Jesus so called "sacrifice" on the cross

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Starbucks on every corner

I don't know i heard hey were serving up lattes with demon juice in them.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Tangerine

You're making claims of fact about a God you can't prove exists in regard to Jesus for whom there isn't an iota of contemporaneous documentation proving he ever lived. You may as well be talking about Gandalf and Frodo. Your fantasies do not translate to fact unless, of course, you can cite testable evidence making them fact. Would you care to do so?

No not necessarily claims of fact but claims within the parameters of this forum. I understand those parameters are religion, faith and theology. Under those parameters facts are not necessarily foremost in conversation. By the way who in the world is this Frodo that you keep posting?

Frodo is a hobbit. They're real you know. They're in a book so that makes them real--according to the parameters of this forum.

a reply to: Tangerine

yes they are real but i am not aware of what there religous input would be in this forum. I think frodo would fit better in another one unless you have some secret hobbit worshiping you do and want to discuss with us. is that you frodo?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Tangerine

yes they are real but i am not aware of what there religous input would be in this forum. I think frodo would fit better in another one unless you have some secret hobbit worshiping you do and want to discuss with us. is that you frodo?

I think we should start a hobbit-worshipping religion. Gandalf is the equivalent of God and Frodo is the equivalent of Jesus. We can quote from the "Lord of the Rings" and "Hobbit" books and threaten people with spending eternity in the Lake of Doom if they don't do what we say. Oh, and we'll need a collection plate. Want to join the church?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut
...

There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence outside the Bible that Jesus Christ ever lived...

I'll take it from your statement that you are agreeing that the Bible IS evidence and also that the evidence is that Jesus Christ did live.

Your words!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Still working fast and loose with the facts, I see. You've already proven your dishonesty Here and Here

You trot out Josephus as factual proof, and when it's pointed out that your "proof" is illegitimate, you continue on with "innocent until proven guilty.

Every single one of your testimonies of so called proof has long since been debunked. This has been discussed in length Here

There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence outside the Bible that Jesus Christ ever lived. It seems that your God wanted it that way. Otherwise, he would have left some definitive proof. But he didn't.

Belief in Jesus is about faith, not facts.

I carefully explained my doubts about the in-authenticity of that paragraph from Josephus (because it may actually be authentic) and also why I was choosing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

In that light, referring to the passage is hardly dishonest.

(PS: belief in anything IS having faith in that thing. The words are synonyms, especially in regard to religious situations where belief and faith are understood to be referring to far more than intellectual assent).

a reply to: chr0naut

I'll take it from your statement that you are agreeing that the Bible IS evidence and also that the evidence is that Jesus Christ did live.

Is the Bible evidence for virgin births, a man walking on water and changing water to wine? Is it evidence of people rising from the dead?

Are Homers works evidence of Hercules and Zeus?

It's possible that a person called Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus the Nazarene lived, but a man called Jesus Christ, who is attributed with the wild stories and tales of the New Testament, is certainly a myth.

I carefully explained my doubts about the in-authenticity of that paragraph from Josephus (because it may actually be authentic) and also why I was choosing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Like I said, YOU can believe known lies if you want, but don't present known lies as evidence for your faith and expect it NOT to be challenged.

If I presented known lies in my rebuttal, you and other Christians in this thread and on ATS wouldn't hesitate to tear me a new one!

a reply to: windword

Is the Bible evidence for virgin births, a man walking on water and changing water to wine? Is it evidence of people rising from the dead?

You have asked "Is the Bible evidence for virgin births, a man walking on water and changing water to wine? " It depends upon which bible you reference.

Like I said, YOU can believe known lies if you want, but don't present known lies as evidence for your faith and expect it NOT to be challenged.

