THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

THINKING ABOUT JESUS | 2005-05-12

The big difference between a Christian and a Jehovist is that Jehovists say they're Christian, but they lose themselves in the Old Testament.

So they read about the Sufferings of Job and start doing Suffering themselves. They think God likes it. Origen castrated himself, and monks have spent their lives torturing themselves and making eunuchs of themselves for almost two millennia.

Meanwhile, instead of trying to find goody quotes from the OT, I THINK about what JESUS said.

He said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." and "Love others as you love yourself."

So, would I castrate someone or put them in a cold cell and deny them food for the rest of their lives?

No.

So why should I do that to myself?

For a Christian, nothing you can do to yourself compares with the only sacrifice that ever mattered to God, the one Christ made. But if you dote on the Old Testament, you can avoid the obvious fact that a Christian who tries to suffer his way into salvation is not only do it uselessly, he is committing blasphemy.

I am not a theologian, this is just Bob's Blog.

But I honestly believe that Jehovism is dangerous to one's soul.

You spend your life thinking about exactly what Jesus meant, or you can read the OT over and over. Or you read Confucius over and over.

About those who depend on the OT, Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one goes to the Father save by me."

He specifically assigned a very righteous Priest of the Temple to Hell.

The non-Jewish Magi accepted Him, the Jews rejected Him.

Just how many hints do Jehovists need?

COMMENTS (6)

#1 Peter | 2005-05-13 23:59

"The non-Jewish Magi accepted Him, the Jews rejected Him."

Is that because the Jewish higher-ups kept reminding all and sundry that Jesus came from "Galilee of the Gentiles," of the non-Jews?

#2 Elizabeth | 2005-05-14 12:41

Jesus was never part of the Establishment of His day.

Reading the Gospels, one gets the idea that the Establishment didn't consider Galileans "real" Jews.

#3 Peter | 2005-05-14 23:28

E - "Reading the Gospels, one gets the idea that the Establishment didn't consider Galileans "real" Jews."

Not surprising, since Galilee was two districts north of Judea. Why would a Judean consider a Galilean a Judean? Of course, some of the Galileans could have been converts (as in the rest of the empire), but why call them on the whole, "Gentiles?"

I think the Romans picked upon this in the inscription INRI, which in my reading is a joke not on Jesus, but on the Jews. It is a way of saying "Do you really expect us to believe your reason for having him killed?"

#4 Wandrin | 2009-10-19 00:51

I'm reading from the back so i don't know if you eventually got the amount of comments you wanted yet.

I'd agree that the main reason for lack of comments on a blog (assuming it's being read) is lack of disagreement.

However I thought i'd mention i'd decided since reading this blog that from now on my Old Testament is the Norse Gods. Jesus and the New Testament replaced norse mythology for my people. The Old Testament is the Hebrew equivalent and part of their heritage not mine.

#5 shari | 2009-10-19 10:00

I think that Jesus is going to shatter the big, bloodsucking religions. That goes for Islam, Judaism, AND Christianity. They are way too big and ugly. They are not meek or kind.

#6 Simmons | 2009-10-20 12:10

Christ can no longer be an excuse for derelection.