Discussion:
Jesus bizarre rants in Luke // Re: ZetaTalk: Golden Rule
(too old to reply)
Jos Boersema
2017-06-07 15:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Op 2017-06-05, GZ schreef <***@gmail.com>:
[...]
In the simple words of Jesus, ‘do unto others as you would have them
do unto you’.
[...]

That's not Jesus words, that was a movement in Rome at the time, I
think it was called the Stoïcs. Roman propaganda writers put that
in the mouth of their fraudulent Jesus character. Read the below
trash from the new testament (Roman Imperial propaganda):

http://biblehub.com/kjv/luke/19.htm
The Parable of the Ten Minas
(Matthew 25:14-30)
11And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because
he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom
of God should immediately appear. 12He said therefore, A certain
nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom,
and to return. 13And he called his ten servants, and delivered them
ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. 14But his citizens
hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this
man to reign over us. 15And it came to pass, that when he was returned,
having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be
called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how
much every man had gained by trading. 16Then came the first, saying,
Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. 17And he said unto him, Well,
thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little,
have thou authority over ten cities. 18And the second came, saying,
Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. 19And he said likewise to him,
Be thou also over five cities. 20And another came, saying, Lord, behold,
here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: 21For I feared
thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst
not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. 22And he saith unto him,
Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou
knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and
reaping that I did not sow: 23Wherefore then gavest not thou my money
into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with
usury? 24And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound,
and give it to him that hath ten pounds. 25(And they said unto him, Lord,
he hath ten pounds.) 26For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath
shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be
taken away from him. 27But those mine enemies, which would not that I
should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
What is this trash supposed to mean ? It seems to mean that Jesus
loves people who gain money by trading, and even supports usury
to make money out of people. When this wicked ruler mentioned in
Jesus ranting is accused of that which he does, as he is apparently
hated by his people (probably for good reason), by the one servant
who merely followed the command to keep the money safe and return
it at the same value, he didn't even steal it, that servant is
reprimanded. As if that wasn't problematic enough, the tirannical
wicked 'noble man' then orders people who complaigned about him
to be put to death. This trash is a religion on this planet ?!

On another note: I once believed that Zetatalk was telling the truth,
because I was impressed by the way they exposed the criminality of
the Bush family (and that's the only reason). By endless debates
about the *possibility* of alien life in the universe with some
dullwitted sceptic, it sensitized me more to the possibility, although
I never argued that there is proof that alien life is present on Earth.
I should however have been more careful: Zetatalk supports a liar
like Albert Einstein. I hope I didn't loose too many readers at this
point (probably zero anyway), but yes: Albert Einstein his re-interpretation
of the absurd Lorentz light constant speed theory and transformations,
is garbage and not science. Einsteit was not a scientist, he was a
clerk at a patent office who plagiarized various writings; or even had
his wife doing it for him. I've written the following disproof of
Relativety: http://www.law4.org/plan_joshb/disproof.html

On another note related to Einstein ...

Illuminati Wife Tells All - Part 4 of 4
1:18:00 "Albert Einstein" ...
(Einstein 5:55:00)
Albert Einstein was part of child abuse rings in the USA, perhaps as
his reward and/or to keep him under control by blackmail. If Zetatalk
was real and otherworldly, they wouldn't fall for this kind of trash
such as Einstein or Jesus.

So, what is Zetatalk ? What are these outlandish outlets about, that
mix serious politics with the extremely non-credible ? I think that
what they do is mix in explosive criminal truth about this society
and certain high powered individuals, with various non-credible stories
and fantasies. Even if those fantasies are true, it is absolutely
rejected by most people, and that is I think the effect they are after.
They want to mix truth with fiction, so that if the truth came out
they could point to such prior publications and pretend that the
information must have come from one of such sources. It also makes
people reject the truth about the gangsterism in higher circles of
power (and I'm particularly thinking of the ultra-rich, which in many
cases are organized crime, and only secondarily about National Governments)
if they have previously heard such accusations in a non-credible setting,
such as is Zetatalk.

Curiously however, that in turn can mean that there can (hypothetically)
be a level of truth exposed in such venues, in order to then discredit it,
if it is true that they engage in this kind of secrecy control. Are they ?
I think that as well established criminal groups and networks who have
conducted so many wars and so many crimes, and also have had good people
working for them creatively in war departments who thought they where
defending their people, that we should not be surprised at any level
of enemy sophistication. That isn't the same as saying they are doing it,
only that I think it deserves consideration to look into it as a possibility.