When you say known lies, are you then inferring that you have the proof that the God of Jesus does not exist? Most all do admit that the God of Jesus is a theological faith and cannot be proven to your satisfaction. One can not purport "known Lie" without testable evidence that it is a known lie. That is by your very own requirements. Please show testable evidence that the Christ Jesus is a known lie. The statement is, of course, the responsibility of the author of that statement to answer without a question. The rules of the game cannot be favored by either party and must pertain to both equally.

If I presented known lies in my rebuttal, you and other Christians in this thread and on ATS wouldn't hesitate to tear me a new one!

By your own keyboard you postulated that Frodo was a hobbit. Were you jesting when you wrote that? Do you mean that was not a lie?

a reply to: Seede

When you say known lies, are you then inferring that you have the proof that the God of Jesus does not exist?

Nope. Still talking about the Josephus forgery being used as evidence.

Personally, I believe that Jesus the Nazarene probably existed, and was an Essene Master, maybe even the Teacher of Righteousness before the title was transferred to James the Righteous. However, I think the timing is off, as Jesus Christ's miraculous life seems to begin with the deification of Julius Caesar, and ends with the catastrophic destruction of Pompeii.

It would be necessary for the for the Roman Catholic Church to bury, lie about and disguise evidence of Jesus the Nazarene being an Essene, as their beliefs went against the faith perpetuated by the RCC. The Nazarene sect that existed as far back as at least during the life of John the Baptist, and probably originated at Mount Carmel, was hunted down and exterminated by the RCC.

a reply to: Seede

When you say known lies, are you then inferring that you have the proof that the God of Jesus does not exist? Most all do admit that the God of Jesus is a theological faith and cannot be proven to your satisfaction. One can not purport "known Lie" without testable evidence that it is a known lie.

here's a test: make your pope turn water into wine.

or maybe go to one of these starving villages in the middle east and turn a loaf of bread into a meal for hundreds.

the point windword was making is that these "miracles" which denote the divinity that defined and empowered jesus are physically impossible by modern science. faith will not turn water into wine. faith will not change the surface tension of a standing body of water. faith will not resurrect the dead. faith will not cure cancer or restore an amputee. coincidence and optimism go a long way toward making these things look inspiring under the right circumstances, but the science is clear.

a reply to: windword

The fact the RCC had to hunt these people down and kill them speaks volumes in my opinion. What did they have to worry about if God was on their side? A lie could never be put in place of truth right? So why the killing of "heretics" in Jesus' name? They must not have been too confident in their new religion.

a reply to: TzarChasm

here's a test: make your pope turn water into wine.

Well you got me on that one. It may take a while but I don't have a pope. Care to wait?

the point windword was making is that these "miracles" which denote the divinity that defined and empowered jesus are physically impossible by modern science.

Yes they certainly are and that is why we call this theology. Exactly my point. Being that you speak for windword perhaps you can show me, by your testable science, that Jesus did not exist as shown in over 5000 Greek manuscripts. That was the principal discussion before Frodo became the subject.

faith will not turn water into wine. faith will not change the surface tension of a standing body of water. faith will not resurrect the dead. faith will not cure cancer or restore an amputee.

You may be partially right but not necessarily totally correct. Depends upon whose faith you reference. If you mean your faith then probably no. If you mean the faith of Moses or Christ Jesus then theologically the answer would be yes. That is the entirety of this forum.

Christians have testified time after time that theology is not the requirement for fact. Actually it is quite simple. If you don't want to believe any or all of the bible then that is your prerogative but should be recognized as also belief on your part. You have to believe the bible wrong the same as anyone to believe it is right. If a Christian says that they do not know then that is their prerogative and their statement. That is called "I don't know" and referred to as theology.

But when this prove it guy comes along and continually repeats "Prove It" then it becomes senseless and totally unfair to the theologian. Now that you have the theologian's answer what is your answer to "prove It?" Can you prove it?
Can you prove that cancer has never been cured by faith or the dead restored? I truly do not know but do you know this for a fact?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Abednego
a reply to: rokkuman

The sacrifice wasn't about dying in the cross. it was about living as a human being. He came down to earth to live, feel and suffer like a human in order for him to be able to intercede for our sins.

