                Seconded. This sounds interesting, but some cursory searching turns up a lot of articles complaining about persecution, but a nice English translation of the altered Bible isn’t turning up.

                I did read an article claiming a Chinese law textbook uses a version of the adulteress story where Jesus stones her himself:

                Jesus once said to the angry crowd who was trying to stone a woman who had sinned, “He who is without sin among you, let him cast a stone at her.” When his words came to their ears, they stopped moving forward. When everyone went out, Jesus stoned the woman himself, and said, “I am also a sinner.”

                This malicious distortion of the Christian Bible obviously does not align with the words John 8 states, seriously distorts, and defiles the image of Jesus Christ in Christianity. In the original biblical story, Jesus saved the woman’s life. He did not stone her. Moreover, contrary to this textbook fabrication of Jesus’ words, saying, “I am also a sinner,” Jesus never proclaimed that he sinned.

                The textbook also adds, “But if the law can only be enforced by unblemished ones, the law will only die. In this excerpt, the question, ‘how do you view the law?’” equates to: How do you view Chinese law?

                • Mayflower Sperg says:

                  After 9/11, I figured we ought to edit the parts of the Koran where Muhammad tells believers to slay unbelievers, and have him call for peace and love instead. Then whenever we catch a Muslim with a copy of the original Koran, we know he’s a terrorist and disappear him forever.

                  Evidently the Chinese government had the same idea.

              • Tyrone says:

                Imagine a Chinese translation where two homos swear they’re celibate, but the Holy Spirit strikes them down because they’ve still throwing slave boy parties.

                If that translation was mainstream in AD 200, those few lines might have circumvented centuries of perverted celibacy.

                Jim asked me how the Bible could have been more clear with regard to gays and the women question. I think the inclusion of stuff like that would have done the job, trivially.

                It wouldn’t have solved everything but it would have helped, if only to protect lambs from inevitable wolves.

                Instead, the biggest fedposting in the NT is the couple who didn’t turn over 100% of their fortune.

                Greedy fuckers, just like Judas, just like the money changers.

                The love of money is the root of all evil (KJV)

                So few lines, so much ammunition for slave morality. The one time the Holy Spirit fedposts is when someone is reluctant to turn over private property. Of all the sins, that’s the ONE thing that provokes instant justice.

                I don’t know whether or not there is a based Chinese gospel out there, it’s just something I heard about.
                My point is, don’t you ever wish there was?
                Or did you ever have a phase where you wished for more stuff like that?

                In a deeper way, my point isn’t to attack the Bible from the right. I mean, that too obviously. But it’s more than that, it’s more a question of faith, this is just an attempt to find a decent approach.

                • jim says:

                  > Jim asked me how the Bible could have been more clear with regard to gays and the women question. I think the inclusion of stuff like that would have done the job, trivially.

                  Hardly. If what it says now is somehow strangely deemed unclear, why should your proposed amendment make it any clearer? If Christians find that stoning of adulteress is a loophole, Jews find a loophole in cheese crumbs. And Mohammedans similarly find a loopole. If someone wants a loophole, he will find one.

                • Tyrone says:

                  It’s funny, your notes in the OP really help me, they start to bring the story to life.

                  You know just what to add.

                  What I’m saying is if some of that color and contrast and context and commentary was in the Bible itself, it would be helpful. Helpful to faithful throughout the centuries and on this blog.

                  Your additions got me to spend Easter reading at least part of the Bible, and understanding it on a deeper level.

                  Thanks for that.

                  If I had seen that you had just copy pasted with no comments I sincerely doubt I would have bothered to read it, and I wouldn’t have turned my thoughts to Jesus at all this weekend.