By the way, the golden rule isn't good enough. What if there are criminals
who expect others to behave vicious and criminal toward them, and who
like that kind of a fighing lifestyle ? Does that make their behavior
allright then ? What if there are people who like to be spoken to with
a lot of slurs and stupidity, does that then mean they can talk the same ?
What if some people like others to be immodest in their dress, does that
then imply that all they need to do is behave the same and it is ok ?
Does that cause children to be born outside of the safety of a secure
family ? Is that good ? No that is not good. Although I see that the
rule mentioned can have some meaning, it is hardly good enough.

And so it is with all this Jesus babble, it's not good enough. It is
superficial, if not outright bizarre and Luciferian. See gospel of
John eat my flesh, drink my blood, and live as gods. Jesus is the
snake, jesus is the fraud, the anti-christ, the liar and false god,
a stage prop for the criminal entity at the Vatican and Rome.

Long live Abraham and Mozes, long live the loyalists of Israel.

Dutch proverb: no matter how fast the lie goes, the truth will catch up.
The Egyptian mad empire ruled for a long, long very long time. Today
it is all but forgotten. Eternity is a long time. Truth lasts eternally.
--
http://www.law4.org How economics works, and how to get it fixed.
Reasoning, implementation plans, example Constitutions, and voting software.
Jos Boersema
2017-06-08 08:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jos Boersema
[...]
In the simple words of Jesus, ‘do unto others as you would have them
do unto you’.
[...]
That's not Jesus words, that was a movement in Rome at the time, I
think it was called the Stoïcs. Roman propaganda writers put that
in the mouth of their fraudulent Jesus character. Read the below
http://biblehub.com/kjv/luke/19.htm
The Parable of the Ten Minas

(Matthew 25:14-30)

11And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable,
because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that
the kingdom of God should immediately appear. 12He said therefore,
A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself
a kingdom, and to return. 13And he called his ten servants,
and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I
come. 14But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him,
saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. 15And it came
to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom,
then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom
he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had
gained by trading. 16Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound
hath gained ten pounds. 17And he said unto him, Well, thou good
servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou
authority over ten cities. 18And the second came, saying, Lord,
thy pound hath gained five pounds. 19And he said likewise to him,
Be thou also over five cities. 20And another came, saying, Lord,
behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
21For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest
up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not
sow. 22And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge
thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man,
taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
23Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at
my coming I might have required mine own with usury? 24And he said
unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him
that hath ten pounds. 25(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten
pounds.) 26For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall
be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be
taken away from him. 27But those mine enemies, which would not that I
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over
them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Post by Jos Boersema
should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
What is this trash supposed to mean ?
Hello again Gerard. I'm sorry if I sounded rude, it isn't directed at
you personally. I just saw this quoted by a Jesus fan who quoted:

But those mine enemies, which would not that I
should reign over them, bring hither, and slay
them before me.

Luke 19:27

This person was suggesting that Jesus said that - which he did by
writing that "parabel". This shows one level of the brutality of the
Jesus system (which shocked me, hence me calling it trash): it has
Jesus fans supporting the idea that people be put to death if they
don't accept some rich man as their king.

Looking a bit deeper into this section of the new testament, to try
to figure out what it means (if anything), this is a quote of what
comes before it:

Jesus and Zacchaeus

1And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. 2And, behold, there
was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans,
and he was rich. 3And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could
not for the press, because he was little of stature. 4And he ran
before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was
to pass that way. 5And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up,
and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come
down; for to day I must abide at thy house. 6And he made haste,
and came down, and received him joyfully. 7And when they saw it,
they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man
that is a sinner. 8And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord;
Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I
have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore
him fourfold. 9And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come
to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. 10For the
Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

The Parable of the Ten Minas

(Matthew 25:14-30)

11And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable,
because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that
the kingdom of God should immediately appear. 12He said therefore,
A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself
a kingdom, and to return. (...)

