Quantcast
Why did Jesus Christ sacrifice his self for you?

Forums - General Discussion - Why did Jesus Christ sacrifice his self for you?

Flilix said:
S.Peelman said:
It was pointless. He was assuming the worst in people, but, sucks for him because I’m not commited any sins!

You have commited the worst of all sins. Bad grammar!

This is true. Thank God for Jesus then I guess.



Around the Network

It was a hobby.
He died doing what he wanted to do.
I've no plans of loving, or seeking Jesus.



drkohler said:
JWeinCom said:

As for Josephus, he was born in 37 AD, so he wouldn't have been an eye witness and there is speculation that the passages on Jesus may have been later interpolations.  I really don't have the scholarship to address that, but it's not a fringe view.

All Scholars agree that "the Jesus text" in Josephus people still use as proof is a later christian addition/forgery and was not in the original text. There is no argument or speculation about that. Also there are several Jesuses mentioned in various parts of the original texts, none of which match "the" Jesus. Whether Jesus actually existed at all is open to debate. A luxury we actually have in the Christian world. Try that with Mohammed and the Quran in the Islamic world.....

I think the belief is that there was some part in the original that was vastly expanded upon later by early christians.  Again, I'm not a scholar, so I'm not able to really speak to this.



drkohler said:

Whether Jesus actually existed at all is open to debate. A luxury we actually have in the Christian world. Try that with Mohammed and the Quran in the Islamic world.....

A luxury we have in the western world. It has nothing to do with Christianity; when Christianity had power in the west the same way Islam currently has in the middle east, Christianity was just as intolerant of such "debate." We have achieved the luxurious position of being able to debate such things, in large part, via secularization.

As to whether Jesus actually existed, I don't see how it really matters. Let's say that he did (and it's not hard to imagine such an itinerant preacher at that time, crucified by the Romans, etc.). So what then? It doesn't make his supposed resurrection or miracles any more likely; it doesn't make Christian morality any more palatable; it doesn't make the doctrine of the Trinity any more comprehensible; and so on.

There are a thousand good reasons not to be Christian, whether or not Christ himself ever existed.



Jesus brought a lot of kindness to the world. But I have come to realize, that the culture of sacrificing an innocent person for all the others could be erroneous.

Almost everything he taught was great. But the whole sacrifice thing comes from the concept of sun God, which is probably the only reason the status quo has kept him at the front of such an important religion.. I wouldn't be surprised if the real Jesus didn't think much of his sun God sacrifice, and instead wanted to focus on all the other stuff that he taught.

I think we need to emphasize the good things that he did, and brush off the sacrifice part. Because it's obviously to me, a catch.. 



Around the Network

What did Jezus teach that a child in recent days cannot teach us?
Do we really need higher beings to be good people, can't we be that on our own?



JWeinCom said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

That isn't a rebuttal though. I keep giving you evidence that he existed, and you keep simply stating that there is no evidence, without dealing with what I actually said. 

I don't think the evidence is very strong.  I don't believe that Paul necessarily met the birth brother of Jesus.  It may have been the case that James was his birth brother, but the word brother (or its translation) is also used in other contexts, like a follower or close friend.  

As for Josephus, he was born in 37 AD, so he wouldn't have been an eye witness and there is speculation that the passages on Jesus may have been later interpolations.  I really don't have the scholarship to address that, but it's not a fringe view.

Overall, the evidence is very limited.  I tend to side with historicity, because it honestly doesn't matter too much to my beliefs, and I think arguing his non-existence is more difficult than addressing the way more obvious flaws.  But I would tenuously agree that there is no good evidence.

Paul

 I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother - Galatiians 1:19

If Paul had meant spiritual brother, or friend then the above would have been worded like the following...

"I saw none of the other brothers--only James, the Lord's brother"

There's no reason for Paul to use two separate words to describe the apostles if they are the same. After all, if Paul had meant spritual brother, or friend, then why use the word apostle at all? After all aren't all the apostles brothers in that sense? 

Josephus

Josephus was one of the first historians. He would have had access to official Roman government documents, and witnesses. Much of what he reports on isn't based on his own first person accounts, but on what he found out through investigation. Should we throw out everything else he reports on? Should we toss out every piece of investigative journalism in the modern world, because the reporters were not there to witness every single event they report on? There was an Islamic copy found without the interpolations added in. http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/pines01.pdf

Go to page 16 of that pdf to see the comparisons between the interpolated version and the non-interpolated version. We've known about this since the early 70's but Jesus Mythicists continue to ignore the evidence. 

In addition to this both John the Babtist and James show up in Josephus. Here is the Josephus passage concerning James.

https://pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/ancient-judaism/josephus-james/

(This adds even more weight to the Paul argument above.)

And here is the one concerning John.

https://pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/ancient-judaism/josephus-john-the-baptis/





The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

Well. I'm just going to read and sip coffee. The last thread on religion (concerning the existance of God) was a complete shitshow and went nowhere.



Cerebralbore101 said:
JWeinCom said:

I don't think the evidence is very strong.  I don't believe that Paul necessarily met the birth brother of Jesus.  It may have been the case that James was his birth brother, but the word brother (or its translation) is also used in other contexts, like a follower or close friend.  

As for Josephus, he was born in 37 AD, so he wouldn't have been an eye witness and there is speculation that the passages on Jesus may have been later interpolations.  I really don't have the scholarship to address that, but it's not a fringe view.

Overall, the evidence is very limited.  I tend to side with historicity, because it honestly doesn't matter too much to my beliefs, and I think arguing his non-existence is more difficult than addressing the way more obvious flaws.  But I would tenuously agree that there is no good evidence.

Paul

 I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother - Galatiians 1:19

If Paul had meant spiritual brother, or friend then the above would have been worded like the following...

"I saw none of the other brothers--only James, the Lord's brother"

There's no reason for Paul to use two separate words to describe the apostles if they are the same. After all, if Paul had meant spritual brother, or friend, then why use the word apostle at all? After all aren't all the apostles brothers in that sense? 

Josephus

Josephus was one of the first historians. He would have had access to official Roman government documents, and witnesses. Much of what he reports on isn't based on his own first person accounts, but on what he found out through investigation. Should we throw out everything else he reports on? Should we toss out every piece of investigative journalism in the modern world, because the reporters were not there to witness every single event they report on? There was an Islamic copy found without the interpolations added in. http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/pines01.pdf

Go to page 16 of that pdf to see the comparisons between the interpolated version and the non-interpolated version. We've known about this since the early 70's but Jesus Mythicists continue to ignore the evidence. 

In addition to this both John the Babtist and James show up in Josephus. Here is the Josephus passage concerning James.

https://pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/ancient-judaism/josephus-james/

(This adds even more weight to the Paul argument above.)

And here is the one concerning John.

https://pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/ancient-judaism/josephus-john-the-baptis/



As for the usage of the word brother, we are talking about a translation of a translation.  As for why that word choice was used, I don't know because I'm not a biblical scholar.  What I do know is that many different sects of Christianity (not to even mention mythicists), have described him as either a metaphorical brother, a cousin, stepbrother, etc.  When the scholars have not settled the matter, I'm not going to either.

As for Josephus, let's take it that the Islamic version is 100% legit.  This is still incredibly poor evidence.  It's just Josephus reporting on what he's heard.  He has no firsthand accounts, nor do we know how he went about collecting this evidence.  We don't need to dismiss every piece of modern research, but we would be justified in dismissing those with such limited evidence.

Naturally I get that we shouldn't expect much more evidence than we have, because of the time and the place.  But that's just the problem of dealing with history.  Again I'm not a mythicist, mainly because I don't care to research the matter to the point where I can claim an informed opinion, but the evidence I've seen so far isn't enough for me to decide either way. 



Ganoncrotch said:
All I can think of while reading the OP....



He was a legend!

Hahahahahahaha!