                • jim says:

                  My explanations work because I am addressing the errors of our age. If they got added to holy writ, another age and another holiness spiral would find a way to make use of them for some evil purpose. My explanations work because they are explicitly or implicitly rooted in our time, our experience, and our history, as when I reference the commonalities between Roman rule and Global American Empire rule. The Romans had troublesome, treacherous, and quarrelling proxies in Israel, and the Global American Empire has troublesome, treacherous, and quarrelling proxies in the middle east. Similarly when I discussed Exodus many posts back, I referenced the commonalities between Egypt shortly before the fall of the Bronze Age civilisation, and Egypt now.

        • alf says:

          why isn’t there mor fedposting in the Bible? like, a little more could have gone a long way, no?

          Plenty of that in the OT, done by both the Hebrews and God. What they were doing in Sodom and what God did to Sodom as their punishment was not exactly subtle.

          As the story of the Hebrews went on, and they themselves fell into sin, God fedposted many times, through numerous prophets. Did not have the desired effect. In sending his son, God tries a noticeably different tack: ‘be hopeful, for I love you.’ Hence the manner in which Christianity spread: have you heard of the good news?

          Cooperation based on hope beats cooperation based on fear.

          Which does not negate OT fedposting, in fact, some NT fedposting as well:

          43.For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,

          44.And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

          Bad things happen to bad people and those who associate with bad people.

          • Tyrone says:

            Yeah, the CCP edition really drives that home.

            At first, the other apostles don’t understand why Jesus let this gay guy in the circle.

            They discuss it amongst themselves and figure that Jesus must not be too worried about that kind of thing, as long as it’s discrete, which Judas certainly is. Plus he has other talents to be fair.

            Later it hits them that Jesus had included Judas to teach them the dangers of being infiltrated by deviants. Jesus knew that this guy would be the betrayer, because He’s God, but also because of course that would be the fucking guy.

            Contrast this to the real Bible where Judas’ character is vague, the betrayal comes out of nowhere, and the takeaway is what? God only knows who will rat you out, it comes out of the blue, and that lust for money really is one of the worst, if not the worst sins.

            Oh and there’s also another interesting moment where Bartholomew approaches Jesus with some delicate problems with his teenage daughter and his wife. Jesus’s advice sounds like something you’d read in here, frankly.

            And when Jesus fed posts the fig tree in the wilderness, away from the Romans and Jews, there’s a foot note suggesting that it wasn’t a fig tree haha

            • i says:

              Those Chinese translators definitely butchered the translation. They end up missing the nuances and the hidden clues that would be present in regards to people like Judas.

              And also why it was necessary for Jesus to cause a scene with the Money Changers. It is to fulfill the Scripture and provoke the inevitable path to his own absolutely necessary death and resurrection.

              • Tyrone says:

                He had to cause a scene, sure.

                But why did it have to be with money changers? Is there an OT verse that demands it?

                God can raise Sons of Abraham from stones.

                Therefore Jesus could have willed changes to the OT.

                “Oh you thought the Messiah had to ride on an ass? Better double check the scrolls. I think you’ll find that I’m meant to arrive on this black stallion right here. Excuse me, I have to complete the next prophecy, I call it The Cleansing of the Faggots.”

                Even today, I suppose that every physical and digital copy of the Bible could be altered at any moment to suit His purpose.

                You may not be currently aware that Jesus Himself cut of their balls of the unrighteous before telling them to sin no more.

                But study the Mandela effect.

                We could wake up tomorrow and see that it certainly happened.

                • jim says:

                  God cannot change and cannot lie. You propose the Mohammedan God. Who, like the Jewish God, is incompatible with science and technology, though in the case of Mohammed, the problem is that he is a God that can change and lie, and in the Jewish case, that the Jews can successfully Jew him with clever lawyer tricks.

                • Tyrone says:

                  Altering old prophesies would be a dirty trick, fair enough.

                  But if we suddenly discovered a chapter or a verse detailing an adventure Jesus had when he was 25, it wouldn’t be a lie, provided that it was something that had truly happened when he was 25.

                  Likewise not every hour is accounted for leading up to the Passion. New things could come to light, things that actually happened.