The first thing that is interesting is that apparently Jesus is attracted
to the luxuries of the rich man house, even when the people say that this
is a bad person. The rich man then says he is extremely generous, to an
extend that is hard to belief. How can he stay rich if he behaven that
way ? We know from history that the rich tend to be the more immoral,
although not always so. Their scheming propels them to riches for themselves,
their lack of generosity causes them to hang to to it. This conflicts with
the idea that Jesus represents humility. Just the opposite: Jesus craves
to lavish himself in luxuries, which is not a surprise because it's all
written by the Roman propaganda system, and they certainly value luxuries.
If they are to put an idol over the masses, they would want an idol that
supports their own lavish lifestyle.

In light of the part about this rich man, the following "parable" about
the rich guy who goes to collect a Kingdom, gives his servants his
money and then demands that they grow rich in either trade or usury
and reprimands the one who just protected the money at the same value;
which incidentally is more in line with the Torah law in my view because
money is lend out *without interest* by law, while trade in general is
supposed to be an exchange of equal and balanced values that result in
both parties getting what they need (who has too many beetroots can
trade them for money, and then the money can be traded for flour, for
example, changing what is owned but not the market value of what is
owned in total by either persons) rather then one scamming another
over to get richer from it. Jesus clearly favors the rich man in the
first part, in which house he likes to stay, and then gives a "parable"
about another rich guy. I think it can only mean one thing: the rich
guy in the second part is the "good guy" from Jesus standpoint, and
he is reprimanding his own followers indirectly and to see themselves
as the servants who should increase the value of money for their master,
by either trade or usury (!).

It isn't entirely clear (to me) whether the last centences Luke 19:26
and :27 are still part of the "parable" or if they are the way that
Jesus is explaining the meaning of the parable because the word
"everyone" is being used, to generalize it. The meaning then becomes:
money shall be given to those that already have it, and those that are
poor will also loose that what they still have (which is indeed how hte
Roman Empire worked.) This basically establishes Jesus as an evil
Oligarch who rejoyces in the abuse of the poor to benefit the wealthy
parasite classes.

By the way, I seem to remember how the Jesus fans have tried to
interpret this away. They seem to pretend that this money represents
honorable virtues, and that one should increase them until Jesus returns
to be a better person. That it is not good enough to just sit on your
virtues, but you have to increase in virtue over time. Although that
is an interesting way that people who like to be moral can try to cope
with the absurdity - if not outright evil - that is the Jesus system,
by more or less forcing it to mean something good even if it doesn't,

I don't see how that can be accurate. It talks about money, and even
in the text itself the word 'sin' is used. If it is to be about increasing
in virtue, then it could have said that just as easily, if not more
easily. The words for that exist, there is no reason to hide a meaning
like that under some impossible to decypher code about why usury is
good and getting rich from trade is good. Incidentally there is a Tanach
reference to people who get arrogant from getting rich by trade, some
sort of King somewhere who grew rich by trade. He was creates as a
perfect 'keruf' but fell because of his trade making him rich.

Conclusion: the Jesus system is chaotic, anti-moral, it supports usury
in this case whereas in others it perhaps might not (to protect the
usury conducted by the Roman Oligarchs themselves, to have a legal
prohibition but at the back door do it themselves ? That is the kind
of methodology we see today in the drugs prohibition, where the
prohibition is used to increase the cost of drugs trade for competitor
cartels so that the US Army drugs cartel (yes it exists, it's huge
FWIK) has a monopoly ...).

Solution: with a decent box cutter, the new-testament can be quite
easily cut out of from the Tanach. Don't forget to take out anything
that Rome added, by the way. Reportedly they also mistranslated
'Reed sea' into 'Red sea'. I don't see a problem with honoring the
Creator in an organized fashion, for those who have religious needs ?
Nothing wrong with singing some psalms together, is there ? But the
Jesus fraud system from Rome ... no.

Incidentally I would like people to unite in groups for a new State
system, to decide the common issues of their Nation. I wonder if that is
the niche of normal human behavior that these idolatry religions have
insinuated themselves into because people where too rude to listen to
each other, and too confused to be of one mind. Thus it all broke apart
and became a dictatorship, and then the dictatorship became corrupt
to let people know they where doing things wrong, and from there we
get these Jesus and other idolatry systems that are just waiting to be
overthrown. The essential in that overthrowing is: can people listen to
each other, and reach reasonable conclusions to be of one mind ?

