• undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    100% and they try to change the word “mamon” to “money” in “the love of money mamon is the root of all evil.”

    Which they further interpret as “well, i don’t love money. I just love the things it gets. Therefore, its all good.”

    I mean, if Jesus meant money, he would have used the Hebrew word for money and wouldn’t have switched to an aramaic word that means “wealth, over and above what you need to exist.”

    However, you can’t reconcile its actual meaning with American style supply-side Jesus.

    Another interesting thing is how the bible tries to blame the Rabbis for Jesus death, doing it via the Romans. If the Rabbis wanted Jesus dead, they would have killed him and they would have done so by stoning him to death.

    The Romans almost exclusively used crucifixion only on pirates, slaves or insurrectionists. Last I checked, there were no reports of Jesus being a slave or a pirate.

    Palm Sunday was seen as the start of a movement and the Romans conspired to kill him for it and nip it in the bud. The rest is spin. Presuming Jesus was real in the first place, of course.

    • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think I agree on the first part Mamon represents a personification of wealth/greed which a Priest might say is really just another way of saying a love of self (e.g. pride). A message in this parable is “to whom much is given much will be required”. As well as the “a man cannot serve two masters” bit.

      Jesus existed. He’s perhaps the most documented pre-modern figure.

      Romans crucified serious offenders. That includes the categories you provided as well as thieves, murderers etc

      The Pharisees brought Christ to the Romans because they considered him a heretic and demanded his execution. Pontius Pilate found no fault in him and offered Barrabas instead. The Pharisees rejected Barrabas and Pilate, fearing rebellion, granted their wish and washed his hands of it all. While the Romans crucified Christ the Pharisees were his accusers.

      • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        This. The Pharisees were the 1% of their time and place. They had it all. Wealth, power, political clout. And only they were permitted to enter the Holy of Holies and lay eyes upon the Word of God. They prayed in public, gave public alms, claimed to be the most pious and righteous of all and preached a message about how they were the chosen ones and everyone else should serve them. Then, along comes this barefoot guy from across the Galilee who is believed to be born of a virgin, claiming to be the Son of God. They’re all waiting for him to place crowns upon their heads and cement their position as God’s Chosen. Then he goes and does the exact opposite. He preaches a message counter to their narrative, calls them out for their false piety, tells them God is pissed at them for their showy displays, and the masses are just eating it up. They couldn’t let that stand!

        Could you imagine someone, anyone, doing that today? In the US, many politicians and celebrities claim to love and serve God. They make huge displays of their holiness, and pray in public, and give to the poor in full display, and spin this narrative of being more virtuous than everyone else. Then someone comes along with a counter message. That man/woman/person would be dead within a week!