For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many

>For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Reminder that Jesus "sacrificing himself/dying for our sins" is strictly a Pauline inference, and not per the Gospels. Mark 10:45/Matthew 20:28 is the ONLY passage alluding to sacrifice in general, nothing about sin, and nothing about dying. The context isn't even Soteriological. And giving one's life and dying are not analogous even in vulgar Materialism, conflating them regarding Jesus is intellectually bankrupt. Business as usual for Paul, I guess.

Attached: john 10-30.png (607x608, 497K)

Paul the Apostle is the greatest part of the Bible. Most philosophical.

What should I do with this information?

Throw the hundreds of Catholics phone books about Jesus "dying for your sins" in the trash, where they belong. It's even more putrid a thing to ascribe to him than "King of the Jews".

Doesn't John draw parallels between Jesus and the passover lamb though?

>the son of God is crucified the day after he celebrates Passover
Nope, no significance between the founding myth of the Jews and the Lamb of God dying.

You really think those two verses are the only verses used to support the atonement? Have you actually read the gospels?
>The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
John 1:29
>I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
John 10:11
>And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Mark 8:31

John mentions the lamb, not Jesus. The irony that his Apostles were often confused and his detractors enraged precisely by him not being a good Jew is lost on you? I doubt the context of John 10:11 is Soteriological, "that I might take it again" is very ambiguous regarding sacrifice, in John 10:19 the Jews themselves are outraged by this, further suggesting it is NOT congruent with the Passover Lamb. Neither does Mark 8:31 speak of sacrifice, only of persecution and death.

I'm not being funny when I say it's easy to infer DIED FOR OUR SINS everywhere in the Gospels if you've heard it hundreds of times or, Heavens forbid, have read Catholic phone books. Just like Roman thinking, crude scribbles of beast-men, seems quite commendable if unconsciously plastered with Greek Philosophy.

Then what was it all about?

Christus Victor and such - Dialectic between the serenity of the Absolute and the freedom of the Particular, consecration of the Subject as such as true and good, the non-contradiction between non-Duality and Ethics, etc.

In English, doc

This is why he spoke in parables. No but seriously, the trope that power and lack of accountability cause one to do bad things, for example, is rebuked by Jesus in his prominently Ethical life. That magnanimity is the opposite of zero-sum, this is a tremendous point, hardly made elsewhere.

user I'm pretty sure the Gospels are actually about Jesus dying and then rising from the dead.

could you explain it with a parable please?

I know, my point being sacrifice is nowhere to be found therein.

Jesus is based :=)

It is not even enough to simply read the gospels. Do you not understand the history of the covenant? Do you not understand the sacrifice of Isaac? Or the Mosaic laws? Do you not understand what Israel did when they asked for a king? Do you not understand Joseph and David? Do you not understand Solomon? The language of sacrifice is woven through every chapter, but you cannot see it because you read with your eyes and not your heart.

Again, Jesus was hated precisely by this logic.

it's an angry incel tries to justify his constant rage episode

Really dumb!

>Paul is the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Paul.