Every time I see something about Jesus, I'm flabberghasted about the
low grade, anti-moral, dictatorial and other bad things. It is shocking
that there are people who want to massacre people who don't worship the
fraudulent idol they do. The bloodyness of the repression by which
the European Nations have been subjugated to the Jesus fraud system,
must have been a trauma so severe that it has broken our souls and our
minds, so that this system continues on even today (although fortunately
it seems to be imploding).

Have a nice day.

P.S. What's next for the Roman Empire ? It seems they are going for
another mass trauma in the form of World War 3, to shock the
populations into accepting an openly Luciferian or Satanic New
World Order. If the history of the Jesus system and of the
United Nations - previously League of Nations and according to
some the Tower of Bavel was another instance of this attempt
(and indeed the European Union building is moddeled after the
Tower of Bavel) - is any guide, this trauma-based ideological
warfare by the ruling gangsters is a dangerously potent method
of coercing the populations into their evil plans. Resist them.

Understand that they are causing the wars themselves, and that
if they later say that the war was caused because people didn't
obay the United Nations: that is a lie. That is their way of
forcing people to become obedient to them. They want a dictatorship.
"You didn't listen to our United Nations" they will likely say
after nuclear holocaust warfare, implying that from now on you
will have to listen. It is a form of brutal dog training, absolutely
murderously vicious. That's what they are up to, IMHO. Don't
underestimate the brutality of these people.

In my opinion this is the reason for the war:
- The land was not distributed to all as an inalienable right,
causing the economic destabilization and despair in the
un/under-employed, causing the economy to be a boat without
a keel that cannot right itself.
That is possibly the greatest reason for these wars.

In a more direct way, the wars are caused because we have not dealt
with these criminals in power, who commit all these other smaller
wars based obviously on lies. We let these United Nation gangsters
do whatever they want, that has caused the war. We have submitted
to the United Nations (not me, but others), the American Empire
(which is at the head of it), and that causes the wars to become
worse then they should be, because they are allowed to involve us
(many nations, including the Netherlands) into these wars. Another
reason for the war is that the few are allowed to become far too
rich.

Remember and think about such causes for war, so that you have a
better explanation then what the enemy is likely going to come out
with as the reason after the war. The reason the enemy is going to
come out with will likely be: "You didn't obay us well enough."
Don't listen to their lies, rebel and overthrow them. Don't fall
for their food games either, I imagine that if they have the level
of depopulation that they want, they could open their secret
food reserves and play the savior. People will be so panicked and
famished that they would worship anything to get a mouth full. I
estimate that these are among their basic strategies. Try to see
through their lies and massacres. Life under these evil people will
be hell sooner or later, they have nothing to offer us except more
violence and more brutal dog training for humanity until they have
everyone broken and dominated.

Get armed & supplied to resist the evil. If they have grain reserves ?
Commandeer them and feed the people from that food they siphened off
for their own games.
--
http://www.law4.org How economics works, and how to get it fixed.
Reasoning, implementation plans, example Constitutions, and voting software.
Jos Boersema
2017-06-08 16:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jos Boersema
Post by Jos Boersema
[...]
In the simple words of Jesus, ‘do unto others as you would have them
do unto you’.
[...]
That's not Jesus words, that was a movement in Rome at the time, I
think it was called the Stoïcs. Roman propaganda writers put that
in the mouth of their fraudulent Jesus character. Read the below
http://biblehub.com/kjv/luke/19.htm
What is this trash supposed to mean ?
Hello again Gerard. I'm sorry if I sounded rude, it isn't directed at
But those mine enemies, which would not that I
should reign over them, bring hither, and slay
them before me.
Luke 19:27
This person was suggesting that Jesus said that - which he did by
writing that "parabel". This shows one level of the brutality of the
Jesus system (which shocked me, hence me calling it trash): it has
Jesus fans supporting the idea that people be put to death if they
don't accept some rich man as their king.
Looking a bit deeper into this section of the new testament, to try
to figure out what it means (if anything), this is a quote of what
Jesus and Zacchaeus
Since as usual nobody cares to have a debate, perhaps because I'm
a madman or perhaps not interesting and irrelevant plus overactive,
I'll reply to myself. I was thinking about this problem and wondered
what an accurate "parable" could be. I imagine something like this ...