                  As it is, the gaps bother me.

                  I’m reading and thinking to myself

                  “A God was speaking, God Himself, and you decided not to share what you heard? Who are you, Mark, to decide it wasn’t worth writing any of it down? But later John is going to give me a full page about the exact nature of the bugs that will torture our flesh, down to the shape of their shells? What am I supposed to do with that? Something sure, but the value of that compared to more word’s directly from Jesus’ mouth?”

                  It’s not that I want a literal transcription of every speech. Cf Thucydides summarizing debates, he does it very well.

                  I don’t want more material to fuel lust for loopholes.

                  I just want a better feeling for who Jesus was, how he thought. Less crucially, I want to understand what Judas was thinking, Peter, Simon, Bartholomew.

                  I can read Plato and have a good sense for Meno’s personality, or Gorgias. Or compare Livy’s treatment of Rome’s early days to Moses’ recap of Cain and Abel. Everything in the Bible feels so flat.

                  Reading the Bible as a kid I thought “huh maybe I should be a doctor. It looks like healing the blind and lame is pretty much the most important thing to do, if that’s how God spent so much of His time here.”

                  But Jesus must have been doing other things, maybe other miracles even, but you’d never know it from the Bible. They move too fast.

                  It makes it harder to feel close to Jesus, and to determine WHO he is, which is a big question.

                  Thanks for your patience by the way Jim

                • jim says:

                  The experience of the Jews told the Christians that less is more. Remember that Christianity is in large part a response to the errors of Phariseeism. Jesus was asked “who is my neighbour?”. He gave a clear answer. Giving three more version would have resulted in three more opportunities for deliberately misunderstanding, and riffing of a comma here and a word there to produce a mighty edifice that turns the meaning upside down.

                • Tyrone says:

                  The Herculaneum scrolls will be translated in our lifetime.

                  Imagine we find another eye witness report of Jesus’ ministry.

                  Maybe a Greek traveler crossed paths, or Josephus interviewed the Legionnaire.

                  It wouldn’t be Scripture, and no sequence of words could definitively settle any issues or close all possible loopholes.

                  But I would drop everything to read it the second it was posted.

                  However, if it’s 40 pages of praise for the meek and full on hippie posting?

                  That’s going to help our enemies and my heart will sink. Some of us will go full Karlin.

                  On the other hand, if it’s 40 pages of fedposting?

                  That helps us, and it grows our numbers. At least a little, maybe a lot.

                  I read the Bible and I’m haunted by breakfast questions.
                  How would I feel if this morning the world learned that God Himself had done more of X less of Y?

                • jim says:

                  Not likely to make the slightest difference. The fans of Hippy Pacifist Jesus the Jewish Community Organiser do not care what is in the Bible. There is enough stuff in the Bible that they can snatch a few words here and there without regard to the larger context and run with it. If additional stuff turned up, they would not care. There is enough there that existing methods of text torture can supply any meaning that they want. An increase in the supply of text from which fragments can be snatched to be tortured is only going to make a marginal difference.

                  All the fans of Hippy Pacifist Jesus the Jewish Community Organiser are totally fine with the South Dakota ban on anti semitism, which was obviously directed at Easter since passed a few days before Easter, and Biden declaring Resurrection Sunday Trannie appreciation day. What possible difference could any text make? You are not going to catch any of that lot saying “Christ is King”, since it has been declare anti semitic.

                • jim says:

                  The bible already says that fags and effeminate men shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, and that it is open season to kill fags. You think if it said it again and added “and this time we really mean it, no kidding” it would make a difference? The fans of hippy pacifist Jesus the Jewish community organiser don’t give a rats ass about what is in the Bible.

                • alf says:

                  and Paul literally says that women should not be teachers, not be in positions of authority, and be silent in church. Yet here we are.

