Elpidio Valdes

A Repulsive Jesus?

buddy_jesus_480x

Following up on my article: A Repulsive God, I though I would now focus some attention on the New Testament. Christians would observe that most of “God’s” transgressions occur in the Old Testament. They argue that in the Old Testament “God” is stern and angry, while Jesus of the New Testament is all-loving.

We should examine, then, the quality of the love that Jesus promises to bring to humans.  Jesus tells us his mission is to make family members hate one another, so that they shall love him more than their kin (Matt. 10:35-37). He promises salvation to those who abandon their wives and children for him (Matt. 19:29, Mark 10:29-30, Luke 18:29-30). Disciples must hate their parents, siblings, wives, and children (Luke 14:26). The rod is not enough for children who curse their parents; they must be killed (Matt. 15:4-7, Mark 7:9-10, follow­ing Lev. 20:9). These are Jesus’ “family values.” Peter and Paul add to these family values the despotic rule of husbands over their silenced wives, who must obey their husbands as gods (1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34-5; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; 1 Pet. 3:1).

Make no mistake about Jesus’ character, in Matt. 10:34 Jesus makes it clear to his followers that he “did not come to bring peace, but a sword”. Continuing in this aggressive vein, Jesus says that “if a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned” (John 15:6).

These horrible passages have been used over the centuries to justify witch-burnings and assorted other tortures of non-believers.

Jesus’ violent side surfaces yet again in Luke 19:27, where he tells a strange parable about a king, in which he has the king say, “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.” If this passage does not refer to Christ and the kingdom of God, why does Jesus tell this parable? This indicates a very aggressive, violent and dangerous character.

Moving on…At the second coming, any city that does not accept Jesus will be destroyed, and the people will suffer even more than they did when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:14-15, Luke 10:12). God will flood the Earth as in Noah’s time (Matt. 24:37). Or perhaps He will set the Earth on fire instead, to destroy the unbelievers (2 Pet. 3:7-10) – but not before God sends Death and Hell to kill one quarter of the Earth “by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts” (Rev. 6:8).

Apparently, it is not enough to kill people once; they have to be killed more than once to satisfy the genocidal mathematics of the New Testament. For we are also told that an angel will burn up one third of the Earth (Rev 8:7), another will poison a third of its water (Rev 8:10-11), four angels will kill another third of humanity by plagues of fire, smoke, and sulfur (Rev 9:17-18), two of God’s witnesses will visit plagues on the Earth as much as they like (Rev 11:6), and there will be assorted deaths by earthquakes (Rev 11:13, 16:18-19) and hailstones (Rev 16:21).

Death is not bad enough for unbelievers, however; they must be tortured first. Locusts will sting them like scorpions until they want to die, but they will be denied the relief of death (Rev 9:3-6). Seven angels will pour seven bowls of God’s wrath, delivering plagues of painful sores, seas and rivers of blood, burns from solar flares, darkness and tongue-biting (Rev 16:2-10).

Make no mistake about any of the evils that you read in New Testament, for in Rev 22:18-19, if anyone adds or “takes away from the words in the book of his prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city”. This last passage of the New Testament instructs the reader to make no assumptions or interpretations on what he/she has just read. In relation, the Old Testament also states that “God’s” words and commandments are “perfect”, “wise”, “trustworthy”, and “forever”! (Deut 4:2, 12:32; Psalm 19:7; Isaiah 26:4).

Consequently, the notion that the “God” of the Old Testament is an angry “God” while Jesus is a loving “God” is, in fact, a baseless proposition. A simple read will reveal just how much of a crazy cult leader Jesus really was.

Thanks for reading,

Notes:

All Bible quotes taken from New Revised Standard Version

←
→

2 responses to “A Repulsive Jesus?”

  1. Ben Avatar
    Ben

    This is an interesting article, but it’s important to point out that we have no idea what Jesus really taught or if any of the things attributed to him were his beliefs. The gospel of Mark (the first gospel written) was penned between seventy and one-hundred c.e., forty to seventy years after Jesus death. At that point Paul had already canvassed the Mediterranean with his supposed new “gospel.” Many of his letters had already been written by then, including Galatians and Thessalonians. In Galatians Paul has already created a strong separating between the Jesus of the Jews (Yeshua—Joshua) and the Jesus for which he would create. Paul, interestingly enough, cared nothing about the real Joshua and focused not on his life, but only on his Osiris-like death and resurrection. The gospel of John, was written fully into the first century and by then most of Jesus family and disciples would be long since dead. The actual position of Jesus in Christianity wasn’t determined until the First Council of Nicaea in 325 c.e. At that time there were still apocalyptic gospels floating around as well, all of which would have had influence over the synoptic and Johannine gospels.

    So it’s safe to say that the Jesus we read about in the New Testament is probably pretty much made up. Even if Jesus was an enlightened teacher, those who wrote about him were not, and rather than elevate his words, they denigrated them and created a God in their image, not the other way around.

    I said all that to make this statement. Jesus has gotten a bum rap. It’s true; the Jesus of the New Testament is, at times, repulsive. He’s also conflicted. On the one hand he is purported to have said all those things you quoted, but on the other hand he could recognize this profound love that was beyond ethnicity, such as the story of the Good Samaritan. He could say things like, “Love your enemies, do good to those who despitefully use you.” He reached out to the poor with compassion, he healed the sick, he embraced women and made them a prominent part of his ministry, he taught radical forgiveness and he stood up in the face of oppression… or at least that’s what’s been written about him.

    Joshua’s story is more about those who told it than it is about him and that’s how it should be approached. There must have been something about him that was so compelling that it would eventually lead to his promotion to God in the minds of those who heard about him. It probably had a lot to do with Paul who was, by most accounts, prone to delusions of grandeur. Both sides of Joshua’s personality should be acknowledged because of this one fact… he was on a quest, to find his place in the Universe. We can use his life an example of what worked, and what didn’t, and we can enjoy the story. It’s an epic tale, and we all enjoy a good drama once in a while.

    Reply
    1. elpidiovaldes Avatar
      elpidiovaldes

      It is an honor to have such a comment on this blog. I appreciate the feedback and I agree with you 100%.

      This article came about from a debate I had with a “Christian” about the Hebrew God. Christians like to argue that the God of the Old Testament is a “jealous God”, while the God of the New Testament (Jesus) is a loving god. I was just trying to point out how ridiculous that argument actually is once you actually read the Bible.

      Thanks,

      Reply

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: