The Jesus Myth, and it's failures

[IanS]

We appear to have at least three different threads here which are really all the same subject and the same question of whether Jesus existed. In fact, four threads, because iirc the 100+ pages of the “What Counts” thread, started as an off-shoot from another earlier Jesus Historicity thread.

These latest off-shoot threads all seem to be attempting to re-float exactly the same pro HJ arguments that have already been thoroughly sunk in the “What Counts” thread.

 

[davefoc]

We appear to have at least three different threads here which are really all the same subject and the same question of whether Jesus existed. In fact, four threads, because iirc the 100+ pages of the “What Counts” thread, started as an off-shoot from another earlier Jesus Historicity thread.

These latest off-shoot threads all seem to be attempting to re-float exactly the same pro HJ arguments that have already been thoroughly sunk in the “What Counts” thread.

I think the opening post narrowed the scope of this thread:

Now getting to the meat. When discussing the Jesus myth, the question must be asked why would Jews create a figure who was a failed Messiah? And why would they create such a figure when there were other historical individuals that could simply have been followed instead? When the story of Jesus is looked at, it is clear that he failed as the Messiah. The fact that he was crucified, and died, would have, for most Jews, been seen as a failure. The Messiah was not suppose to die. For Jews to just make up such a story simply does not make sense. In addition, if they were looking for such an individual (a religious leader who was killed), they had a handful of individuals during that time. Josephus lists a number of individuals who would have fit the bill, including John the Baptist (as well as Jesus).

The second problem with the Jesus myth is the rejection of the New Testament. The defense for such is that it is in the Bible, and thus is biased, or not credible. This is a horrible argument though. The authors of each of the books that compromised the New Testament never thought they were writing scripture. They had no idea that after they died, their writings would be collected into a larger work. Paul himself was even clear that his works were not scripture, as he reserved such a term for the Hebrew Bible. How does it make sense then to reject the New Testament just because they were later collected into a larger work?

They have already been discussed as IanS mentioned, but I think these two points were of particular interest to the thread originator and he intended a discussion restricted to these two issues.

 

[poblob14]

Ludin, you never addressed my point that, contrary to what you said, many, many theologians think Israel is the Suffering Servant. Any response to that?

As to your specific points:

In the first, God says, "I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations" (Is 42:1). That sound like Jesus? Jesus needed to have the spirit put on him?

He did actually when John the baptist baptized him. It was really the beginning of his ministry. The spirit did decend on Christ.

So "put my spirit on him" just meant "sent my spirit down to sit on his shoulder?" Okay, if that's how you read it, I'll give you that one.

When did he bring justice?

If you read any of the stories of Christ he did bring justice to those in that days society. Stoning of the women. healer of the leaper, healing of the blind and other sick.

The "let any one of you who is without sin" story advocates mercy, not justice. I have no idea what healing has to do with justice. So, even granting the woman . . . bringing justice to one person is what was meant in Isaiah? Is every judge in the world a messiah?

singling out and distorting bible verses does not an arguement make. i don't know why people do this but ol well. unfortuantly you continue this misconception. i named a specific chapter and verse. you go on to single out verses that have absolutly nothing to do with what we are talking about and try and use it as evidence of some kind.

i am not sure why people do this. probably out of ignorance of the bible.

Seriously? Quoting extensively from the Bible shows ignorance of it? And which verse or verses did I "distort"? I didn't, for example, distort "pierce" to mean "crucify" . . . .

 

[IanS]

Now getting to the meat. When discussing the Jesus myth, the question must be asked why would Jews create a figure who was a failed Messiah? And why would they create such a figure when there were other historical individuals that could simply have been followed instead? When the story of Jesus is looked at, it is clear that he failed as the Messiah. The fact that he was crucified, and died, would have, for most Jews, been seen as a failure. The Messiah was not suppose to die. For Jews to just make up such a story simply does not make sense. In addition, if they were looking for such an individual (a religious leader who was killed), they had a handful of individuals during that time. Josephus lists a number of individuals who would have fit the bill, including John the Baptist (as well as Jesus).