                • Tyrone says:

                  Paul, in one or two letters scolding specific Churches in specific contexts. Easy to blow off, just like everyone does when it comes to women covering their hair.

                  If those directives came from Jesus himself they would hold more weight.

                  Paul is boring Jesus has charisma.

                  Imagine Jesus meeting a cheeky woman by a well, who asks Jesus why the Apostles were men, all 12.

                  Hotblooded Simon moves to throw her down the well.

                  Jesus rebukes him in an understanding way, and responds to the woman with something witty and wise, words that live through the ages. Jesus covers the woman’s hair, explaining something about angels. She’s blabbering and he gently covers he mouth. The woman thanks Him and begs to be baptized.

                  In tears, she rushes to get her newborn kid baptized as well.

                  What Jesus does next is unexpected, but provides priceless guidance to discussion of baptism through the ages. . .

                  Famous paintings memorialize the scene, and people have a lot of fun with Simon carrying the woman to the well.

                  But yeah instead we get emails from Paul

                • jim says:

                  Oh come on.

                  Paul is boring because he is building institutions with the intent that they can last for millenia. And if the meaning of baptism is unclear, there are piles of stuff which is necessarily unclear for the same reasons that my instructions on game are unclear, and Christians have been finding things to quarrel over that stuff from the beginning.

                  The authors of the Bible had the same problem I describe at the end of “Game”, but even worse, because not only do words not suffice, but a lot of this stuff is beyond mortal comprehension.

                  If Paul had sorted out the anabaptists in advance, someone would find something else to make trouble over and be holy about. Probably in the words he used to sort out the anabaptists in advance.

                  What you depict as flaws in the Bible are not flaws in the Bible. They are flaws in men.

                  The problem with Baptism is that it is mysterious and inexplicable. No one actually knows why baptism, what it does. And if Paul had sorted out the anabaptists in advance, this would have likely opened up several new cans of worms. Because mortals do not understand what and why is baptism, bound to find something to quarrel over. The sin and heresy of the anabaptists is that they think they do understand it, and they do not.

                  If anyone thinks they understand baptism, naturally they are going to conclude that everyone else is doing it wrong, not matter how much specifics the Bible gave, it could never be enough. It would just create more grounds for disputes.

                  Look at me trying to explain Game so that nerds can understand. You want the Bible to explain Baptism?

                • Tyrone says:

                  Sorry, the woman isn’t alone at the well, she’s gossiping and stirring up a crowd, trying to sound holier than Jesus, or at least the 12.

                  The fat bald dude in the office (paul) tells her to shut up and wear a veil.

                  She’s calling security.

                  Chad (jesus) says the same and she’s in the corner of the room, praying silently.

                  That’s how I can’t help but see it.

                  I guess the irony is that I probably sound like the Slut by The Well with all these comments. I don’t think I would come off that way in real life. But I’ll leave it at that and won’t wear out my welcome!

      • Mayflower Sperg says:

        In the liberal morality, which is based on individual consent, it is immoral to create children because you cannot first ask them if they consent to being born. Liberalism can only survive by indoctrinating other people’s children, which it has evolved to be very good at.

        Thus a ban on infant baptism looks to me like a slippery slope into liberal consent morality.

        • Tyrone says:

          From historical interest, has anyone ever argued for multiple baptisms?

          I’m not the most thorough reader and I don’t worry too much about baptism, but I don’t think I ever saw anything to absolutely rule it out, in the text?

          I can see how it could be a very powerful recurring ritual. First baptism most important but the others are good to have as well kind of thing. Maybe not every Sunday but at big moments like at your wedding or at your child’s baptism you do it with him.

          It might contradict the spirit of a few passages but is it inconceivable?