Take the same situation, but add another servant. This servant says he
has lost the money. "What ?" asks the boss, "how did this happen ?".
The servant says: "I was clammored by a poor man, who begged me for
a loan. While I offered him bread and wine from our table to speak of
his troubles, I noticed that it didn't take long before he got himself
drunk. Being alarmed at the behavior of the poor man, wondering if
he would be a bottomless pit of money, I inquired of his family and
neighbors what had happened. I found out that he was not a hard working
man, and lost his job when he was convicted of using false weights in
a trade." ...

... "Hence I decided not to give this man any loan, however while I was
about to investigate, and I realized that it would be trouble to give
this man a loan, I began to feel guilty, because of the Law ordering
all to give easy loans to our brothers. As I pondered a way to free
my conscience, it occured to me to visit the relatives of the man to
see how they where doing. They too where poor, but I found no guilt in
them, and therefore I asked them if there was anything that could be
done for them. They asked for a loan to buy seeds for next year crop,
and perhaps enough to buy new sandals. If the crops would yield well
they promised to return the value, and I believed them. I've arranged
for them to garden on part of 10% of our land, and afforded them new
shoes." ...

... "They promised to work for us if they could not repay the loan,
until the next 7th year. So far they have worked well but the loan is
still outstanding and I do not have the money you gave me to keep.
In all this I computed that we could still live adequately ourselves,
and hence since we did not need the money immediately for our own
expenses I concluded that everything we use is a gift to us from the
Creator, and that this money we have in excess was a gift from the
Creator as well, to us, to give to others and thereby both helping
them live while helping us become happy by doing good things for our
brother and sister Jewish people."

Then the (in this version well behaved rich man) says: "You have
provided our house with honor, I shall send you to the new kingdom I
have acquired, to rule it according to the law. Go there and distribute
the land to all as it is supposed to be, and test all scales in use.
I shall come there in 7 years to inspect your progress. Here you have
a servant, the one who has kept the money as it is and gave it back
to me. Take him with you. " ...

... "This servant here who traded with the coin and enriched himself, I
will keep him and watch his doings, but this one [who in this version]
made usurious loans with the money, I will drag him to court for
defiling our good name and for breaking the law ..." and he threw
the profit that the servant had made from the usurious loans outside
of the window to the street while saying "take it who finds it !",
where it was picked up by the passers by. He then went to inspect
the people who had received teh loan, and discovered that all as was
told by his faithful servant; who had once sold his land to him when
he was impoverished for the price of crops from it until the next
Jubilee, which was not yet.

Now I'm no expert on anything, but it seems to me that this is
a lot closer to the Torah law. If not, please correct me, thanks.

Have a nice day (I guess I should say "thanks" here, since I'm
talking to myself ;). lol

It is assumed here that the reader knows that it is the Torah law
that Jewish people are giving each other loans without interest,
loans that are forgiven in the 7th year, that land is free for all
and may not be sold in perpetuity but only until the next Jubilee
for the price of the execting crop yields from it until then (which
makes in a rent in modern language, it can only be rented until the
next Jubilee), and that 1/10th of the land is set aside for the poor,
and furthermore that is an obligation for a Jewish person to lend
readily to the poor, regardless of how close the 7th year debt
cancellation is.

Perhaps I'm just stupid or bizarre, and grotesquely self indulgant
for writing so much here; but somehow I have to shake my head at
the things that Jesus is supposed to have been doing in this new
testament thing. Things like "from those that have money, to those
will be given, and to those that don't have even that what they do
have will be taken" just don't sit right with me, sorry. I cannot
compute such a statement as being good. I can see how someone
can contort it to mean something it doesn't say, but that doesn't
solve the problem because it just substitutes a different version
with a different meaning, or interjects highly speculative and
on face value contradictory meanings to what was literally being
said.

Hence my conclusion: the Jesus sytsem is chaff, it is ... sorry
to say ... it is trash. I can't make it prettier then it is. Things
like "I come to bring the sword" and all that, or "eat my body,
drink my blood, and you will become gods" ... it is all so absurd
and grotesquely immoral. I really don't see the grounds in the text
itself to reasonably read it through several mirrors and filters
to make it mean something it doesn't seem to be saying. Nowhere
in the Tanach do I see the need to conduct such difficult decoding,
or if it is so it is usually about modern assumptions about the
period back then such as "wipe out that entire enemy population."
Even there it is clear what it is, it doesn't need and never is
interpreted differently. It simply means what it says: wipe them
out. The reason is: because they are evil.