The second problem with the Jesus myth is the rejection of the New Testament. The defense for such is that it is in the Bible, and thus is biased, or not credible. This is a horrible argument though. The authors of each of the books that compromised the New Testament never thought they were writing scripture. They had no idea that after they died, their writings would be collected into a larger work. Paul himself was even clear that his works were not scripture, as he reserved such a term for the Hebrew Bible. How does it make sense then to reject the New Testament just because they were later collected into a larger work?


I believe those two points are good enough for now.

I think the opening post narrowed the scope of this thread:

They have already been discussed as IanS mentioned, but I think these two points were of particular interest to the thread originator and he intended a discussion restricted to these two issues.

OK, but both of those points have indeed been discussed to death in the What Counts thread, and probably also before that in the original thread that lead to the What Counts thread.

Starting new threads like this looks to me just like an artifice for the purpose of ignoring already rebutted HJ claims, and simply trying the same claims somewhere else.

 

[IanS]

The second problem with the Jesus myth is the rejection of the New Testament. The defense for such is that it is in the Bible, and thus is biased, or not credible. This is a horrible argument though. The authors of each of the books that compromised the New Testament never thought they were writing scripture. They had no idea that after they died, their writings would be collected into a larger work. Paul himself was even clear that his works were not scripture, as he reserved such a term for the Hebrew Bible. How does it make sense then to reject the New Testament just because they were later collected into a larger work?


I believe those two points are good enough for now.

Anyway, just to deal with the above quote - it’s quite irrelevant whether or nor the bible authors thought they were writing scripture or that it was collected together as a larger work. That is not the reason sceptics reject the gospels and Paul’s letters etc. as unreliable and not a credible source of factual information.

The sort of reasons the bible writing is rejected is because -

a. it is filled with obviously fictional claims of impossible miracles & supernatural visions etc.

b. none of the copies we have are known from anywhere near the time of the events

c. the authors of the gospels are all anonymous, and so are their sources

d. what the gospel authors wrote about Jesus clearly came from centuries before in the OT.


But as I say, all of that, and much more, has been discussed ad-nauseum in the What Counts thread.

 

[maximara]

In the other recent thread, I had asked a question which was never answered; if all we had regarding the person of Adolph Hitler was his book Mein Kampf would we not think of him as a hero in some ways? A humble man just trying to do right by his country and his people?

Would you think that it would be unbiased and a fair representation of Hitler's character and his actions?

The frightening thing is as demonstrated by Norman Spinrad's 1972 The Iron Dream is how well Hitler's ideology fits into Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces concept.

For those who don't know the premise of The Iron Dream is that it is from an alternate history where Hitler emigrated to the United States in 1919 and became a science fiction illustrator, editor and author. It is written in the style of an over blown 1950s pulp and is in essence the realization of Nazi dream transplanted to a post-apocalyptic world. Yet knowing that you still root for Feric Jaggar (Hitler's obvious Mary-Sue self-insert) as he goes out and does his best the eradicate the Dominators (Jews).

Compare The Iron Dream to the Book of Joshua or Revelation and the uncomfortable parallels are obvious.

Katharine Burdekin's 1937 Swastika Night delves in a world where Hitler won the war and it is 700 years later. History of course has been rewritten to portray Hitler as the Aryan ideal (Blond blew eye muscular superman) How much tweeking did Jesus get before he was even committed to paper?

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, the thing is, the gospels are an even bigger problem than Mein Kampf or The Iron Dream. (Yeah, I've read them both.)

The problem is that, distorted as that may be, you still get a soemewhat coherent image of what Hitler was supposed to be like or about in the author's view. You can't come out the other side of Mein Kampf thinking, for example, "nah, he really liked the Jews. You have to take it in context, man." Nor, "you know, he really had no problem with the Versailles Treaty."