          • Fidelis says:

            Repeat baptisms I’m not sure of, but along the same line of reasoning I believe

            Baptists form a major branch of evangelical Protestantism distinguished by baptizing only professing Christian believers (believer’s baptism) and doing so by complete immersion.

            taken from

            I don’t think your criticisms here are undue, but honestly I lean towards the opposite direction. Too much to misinterpret in the text, too much opportunity for holier than thou scribes to knead their brains all day coming up with this and that meaning, and frankly I’m not convinced the final composition of the Bible was divinely inspired even if I do believe much of the component text was. If we are just going to follow someone’s interpretation, may as well just do away with scriptura nonsense. The book will still be around to consult, as will many other books, some of them also divinely inspired, and we can stand with our feet on the ground and think for ourselves once again, which was the entire point in the first place.

            I don’t need to reference the Good Book to be able to tell you how a society of homos and barren women will self destruct. No one even bothers to pay attention to the clear words in Genesis about the nature of Man and Woman, and I can articulate quite well, without burdening the listener with that great Myth, just that nature and have the words ignored the same.

            • jim says:

              > Too much to misinterpret in the text, too much opportunity for holier than thou scribes to knead their brains all day coming up with this and that meaning

              The experience of the Jews, against which Christianity was a reaction, shows that too much specifics, rather than too little, worsen this problem. The more stuff you put in, the more room to get creative. Kook at the pile of insanity the Jews have erected on top of a second temple high priest banning the passage of wagons of goods through the city gates on the Sabbath.

              They grab hold of a comma somewhere in some detail, and erect a mighty edifice of new law on top of it, in the process loopholing away all the rest of the law.

              The universal nature of Christianity means that Kings have to be able to implement a law that complies with the spirit of Old Testament law, but which reflects their own culture, their own history, and their circumstances.

          • Jimmy says:

            This was sorted out at the council of nicea. Baptism is a work of the Holy Ghost, thus we can trust that it always works the first time. Re-baptism is a denial of the sovereignty and power of God himself.

            Borderline blasphemy.

            Historically, Baptists deny that baptism is a work of the Holy Ghost but a work of the man being baptized. So if his intentions weren’t correct, it might need a re-do. Or multiple re-dos.

            • FrankNorman says:

              The Baptist position is that faith in Christ is required on your own part, other people cannot believe for you.

              Lots of people got sprinkled as infants, and as adults have never darkened the door of a church again. Try to pin the churchians down as to what exactly this “work of the Holy Ghost” is supposed to really do, and whether we can see evidence of it, and I suspect they will become evasive and blustering.

              That’s what I liked about the Baptists personally: they could give me clear and simple answers, understandable and well-reasoned, to questions where the Anglicans in my experience would only waffle.
              Can’t explain it to someone else, if you don’t understand it yourself…

              • jim says:

                > Lots of people got sprinkled as infants, and as adults have never darkened the door of a church again

                Conversely, however, pretty much everyone belonging to Church X were born and raised in Church X. It is likely that the Christian expansion during first centuries was largely biological, because they had marriage 1.0 and the Romans had forgotten it.

                • i says:

                  I think there is a benefit of requiring the children to consciously choose Christ. Then being prayed over after baptism to receive the Holy Spirit as in the Book of Acts or praying themselves to receive it as God promises to give(Luke 11:13)

                  It mitigates against simply being complacent in regards to the Christian life. Plus the benefit of a necessary but appropriate zeal of the Convert.

              • Jimmy says:

                Belief has nothing to do with Christian baptism. Baptism makes you a member of the covenant. After that, you might be faithful or unfaithful. You can believe or not. You can waste your talents or use them for the glory of your master. But you can never be a neutral party.

                In fact, there are no neutral parties, anyway. Christ’s dominion excludes nothing. The idea that your consent or assent means anything in the cosmic economy is demonic and, frankly, retarded. Christ is king, abs not because he was elected.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  Jimmy, I don’t know what denomination you speak for, but the Bible is plain: while at the end of time every knee will bow and every tongue confess Jesus as Lord, not everyone is going to be saved.

                  Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.