So the all-knowing God didn't already know all that stuff? Hmmm.

I know how that sounds, but; when you are confronted with a hypothetical situation ( a situation you never been into ), you usually take the most logical decision you can make. Is not the same when you already has been in that situation. Sometimes logic is throw out the window.

originally posted by: Ihsaan

originally posted by: Abednego
a reply to: rokkuman

The sacrifice wasn't about dying in the cross. it was about living as a human being. He came down to earth to live, feel and suffer like a human in order for him to be able to intercede for our sins.

God is omniscient (All Knowing) in the Bible.. Examples below.

Psalm 147:5 - Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.

1 John 3:20 - For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Psalm 139:4 - Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

Psalm 147:4-5 - He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names. Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.

Matthew 6:8 - So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

Why does God need to manifest in flesh in order to understand any of the above you mentioned?
During some stage of the crucifiction, why did Jesus cry out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me"? Does that come across as someone who is surrendering/offering their life for a sacrifice?

Where is the logic in the 'Son' questioning himself as Christians believe the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are one.
(1+1+1 =?). Are they the same deity?

Was Jesus Man or God on the cross? Where was God if Jesus was Man on earth..

You are asking some real though questions here. Thanks for that.
1. Why God needs to manifest in flesh?
Even though he is omniscient, He never was human. He needed to be one in order to really know what is happening inside.
Example: Me as a father, I give advice to my kid on how he needs to behave according some situations he will encounter. My advice is based on my life experience. Even that, he makes decisions according to what he thinks is correct (sometimes He follow my advice, sometimes not). I can just speculate on what is happening in his mind. But thinking can change in a split second, and there is no control over that.
Free will is what make the equation a bit harder to predict.
2. Because a father will help his son. Wouldn't you do it?
So Jesus felt really alone there.
3. Jesus was man in the cross, otherwise He wouldn't be suffering. And suffering was one of the purposes.

a reply to: Seede

Yes they certainly are and that is why we call this theology. Exactly my point. Being that you speak for windword perhaps you can show me, by your testable science, that Jesus did not exist as shown in over 5000 Greek manuscripts. That was the principal discussion before Frodo became the subject.

a radical revolutionary who got blitzed one day and made an oopsie. i just explained to you how divinity can be tested. jesus the man? okay. jesus the god/demigod? hold on there...

and the principle discussion was whether demoting yourself, getting yourself mutineed in the name of yourself and rehiring yourself was considered a sacrifice or a rigged game.

You may be partially right but not necessarily totally correct. Depends upon whose faith you reference. If you mean your faith then probably no. If you mean the faith of Moses or Christ Jesus then theologically the answer would be yes. That is the entirety of this forum.

literally, the answer would be no. im not speaking in metaphors here. no faith on earth or anywhere else will change the surface tension of some pond you happen across. you will sink.

notice that you dont see christians skydiving without a parachute. they have more faith in gravity than they do god.

Christians have testified time after time that theology is not the requirement for fact. Actually it is quite simple. If you don't want to believe any or all of the bible then that is your prerogative but should be recognized as also belief on your part.

not really. again, just throw a christian out of an airplane and see how much god cares about them. or better yet, send them on a journalism jaunt in the middle east and see how much god cares.

But when this prove it guy comes along and continually repeats "Prove It" then it becomes senseless and totally unfair to the theologian.

oh yes. its completely unfair when you are asked to back up your claims with actual evidence.

originally posted by: Abednego

originally posted by: Ihsaan

originally posted by: Abednego
a reply to: rokkuman

The sacrifice wasn't about dying in the cross. it was about living as a human being. He came down to earth to live, feel and suffer like a human in order for him to be able to intercede for our sins.

God is omniscient (All Knowing) in the Bible.. Examples below.

