Jesus was betrayed for vast sums of money and power

a reply to: TXRabbit

So now Jesus wasn't a carpenter either? By the time this
thread is in the dumpster we'll have a whole new Monty
Python screen play.

a reply to: incoserv

In comparison with eternity, all time is short.

Without love all time is long

Long Haired Lady...
"Love is long"

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

"Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm; for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave; the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame.” ~ Song of Solomon 8:6

a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes, Constantine stole christianity and corrupted it, using it as a tool to kill millions in the name of a man who preached only love and peace

He didn't steal anything ( lazy English by you )
He was an Emperor of a dying /decaying Empire. He didn't need to steal anything

He got the bishops together - withheld their food and water ( joking ) until they got their sheez together as to what Christianity would become


www.uwyo.edu...#:~:text=By%20313%2C%20just%20two%20contenders ,ruler%20of%20the%20Roman%20Empire.

By 313, just two contenders remained, Constantine and Licinius. The two jointly issued the Edict of Milan, which made Christianity a legal religion and officially ended the persecution. But, it was not until 324 that Constantine finally became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire.

www.nationalgeographic.com...#:~:text=Constantine%20made%20Christianity%20the%20main,powerful%20city%20in%20the%20wor ld.&text=Emperor%20Constantine%20(ca%20A.D.%20280,Roman%20Empire—and%20much%20more.

Emperor Constantine (ca A.D. 280– 337) reigned over a major transition in the Roman Empire—and much more. His acceptance of Christianity and his establishment of an eastern capital city, which would later bear his name, mark his rule as a significant pivot point between ancient history and the Middle Ages.

The Roman Empire that Co

Constantine was a follower of the Sol Invictus Cult

www.google.com...

Constantine Sol Invictus
Palmyran equivalent. Shams. Sol Invictus (Classical Latin: [s̠oːɫ̪ ɪnˈwɪk. t̪ʊs̠], "Unconquered Sun") was the official sun god of the later Roman Empire and a patron of soldiers. On 25 December AD 274, the Roman emperor Aurelian made it an official religion alongside the traditional Roman cults.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Raggedyman

... He didn't steal anything ( lazy English by you )
He was an Emperor of a dying /decaying Empire. He didn't need to steal anything ...

The word I used was "co-opted."

As the old adage goes, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." He saw that he would never eliminate the Holy Faith, so he decided to get inside it and control it from within.

Sadly, it worked.

a reply to: TXRabbit

So you're ripping off an undocumented worker, I see - no insurance either?

a reply to: Randyvine



www.google.com...

Now obviously, eventually Jesus's chosen profession was of a “Rabbi” or teacher; so in that sense he wasn't a carpenter regardless of translation. ... However, in his early years, it is supposed from Mark 6:2-3that he was, like his step-father, a “carpenter” as commonly translated

a reply to: incoserv

Beautifully said

a reply to: incoserv

The word I used was "co-opted."

EDIT: I was responding to Raggedyman
Apologies, I missed your words

a reply to: incoserv


Typical, now we have to gauge nuances do we? Who interprets those?

And you didnt answer my question....your posts suggest peeps are predetermined to be good or bad based on ancestry.....true or no?

a reply to: incoserv


Guessed they missed his nuance....

a reply to: CharGreen

By many accounts, he wasn't a king.

Also by many contemporary accounts, not many "elites" of the time saw him as a threat or really even knew anything about Jesus of Nazareth.

I find your claim and lack of evidence...uncompelling.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: incoserv

The word I used was "co-opted."

EDIT: I was responding to Raggedyman
Apologies, I missed your words

Right, but I think that that's what was meant in the OP.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: incoserv


Typical, now we have to gauge nuances do we? Who interprets those?

And you didnt answer my question....your posts suggest peeps are predetermined to be good or bad based on ancestry.....true or no?

