In Luke 19:11-27 Jesus tells his followers a parable that clearly refers to him when he comes in his kingdom. Like the nobleman went away to receive a kingdom, Jesus left to a far country. And like Jesus is supposed to return at some point in the future, the nobleman, too, returns to his lands and calls all of his subjects to account (Luke 19:15-26). Verse 27 implies that there were people in his kingdom who grumbled against him as king. Note what the nobleman (clearly referring to Jesus) says: 

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay (slaughter) them before me". And on more than one occasion Jesus threatened those who didn't believe in him with everlasting hell.

In his kingdom Jesus expects to have all nonconformists slaughtered like animals. Yet earlier in Luke Jesus teaches that we all are to love our enemies (6:27-36) and to be merciful. But Jesus doesn't sound so loving and merciful in Luke 19:27. In Matthew 10:34-38 Jesus doesn't sound too loving either toward his enemy, and if you read it it sounds like your run-of-mill cult leader. Jesus was no better than Osama Ben Laden or David Koresh. So Jesus is a hypocrite, telling us Do as I say, not as I do.

Views: 105

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And this is the same Jesus who cursed a fig tree for not producing Out Of Season!!!  If that doesn't reflect the actions of a jerk, I don't know what does.

Je vous ai dit la Bible est pleine de merde !!

The scriptural depictions of Jesus, assuming that the singular person existed (and I think that he probably did), were compiled a generation or ten after his death.  Our earliest text, the book of Mark, doesn't have much in the way of supernatural assertions in its unredacted original form.  Later additions add magic, as do the books of Matthew & Luke (basically re-writes of Mark) and pretty much all that has been written since.  This was a time when followers of a long-dead 'messiah" were under great pressure from both the Jewish church and Roman occupiers to prove legitimacy, and so miracles were invented.  It was trusted by the inventors that the uneducated locals would hew to the miraculous, and apparently enough did so long enough to achieve acceptance by Emperor Constantine who may or may not have used beliefs of the hoi-polloi cynically.  That's really not so different from a leader of a modern nation proclaiming plastic faith that he knows most of his potential electorate supports.



Jesus, if he existed, seems to have been a radical rabble-rouser -- sort of the Abbie Hoffman of his day.  He was purportedly arrested for disturbing the peace (overturning tables of the money-changers & bird sellers in the Temple), and executed for blasphemy.  Those charges aren't really very far apart.




Both of your replies here are spot on. Well said.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service