            • Tyrone says:

              If rebaptisms are undertaken because the initial series of Baptisms are assumed invalid then sure, borderline heresy and certainly bad vibes between denominations.

              But have any churches ever taken the angle of, like, Baptisms are great, probably our greatest sacrament where we come closest to the Holy Spirit, so let’s do it more often.

              Not so often that it waters it down (pastor humor) but often enough that we get to have more of a good thing?

              “Sure in the Bible they only ever seem to do it once, but partly that’s because John the Baptist was killed, and as far as Acts, well, they obviously did a lot of things that don’t get mentioned. Even if we’re wrong, God can’t be angry at us for trying a bit too hard to be close to him, and it’s not like we’ll purity spiral into travelling around with portable showers, or water torturing ourselves with constant drips of holy water onto our foreheads”

              I belief I recall that some Dead Sea sects were big into ritual bathing, probably to the point of purity spiraling.

          • Fake says:

            The sacrament is a ritual of remembering, so your sentiment is in line with tradition. “This do in remembrance of me.”

        • FrankNorman says:

          But do they ask those children if they consent to be indoctrinated?

    • Fake says:

      Why didn’t Jesus speak more clearly or give us more helpful directions about our problems? The short answer is that we wouldn’t understand and would reject Him. In Matthew 7:6, He said not to cast your pearls before pigs, because they will turn around and attack you. In Matthew 19, the Lord says that Moses allowed divorce, because the people were too wicked to handle real marriage, eventhough it had been around earlier.

      The longer answer is that He does not reveal truth to people who are not ready for it.
      In Matthew 13:10, the disciples ask why the Lord teaches in parables. He replied that not everyone was ready to hear the truth, that the disciples were ready to understand, but everyone else was not. And you have pointed out examples where the disciples did not understand the Lord when He spoke plainly.

      In Isaiah 28:9-10 it is described how God will not reveal everything at once.

      9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
      10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

      There are elements more fundamental to Christianity than marriage, like faith, so in His ministry, the Lord started at the beginning and built up. Reading about Moses and Joshua are great examples of the Lord trying to lead and reveal to people who weren’t ready for everything all at once.

      As to the ambiguity of the gospels, I personally believe a lot of it was because the disciples might have been barely literate, so not great at record making/keeping.

      • i says:

        They all fit eyewitness accounts. Like at a crime scene. Even if witnesses see the exact same things. They still manage to differ. The details all don’t line up exactly. Otherwise they can well be colluding.

        Plus it’s likely the literate interviewing eyewitnesses which helped give rise to the Gospels

      • Tyrone says:

        How many of the Gospels record the Parable of the Good Samaritan?

        I think it’s only Luke

        So the other three decided that that story wasn’t worth recording? Or they forgot about it?

        I can’t get over how ridiculous that seems.

        I’m prone to the naive idea that with 4 versions of that parable, Jim’s interpretation have been self evident, or at least more prevalent, and that history would look different and better.

        If not History, then certain individual souls would have avoided a lot of trouble irl, and few or none would have been harmed.

        Maybe not, maybe not. I could very easily be wrong.

        But it really bothers my autism that three people would hear that parable and not think it was worth writing down.

        Many such cases (of my autism screeching at illiterate fishermen)

  8. Pats says:

    Ah…. Taking away sins… qui tollis peccata… Agnus Dei stuff.
    John 1:29 Altera die vidit Joannes Jesum venientem ad se, et ait : Ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi.
    (The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world. )..
    How do our sins get to our lords cross?
    Understanding Melchizedeks sacrifice, also the peace sacrifice as well as the blood sacrifice in Leviticus will help, don’t forget Abrahim and the lord asking for his son to be sacrificed.. It all pints to both the last supper and the cross – both events are one.
    But Scott Hahn can get your there…. Just look for him and “the 4th cup” on YouTube.

    • FrankNorman says:

      Dude… there’s not some secret formula. Jesus made it plain what you need to do – believe in Him.

Leave a Reply