But for the gospel Jesus and the HJ reconstructions, exactly that is the problem. If you cherrypick the right mix, he can be anything, never mind that such reconstruction contradict each other. In one place he's like a progressive pharisee, and then you turn the page and he blasts the pharisees for no longer executing children who give their parents lip. In one place he's all humble and comforting to the poor or even washes the disciples' feet himself, in another he not only allows a woman to humiliate before himself all evening, but berates his host for not doing the same.

It also doesn't help that Jesus doesn't actually have any characterization or personal growth or anything that would help anchor that. As IIRC Ken Humphreys points out, and he's not the only one, Jesus is an automaton. Or as I like to use the modern trope, a Black Hole Sue. It's a collection of very short stories that really have no plot at all. In fact they just follow the following pattern:

1. (Optional) Some minimal setting the scene happens
2. Jesus arrives
3. (Optional) Someone says something minimal to trigger his doing the next step
4. Jesus delivers his pronouncements
5. Everyone is instantly amazed or angered
6. Jesus moves on

And especially step 5 is invariably the most unnatural kind of reaction. Not only nobody asks more questions (except maybe to set the scene for Jesus's next pronouncement) or raises some obvious objections, that would allow us to glimpse exactly what was Jesus thinking on the topic, but they occasionally even just forget what they were doing. E.g., the whole village marches Jesus a couple of miles to chuck him off the nearest cliff (because that's where the nearest cliff is, from Nazareth) in Luke's version of prophet with no honour, but then suddenly Jesus just walks away, and nobody even thinks to say a "hey, come back, we ain't finished rolling you down this hill, mister!" Or even forget they just saw the same thing happen verbatim before (see the two feedings of the multitudes) and dutifully are amazed again.

I mean, even Hitler tells you (the version he wants you to believe of) what's his problem with the Versailles Treaty, or what tactics he uses to get people to nod through, etc. That serves to anchor that reconstruction, distorted as it may be. If anyone thinks that, see, he really liked the Versailles treaty, you can look at the text again and go, nah, then he wouldn't have said X, Y and Z against it, or forget to say anything in favour of it.

But that's missing for Jesus. He just arrives, gives a pronouncement, everyone is amazed or angered, he leaves. He never gets to actually debate any topic, nor explain what he has against it, and you never get either show or tell about how he came to hold those opinions.

There is nothing to anchor such decisions about which parts he really said, and which parts he wouldn't say, other than reflecting the personal biases and wishful thinking of the one making the reconstruction. You can't go, "well, he probably didn't actually mean they should execute children, but was just trolling the Pharisees, because <insert other piece of character development that would make it unlikely>".

So in that aspect he's a much more blank page than either version of Hitler in those books.

 

[maximara]

Now getting to the meat. When discussing the Jesus myth, the question must be asked why would Jews create a figure who was a failed Messiah?

But was it the Jews who made Jesus a Messiah? While it is true that Paul himself was a Jew if you put the Gospels in their chronological order (Mark, Luke/Matthew, and John) you will see a progressive antisemitism in the Jesus story.

Even in the early Gospels note how the Romans (symbolized by Pontius Pilatus) are effectively exonerated from fault while the blame is put on the Jewish Priests and the Jewish mob they stir up.

In fact, Marcion the first person to actually create a Christian bible c140 CE, according to his critics held that the Jewish god was this evil malevolent demiurge thing with Marcion's followers calling the Jewish God the Prince of Darkness (350 CE Acta Archelai of Hegemonius, Chapter XII)

The second problem with the Jesus myth is the rejection of the New Testament. The defense for such is that it is in the Bible, and thus is biased, or not credible. This is a horrible argument though. The authors of each of the books that compromised the New Testament never thought they were writing scripture. They had no idea that after they died, their writings would be collected into a larger work. Paul himself was even clear that his works were not scripture, as he reserved such a term for the Hebrew Bible. How does it make sense then to reject the New Testament just because they were later collected into a larger work?

