Newly released video shows the malnourished son of a parenting advice YouTuber approaching a neighbor for help on the morning that his mother and her business partner were arrested on child abuse charges.

The malnourished and badly bruised son of a parenting advice YouTuber politely asks a neighbor to take him to the nearest police station in newly released video from the day his mother and her business partner were arrested on child abuse charges in southern Utah.

The 12-year-old son of Ruby Franke, a mother of six who dispensed advice to millions via a popular YouTube channel, had escaped through a window and approached several nearby homes until someone answered the door, according to documents released Friday by the Washington County Attorney’s office.

Crime scene photos, body camera video and interrogation tapes were released a month after Franke and business partner Jodi Hildebrandt, a mental health counselor, were each sentenced to up to 30 years in prison. A police investigation determined religious extremism motivated the women to inflict horrific abuse on Franke’s children, Washington County Attorney Eric Clarke announced Friday.

“The women appeared to fully believe that the abuse they inflicted was necessary to teach the children how to properly repent for imagined ‘sins’ and to cast the evil spirits out of their bodies,” Clarke said.

  • Flax@feddit.ukEnglish
    0·
    8 months ago

    Matthew 5:17 is showing that Jesus fulfills them and brings them to realisation. Not enforcing them.

    Protestants don’t reject the Trinity?

    • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
      0·
      8 months ago

      Matthew 5:17 is showing that Jesus fulfills them and brings them to realisation. Not enforcing them.

      That interpretation of “no enforcement” is clearly an ad hoc not justified by the text. Here’s same excerpt in two other languages, for reference:

      • [Koine] μη νομισητε οτι ηλθον καταλυσαι τον νομον η τους προφητας ουκ ηλθον καταλυσαι αλλα πληρωσαι
      • [Vulgata] Nolite putare quoniam veni solvere legem aut prophetas: non veni solvere, sed adimplere.

      In both you see the usage of verbs that convey “finishing it”, “completing it”, “making it full”, as if the older laws were an incomplete set, and whatever Jesus was preaching was in addition to them. (The English translation as “fulfil” is rather accurate.) It clearly implies that the old laws are still valid, alongside the new ones; and thus should be enforced alongside them.

      The Latin usage of adimpleo also conveys “I carry out [something]”; it’s specially relevant here because, if the implication of “carrying out the old laws” was to be avoided, the translator would’ve used compleo (non ueni soluere, sed complere) instead.

      Also look at the rest of the excerpt, including the two following versicles. Your interpretation makes no sense in the light of what 5:18 and 5:19 say:

      • [KJV] [17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

      What is the text saying? “My laws are in addition to the old laws. Don’t break the old laws, not even a little one, or you won’t go to Heaven”.

      Protestants don’t reject the Trinity?

      The reason why I say “under the same reasoning, most Protestants aren’t Christians either” is that they reject some nihilogical theological concept that some other group that considers themselves Christian accepts.

      That said some Pentecostal churches do reject it. Example here

      • Flax@feddit.ukEnglish
        0·
        8 months ago

        Jesus was the fulfillment of the old laws as they were in preparation of His coming. And it depends what law Jesus was referring to. In John 8 He literally stopped a stoning which would have been justified under said law.

        As Jesus said: ‭Matthew 22:37-40 ESV‬

        [37] And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. [38] This is the great and first commandment. [39] And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. [40] On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

        and St Paul also wrote about this:

        ‭Galatians 3:15-29 ESV‬

        [15] To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. [16] Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. [17] This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. [18] For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. [19] Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. [20] Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. [21] Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. [22] But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. [23] Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. [24] So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. [25] But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, [26] for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. [27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

        Christianity - The Gospel is Good News. As we are free from this law through Christ. And we can be freed from our sin.

        Catholics and Orthodox, despite being ecclesiastical, still recognise Protestants as Christians even if lesser Christians. Oneness pentecostals aren’t considered Christians either. Denying the trinity is weirdly enough the first sign of being a cult.

        • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
          0·
          8 months ago

          Those excerpts from John and Galatians outright contradict Matthew 5. They simply show that the Bible contradicts itself.

          Addressing specifically the text in ‭Matthew 22:37-40: it does not contradict that the old laws should be still enforced. It simply emphasises the new laws.

          A simple explanation is that Matthew (if he’s a historical figure) took seriously the old laws, and John (ditto) didn’t. So they made their character (regardless of being based on some historical figure or not) say different stuff in each of their books.

          This shouldn’t be any surprise for anyone who, unlike Christians, doesn’t adopt the superstition of a self-consistent Bible.

          Catholics and Orthodox, despite being ecclesiastical, still recognise Protestants as Christians even if lesser Christians.

          The church? Maybe. People? It depends. I’ve seen over and over and over the Catholics here saying that Protestants are not Christians, and putting them on the same “bag” as Muslims an Jews.

          That pops up specially often when some Protestant church gets on the news due to corruption.

          • Flax@feddit.ukEnglish
            0·
            8 months ago

            So the first the Bible is saying something you want it to say to make the argument “Christianity bad”, and whenever teaching has context provided and is elaborated on further on in the scripture, then it’s a “contradiction”.

            Got it.

            • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
              0·
              8 months ago

              I am highlighting that her disgusting and despicable behaviour is justified by the Bible, even if you dislike it (as a moral person should).

              You can justify a lot of immoral shit through the Bible simply because it’s self-contradictory - if excerpt A says “do it” and excerpt B says “don’t do it”, you simply pick one and try to justify the other in the light of the one that you picked!

              Historical context, textual context, versions, even which books should be canon… ultimately those are just the means that Christians use to fool themselves as justified in their actions, and to pretend that there’s no contradiction there. Not just on an individual level, but also in a church level, often forming new factions (oopsie “denominations”) based on which excerpt you should follow by the letter and which you should bullshit your way out of.

              That might reach specially hilarious levels with the Mor[m]ons, but note - what they’re doing is nothing but what other Christian groups have been already doing since the Ancient Age. Including picking which books to consider canon.