When the Torah says: give easy loans to a brother Jewish person
who is impoverished (and I note that I add a caveat to the person
being somewhat well behaved, which may not be in the law and so
should be disregarded as part of the story rather then being exact
on the law), that's what it means, no problem. It is clear. When
the land is permitted only to be sold up to the 7th year, that is
clear too. Everything is clear in the Torah.

This thing that Jesus says, if it is taken at the same direct
clarity of meaning, it's horrible and contradicts with the Torah
law. Go take usurious money from other Jewish people ? That's
against the law (funny how they even used usury in the text).
Furthermore, it is confusing what it means, some kind of "parable."
I don't see a lot of "parables" hen the Creator gives law to
Israel. It's clear and precise. There may be illustrations of
things in the stories, but the text of law is quite clear, indeed
it is perfectly clear.

The solution I see remains the same: take a box cutter and take out
the enemy propaganda, because it's all false and doesn't belong
in the Tanach.

I think the western idolators make the mistake of having a
preconceived notion that anything that Jesus says is good and true,
and only after that pontification they try to see what it then means.
They skip the step of seeing wether it is true or makes any sense,
and reasonably belongs with the Tanach.
--
http://www.law4.org How economics works, and how to get it fixed.
Reasoning, implementation plans, example Constitutions, and voting software.
Jos Boersema
2017-06-08 16:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jos Boersema
Post by Jos Boersema
[...]
In the simple words of Jesus, ‘do unto others as you would have them
do unto you’.
[...]
That's not Jesus words, that was a movement in Rome at the time, I
think it was called the Stoïcs. Roman propaganda writers put that
in the mouth of their fraudulent Jesus character. Read the below
http://biblehub.com/kjv/luke/19.htm
What is this trash supposed to mean ?
Hello again Gerard. I'm sorry if I sounded rude, it isn't directed at
But those mine enemies, which would not that I
should reign over them, bring hither, and slay
them before me.
Luke 19:27
This person was suggesting that Jesus said that - which he did by
writing that "parabel". This shows one level of the brutality of the
Jesus system (which shocked me, hence me calling it trash): it has
Jesus fans supporting the idea that people be put to death if they
don't accept some rich man as their king.
Looking a bit deeper into this section of the new testament, to try
to figure out what it means (if anything), this is a quote of what
Jesus and Zacchaeus
Since as usual nobody cares to have a debate, perhaps because I'm
a madman or perhaps not interesting and irrelevant plus overactive,
I'll reply to myself. I was thinking about this problem and wondered
what an accurate "parable" could be. I imagine something like this ...

Take the same situation, but add another servant. This servant says he
has lost the money. "What ?" asks the boss, "how did this happen ?".
The servant says: "I was clammored by a poor man, who begged me for
a loan. While I offered him bread and wine from our table to speak of
his troubles, I noticed that it didn't take long before he got himself
drunk. Being alarmed at the behavior of the poor man, wondering if
he would be a bottomless pit of money, I inquired of his family and
neighbors what had happened. I found out that he was not a hard working
man, and lost his job when he was convicted of using false weights in
a trade." ...

... "Hence I decided not to give this man any loan, however while I was
about to investigate, and I realized that it would be trouble to give
this man a loan, I began to feel guilty, because of the Law ordering
all to give easy loans to our brothers. As I pondered a way to free
my conscience, it occured to me to visit the relatives of the man to
see how they where doing. They too where poor, but I found no guilt in
them, and therefore I asked them if there was anything that could be
done for them. They asked for a loan to buy seeds for next year crop,
and perhaps enough to buy new sandals. If the crops would yield well
they promised to return the value, and I believed them. I've arranged
for them to garden on part of 10% of our land, and afforded them new
shoes." ...

... "They promised to work for us if they could not repay the loan,
until the next 7th year. So far they have worked well but the loan is
still outstanding and I do not have the money you gave me to keep.
In all this I computed that we could still live adequately ourselves,
and hence since we did not need the money immediately for our own
expenses I concluded that everything we use is a gift to us from the
Creator, and that this money we have in excess was a gift from the
Creator as well, to us, to give to others and thereby both helping
them live while helping us become happy by doing good things for our
brother and sister Jewish people."