Now, some claim that since they are religious, they can't be accepted as being credible. The problem with such an idea is that most ancient biographies also were religious in some manner. We can look at the writings in regards to Augustus, and they also are religious. Augustus is also called the savior, he was the son of a god, he was even worshipped.

It is not just that the NT is religious but with the exception of the seven epistles connected to Paul we have no idea who wrote what or when before 180 CE (when Irenaeus goes quote happy in Against Heresies) they were written.

Augustus has known contemporary evidence for his existence. Jesus has none

 

[Navigator]

Well, the gospels are one thing and the origin of Jesus Christ is another.

I'll agree that Mark makes a hash of the geography, culture, etc, so he probably never even went to Judaea.

Matthew seems better informed, and in fact a fair guess is that what he was trying to do was fix the many many mistakes in Mark, but even he obviously doesn't have better sources since he just copies almost everything Mark made up. Plus, he's obviously working from a Greek translation, because nobody working from a Hebrew or Aramaic source would be so confused about a basic language emphasis construct of both as to produce the two donkeys ride, nor confuse "young woman" with "virgin". That mis-translation existed only in Greek. Though it must be said that whatever translation he is using was corrected in places to be closer to the Hebrew original, which caused some to postulate he was working directly from Hebrew, but then there were many rabbis working on producing exactly that kind of fixed copies, so there's no need to assume a Matthew who knows Hebrew in places, but completely forgets it in others.

Luke seems to have done at least SOME research, and he may have used Josephus too for ideas, so kudos for that. But again, he's no witness either and obviously doesn't have better witnesses, because he too copies from Mark and Q.

And John is so antisemitic and in-your-face, plus his Jesus makes puns in Greek, that he obviously was no Jew.

So there's that.

However, Jesus Christ seems to have originated actually with Paul and possibly a small group in Jerusalem. (If they're not his sockpuppet characters, that is.) And Paul claims to be a Jew. Then again, somewhere else he tells us that he claims to be a Jew to the Jews, a gentile to the gentiles, and whatever else helps him gain the audience's confidence.

But even if he was a Jew, I think the problem is that some people -- especially those arguing "the Jews wouldn't have made THAT up" -- seem to have the same confusion as John. Namely they seem to think that "the Jews" were some homogenous Borg hive where everyone thinks the same. Which is not true.

It's like claiming that Joseph Smith wouldn't have invented the golden tables, because "the Christians" wouldn't invent that. Well, most wouldn't, but it only took one who did. Or that Wicca can't be made up because "the Christians" wouldn't have made up a religion with all the devil worship trappings to troll other Christians. And again, most wouldn't, but it just took one or two who did.

My point is that "the Jews" back then were as diverse a group as "the Christians" today, and various groups were even at each other's throats over their beliefs. Paul could reach the conclusion that the scripture says the messiah already came, even though other Jews reached the opposite conclusion.

Sounds like those who wrote the gospels are not those who followed after the man Jesus

When did the word 'Christian' first appear in the Bible?

 

[Navigator]

In fact, Marcion the first person to actually create a Christian bible c140 CE, according to his critics held that the Jewish god was this evil malevolent demiurge thing with Marcion's followers calling the Jewish God the Prince of Darkness (350 CE Acta Archelai of Hegemonius, Chapter XII)

From what I have read in these forums on that subject, many skeptics (or whatever they are) argue the same thing really - about the old testament idea of what god is. (underlined)

Or is there some thought that exists that understands the God of Israel was not malevolent?
My bad if I got that wrong.

I like the idea of Jesus in regard to the idea of Loving One Another. Radical!

The equation went something like 'If you love each other, = you are expressing your idea of what god is' - which of course was a whole shift in thinking and by all accounts something violently contested from the moment of its conception.

 

[tsig]

Sounds like those who wrote the gospels are not those who followed after the man Jesus

When did the word 'Christian' first appear in the Bible?

Acts 11:26, "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."

 

[Navigator]

Acts 11:26, "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."

How are you today tsig?

I know I am being lazy, but what the hey.

Who were 'they' that found 'him'?

