Should someone of Roman lineage be allowed to put forth the official interpretation of the word of Christ?
I would say no.
I don't think that they deserve that right after crucifying him?
You can't martyr someone and then be the one to publish their official words, ideas or beliefs. Why not?
It is disingenuous, misleading, deceitful.
And you ask, why bother about the issue? The answer is that the interpretations are highly inaccurate.
I could read something, note the sentence structure, and come up with a more accurate description of what they meant than say someone of Roman lineage.
So why would you get the "That isn't what he meant" wrong? Because it would be condemning of you if you didn't?
© 2025 Thomas Paul Murphy
And I also wonder if donations or also extortion from highly profitable Italian organized crime have influenced "church behavior" in recent history?
Ever hear someone of that ethnicity openly say that they horrifically crucified him? No, what you hear in that Roman Catholic Church is that he died for our sins.
You know it begs the question, what specific sins did he have to die for? It kind of reminds me of the bad kid who can't get anything right and hits himself in the head with his own fist?
So did he die for your sins of crucifying people? Wait a minute, that was just the Romans that were doing that, not the rest of the world.
And instead of him dying for that sin. Couldn't it be more characterized something like this? Nobody thought you were cool anymore after you did that to him? So you stopped doing that? Hit yourself in the head. And came up with the idea of saying, "he died for our sins?"
No comments:
Post a Comment