Yeah, that's what "nuance" is all about. It's defined in dictionaries as follows:

>a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound.
>sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value)

There are often social or cultural norms that help one define nuance, but sometimes it simply has to be understood by context. I guess the problem lies there. It's not always clear to some people as it has to be recognized and understood (interpreted) by the reader. Some people - either due to poor education or some congenital issue such as something like Asperger's Syndrome - often have a really hard time perceiving and interpreting nuance. Kind of like those people in the cartoons I shared.

Sorry for your difficulty.
:

originally posted by: CharGreen
Jesus was betrayed for vast sums of money and power(obviously not the amount that was said).
The wealthy elite today are the descendants of the people who betrayed Jesus and got him killed. And every bit of their money and power stems from what they gained from this betrayal. That is how much they actually gained.
Remember this was no ordinary King.

No sh!t. Look at the fake in the Vatican.
Buy an indulgence squire?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: CharGreen

The rough estimate for what Judas turned his brohan over in today's value is about $200. I don't know about you but that doesn't qualify as a vast amount of money.

Compound interest!

a reply to: CharGreen

Was he though? Judas never denied Jesus like the other apostles did, and lets not forget the Jesus trusted that Judah would do what God instructed him to do.

Maybe you should be looking at Judah and see what his roll in this whole caper really was, and why Jesus, who already knew what Judah was going to do, would keep him around.

I think the idea of Judah selling out Jesus was more a talking point, rather then a real event.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: incoserv


Typical, now we have to gauge nuances do we? Who interprets those?

And you didnt answer my question....your posts suggest peeps are predetermined to be good or bad based on ancestry.....true or no?

I would contend upbringing is more of an influence then genetics. Ever since Gordon Gecko the greed is good creed has become sacrosanct.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: CharGreen

By many accounts, he wasn't a king.

Also by many contemporary accounts, not many "elites" of the time saw him as a threat or really even knew anything about Jesus of Nazareth.

I find your claim and lack of evidence...uncompelling.

So Herod killed all the males born under the age of two

www.biblehub.com...
Matthew 2:16 When Herod saw that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was filled with rage. Sending orders, he put to death all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, according to the time he had learned from the Magi.

But nobody really knew of Jesus or considered Him a threat?
Jesus was executed by the religious elite at the hands of the Romans

Might want to sharpen that opinion

a reply to: Raggedyman

So, your claim is that, since one king was claimed to have masterminded the 'slaughter of the innocents' because he felt betrayed by three magi who didn't tell him where Jesus was and instead allowed his family to flee to Egypt, my claim is false?

Even though a plurality, if not a majority, of biblical scholars deem the story to be mythical in nature and not historical fact? And that this "slaughter," if it really did occur, most likely added up to a few dozen children in the area of Jesus' birth being killed?

Nah, I'm good on my opinion. Just because there are a few stories of a king who happened to rule over the area that Jesus was claimed to be born in doesn't mean that knowledge of who Jesus was or about his birth or religious role was truly widespread in the overall region. I certainly doubt that he was the PewDiePie of popularity in the biblical lands.

And Matthew 2 doesn't prove that Herod was threatened by the claims about Jesus' divinity or role, it shows that he was pissed off at the magi for disobeying him. In fact, if you look at Luke 23:8, Herod was excited to meet Jesus because he wanted to see some of the claimed miracles, but when Jesus said and did nothing in response to Herod's inquiries and requests, it pissed off Herod again and, like Herod tended to do, he got all angry and flustered and acted emotionally. Herod's gonna Herod.

So, again, I'm okay with my opinion, and it's validated both by many biblical scholars and contemporary writings that have little-to-no mention of Jesus, which shows that his impact at the time was very limited. I see Jesus during his life as being like Van Gogh--people mocked him and some appreciated him a little, and there were a close few who thought he was the bee's knees, but it wasn't until decades after his life that his work really started to take off and a cult following pursued.

You don't have to agree, and I'm okay with that.