 

[maximara]

From what I have read in these forums on that subject, many skeptics (or whatever they are) argue the same thing really - about the old testament idea of what god is. (underlined)

Or is there some thought that exists that understands the God of Israel was not malevolent?
My bad if I got that wrong.

But that is mainline Christianity's whole stick--the God of Israel IS the same as "their" God.

"It's a idea that many people seem to latch onto, that if you were created by some kind of god, then obviously he did it because he loves us so huggy-muggy-much. Never are the holes in this theory more obvious than while playing god games, because it seems that when you play as most people in the position of a god and give them responsibility over many tiny lesser beings, then their attitude towards them is usually less about beloved children and more about target practice." (Yahtzee on SimCity Societies)

I like the idea of Jesus in regard to the idea of Loving One Another. Radical!

What's radical about it (even assuming it is true which it isn't)?

"Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you." - Ancient Egypt Middle Kingdom (c2040–1650 BCE)

"That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another." - Ancient Egypt Late Period (c664 – 323 BCE)

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius (551–479 BCE)

"You are not to traffic in slander among your kinspeople. You are not to stand by the blood of your neighbor, I am YHWH!

You are not to hate your brother in your heart; rebuke, yes, rebuke your fellow, that you not bear sin because of him!

You are not to take-vengeance, you are not to retain-anger against the sons of your kinspeople—but be-loving to your neighbor (as one) like yourself, I am YHWH!" - (Leviticus 19:16-18 c538 BCE)


Now look what Jesus supposedly says Matthew 10:21-23:


"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come."


And look how Jesus follows up that happy message in Matthew 10:34-37:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."



This is our preacher of love and kindness?!? Seems Jesus lost YHWH's Leviticus memo.

If anything it sounds like Francis John Patrick Mulcahy's sermon from the Book of Threats: "Remember what the good book says: Love thy neighbor or I'll punch your lights out!"

 

[pakeha]

...

I like the idea of Jesus in regard to the idea of Loving One Another. Radical!

The equation went something like 'If you love each other, = you are expressing your idea of what god is' - which of course was a whole shift in thinking and by all accounts something violently contested from the moment of its conception.

...What's radical about it (even assuming it is true which it isn't)?

"Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you." - Ancient Egypt Middle Kingdom (c2040–1650 BCE)

"That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another." - Ancient Egypt Late Period (c664 – 323 BCE)

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius (551–479 BCE)

"You are not to traffic in slander among your kinspeople. You are not to stand by the blood of your neighbor, I am YHWH!

You are not to hate your brother in your heart; rebuke, yes, rebuke your fellow, that you not bear sin because of him!

You are not to take-vengeance, you are not to retain-anger against the sons of your kinspeople—but be-loving to your neighbor (as one) like yourself, I am YHWH!" - (Leviticus 19:16-18 c538 BCE)


Now look what Jesus supposedly says Matthew 10:21-23:


"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come."


And look how Jesus follows up that happy message in Matthew 10:34-37:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."



This is our preacher of love and kindness?!? Seems Jesus lost YHWH's Leviticus memo.

If anything it sounds like Francis John Patrick Mulcahy's sermon from the Book of Threats: "Remember what the good book says: Love thy neighbor or I'll punch your lights out!"

Thanks for summing up why that over-used sound byte about Jesus' injunction to love one another is so very, very off-base.

 

[The Norseman]

Yeah, great examples from the Super Scripture Scuffle!

The bible is kinda like the Swiss Army knife of philosophy -- you can make pretty much whatever you want and all from one compact package.

 

[pakeha]

Na nay, na nay, The Norseman.
With a SAK you can open a bottle of wine.

 

[maximara]

Thanks for summing up why that over-used sound byte about Jesus' injunction to love one another is so very, very off-base.

Not only the whole Jesus Loving One Another view off base but even if it did exist it wouldn't be anything new...even within Judaism.

But then again if you really look at it Marcion had a point--how do you equate the God of the Jews with the God of Jesus without effectively giving your God mental problems.