Then the (in this version well behaved rich man) says: "You have
provided our house with honor, I shall send you to the new kingdom I
have acquired, to rule it according to the law. Go there and distribute
the land to all as it is supposed to be, and test all scales in use.
I shall come there in 7 years to inspect your progress. Here you have
a servant, the one who has kept the money as it is and gave it back
to me. Take him with you. " ...

... "This servant here who traded with the coin and enriched himself, I
will keep him and watch his doings, but this one [who in this version]
made usurious loans with the money, I will drag him to court for
defiling our good name and for breaking the law ..." and he threw
the profit that the servant had made from the usurious loans outside
of the window to the street while saying "take it who finds it !",
where it was picked up by the passers by. He then went to inspect
the people who had received the loan, and discovered that all as was
told by his faithful servant; who had once sold his land to him when
he was impoverished for the price of crops from it until the next
Jubilee, which was not yet.

Now I'm no expert on anything, but it seems to me that this is
a lot closer to the Torah law. If not, please correct me, thanks.

Have a nice day (I guess I should say "thanks" here, since I'm
talking to myself ;). lol

It is assumed here that the reader knows that it is the Torah law
that Jewish people are giving each other loans without interest,
loans that are forgiven in the 7th year, that land is free for all
and may not be sold in perpetuity but only until the next Jubilee
for the price of the expecting crop yields from it until then (which
makes in a rent in modern language, it can only be rented until the
next Jubilee), and that 1/10th of the land is set aside for the poor,
and furthermore that is an obligation for a Jewish person to lend
readily to the poor, regardless of how close the 7th year debt
cancellation is.

Perhaps I'm just stupid or bizarre, and grotesquely self indulgant
for writing so much here; but somehow I have to shake my head at
the things that Jesus is supposed to have been doing in this new
testament thing. Things like "from those that have money, to those
will be given, and to those that don't have even that what they do
have will be taken" just don't sit right with me, sorry. I cannot
compute such a statement as being good. I can see how someone
can contort it to mean something it doesn't say, but that doesn't
solve the problem because it just substitutes a different version
with a different meaning, or interjects highly speculative and
on face value contradictory meanings to what was literally being
said.

Hence my conclusion: the Jesus sytsem is chaff, it is ... sorry
to say ... it is trash. I can't make it prettier then it is. Things
like "I come to bring the sword" and all that, or "eat my body,
drink my blood, and you will become gods" ... it is all so absurd
and grotesquely immoral. I really don't see the grounds in the text
itself to reasonably read it through several mirrors and filters
to make it mean something it doesn't seem to be saying. Nowhere
in the Tanach do I see the need to conduct such difficult decoding,
or if it is so it is usually about modern assumptions about the
period back then such as "wipe out that entire enemy population."
Even there it is clear what it is, it doesn't need and never is
interpreted differently. It simply means what it says: wipe them
out. The reason is: because they are evil.

When the Torah says: give easy loans to a brother Jewish person
who is impoverished (and I note that I add a caveat to the person
being somewhat well behaved, which may not be in the law and so
should be disregarded as part of the story rather then being exact
on the law), that's what it means, no problem. It is clear. When
the land is permitted only to be sold up to the 50th year, that is
clear too. Everything is clear in the Torah.

This thing that Jesus says, if it is taken at the same direct
clarity of meaning, it's horrible and contradicts with the Torah
law. Go take usurious money from other Jewish people ? That's
against the law (funny how they even used usury in the text).
Furthermore, it is confusing what it means, some kind of "parable."
I don't see a lot of "parables" when the Creator gives law to
Israel. It's clear and precise. There may be illustrations of
things in the history told, but the text of law is quite clear, indeed
it is perfectly clear.

The solution I see remains the same: take a box cutter and take out
the enemy propaganda, because it's all false and doesn't belong
in the Tanach.

I think the western idolators make the mistake of having a
preconceived notion that anything that Jesus says is good and true,
and only after that pontification they try to see what it then means.
They skip the step of seeing wether it is true or makes any sense,
and reasonably belongs with the Tanach.
--
Supercede, some mistakes including below, sorry:
... the land is permitted only to be sold up to the 50th year, that is
Not 7th year as written in error, of course.
Loading...