"The root problem with Christianity is that their God is supposed to be all-powerful and benevolent. It sounds like an easy sell, but when life turns completely to **** you have to come up with all kinds of wacked-out reasons for why kindly old Jehovah saw fit to run over little Timmy with a combine harvester and leave him in a state of vegetative limbless agony for eighteen years." - Yahtzee on Too Human

This is related to the concept of Dualism which every religion seems to have. In a polytheistic religion where the deities are limited in power or scope Dualism is not a problem but in a monotheistic religion with an all powerful all knowing god you have problems.

Which brings up Satan. Not only is this being less powerful then God but the reason generally given for his fall doesn't make sense-there is a difference between Pride and Stubborn.

I prefer the version I heard on an A&E program regarding the Bible. Basically the story is like this (humor mode engaged):

God: You shall bow to none but Me.

Satan: Yes My Lord.

Much later...

God: I have created this being in My own Image. I call it Man. You shall bow to it.

Satan... (But God said not to bow to any but Him. But God is now saying to bow to this creation Man. Conflicting directives. logic error. logic error. Conclusion--this being is not God) ATTACK.

After rebellion...

God: Now I am certain that Man is superior to my Angels. I can give it conflicting orders and a third of it doesn't try to rip my head off.

(Down in Hell) Satan: It isn't God. It isn't God. Got fight it. Got to fight it.

God:...got to remember to try and fix that.

 

[pakeha]

Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?

 

[The Norseman]

Na nay, na nay, The Norseman.
With a SAK you can open a bottle of wine.

 

[ludin]

Ludin, you never addressed my point that, contrary to what you said, many, many theologians think Israel is the Suffering Servant. Any response to that?

Since you provide no proof as to who these people are.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/08/who-is-the-suffering-servant-of-isaiah-53/

http://www.grebeweb.com/linden/suffer.html

The "let any one of you who is without sin" story advocates mercy, not justice. I have no idea what healing has to do with justice. So, even granting the woman . . . bringing justice to one person is what was meant in Isaiah? Is every judge in the world a messiah?

See this comes from not knowing ancient history more specifically jewish history laws and customs.

They were going to stone her for her sin. which was part of the law. the problem was they committed sins of their own which they were not holding themselves accountable for.

Also in those days if you had some sort of affliction. IE you were blind, you were lame or had some other kind of disability or ailment then it was considered that you or someone in your family had committed a grave sin in God's eye and were being punished.

of course we know this is not true but that was the theory of the day. So Christ healing them was very significant as it meant that they were no longer sinful but clean.

they were no longer outcasts.

Seriously? Quoting extensively from the Bible shows ignorance of it? And which verse or verses did I "distort"? I didn't, for example, distort "pierce" to mean "crucify" . . . .

Anyone can quote from the bible. even demons know the bible (no I am not calling you a demon).

the thing about the bible is that you cannot simply quote one verse and go see. the bible is meant to be read in passages and sometimes even chapters to fully understand the context in which it is being presented.

yes it can show ignorance people do it all the time.
for 2 reasons.

1. They are not aware of what they are doing
2. They are trying to distort something to prove an agenda of some kind.

I will not argue that the OT mentions crucifixion I mostly because it doesn't. what it does do is predicts Christ's death.

not only his death but his resurrection as well.
Daniel also speaks of Christ's death.

http://carm.org/does-daniel-9-24-27-predict-jesus

Now look what Jesus supposedly says Matthew 10:21-23:

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. This is either done out of ignorance or it is done to try and further some agenda.

in order for this to make any sense at all you have to read Matthew 10:16-24.

It is a warning about persecution of his disciples and of other Christians.
Which actually happened. More so during the dark years of the Roman empire.

Family members would turn their own family members over to the roman government to be killed if they thought they were Christians. It was basically a civil war inside of jewish society.

The rest of the chapter is spun off of that. Christ did divide families and husbands and wife and children.

not to turn in a family member if you knew was paramount to death.