Psalm 147:5 - Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.

1 John 3:20 - For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Psalm 139:4 - Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

Psalm 147:4-5 - He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names. Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.

Matthew 6:8 - So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

Why does God need to manifest in flesh in order to understand any of the above you mentioned?
During some stage of the crucifiction, why did Jesus cry out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me"? Does that come across as someone who is surrendering/offering their life for a sacrifice?

Where is the logic in the 'Son' questioning himself as Christians believe the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are one.
(1+1+1 =?). Are they the same deity?

Was Jesus Man or God on the cross? Where was God if Jesus was Man on earth..

You are asking some real though questions here. Thanks for that.
1. Why God needs to manifest in flesh?
Even though he is omniscient, He never was human. He needed to be one in order to really know what is happening inside.
Example: Me as a father, I give advice to my kid on how he needs to behave according some situations he will encounter. My advice is based on my life experience. Even that, he makes decisions according to what he thinks is correct (sometimes He follow my advice, sometimes not). I can just speculate on what is happening in his mind. But thinking can change in a split second, and there is no control over that.
Free will is what make the equation a bit harder to predict.
2. Because a father will help his son. Wouldn't you do it?
So Jesus felt really alone there.
3. Jesus was man in the cross, otherwise He wouldn't be suffering. And suffering was one of the purposes.

1. Doesn't that contradict was omniscient is? (All-Knowing). Is God not the creator of humans & their functions of having emotions & feelings to understand it all without experiencing it?

2. Help his son or help himself? Are they 1 deities or more than 1? Your seem to be separating them. Again, why did Jesus cry out: "My God My God why have you forsaken me?" Jesus is proclaiming to a deity other than himself.

3. Christians believe in 1 God but in three persons, and that Jesus is also fully God and fully man.

How can he be fully God yet fully Man on earth? If I'm not mistaken, Jesus did not lose any of his divine attributes. How is it pain, suffering can effect a divine God. Was God crucified? (as he is also fully God).

Jesus claimed that he and the father are one. From the context of this verse, my understanding is that it isn't in a literal sense (body/deity), but rather 1 in purpose (message).


The allegations against Jesus were all to do with blasphemy, taking the term 'Son' in a LITERAL sense, as the Jews in the old testament took this understanding of 'sons' or 'daughters' as righteous servant of God. Hence why in the new testament John 3:16, the word begotten had been added and removed to put Jesus on another level than those mentioned as 'son or daughters' of God in the old testament.

So even if Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, if you took the meaning as righteous servant, it would explain why he was defensive against blasphemy claims, and why he cried out: "My Lord, My Lord why have you FORSAKEN me". It sounds like a distress call for someone who didn't want to be there or had no knowledge of the events. Again opposite of omniscient.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

I'll take it from your statement that you are agreeing that the Bible IS evidence and also that the evidence is that Jesus Christ did live.

Is the Bible evidence for virgin births, a man walking on water and changing water to wine? Is it evidence of people rising from the dead?

Are Homers works evidence of Hercules and Zeus?

It's possible that a person called Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus the Nazarene lived, but a man called Jesus Christ, who is attributed with the wild stories and tales of the New Testament, is certainly a myth.

I carefully explained my doubts about the in-authenticity of that paragraph from Josephus (because it may actually be authentic) and also why I was choosing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Like I said, YOU can believe known lies if you want, but don't present known lies as evidence for your faith and expect it NOT to be challenged.

If I presented known lies in my rebuttal, you and other Christians in this thread and on ATS wouldn't hesitate to tear me a new one!

The Bible claims that it documents multiple and corroborative eyewitness accounts to these miraculous events. That is a definition of 'evidence'.

You are also claiming that suppositions about textual accuracy are more than opinion. The truth is that you don't know, your 'sources' don't know (I wonder how many of your sources are contemporary to the events they are describing?), I definitely don't know and other scholars don't know. In your opinion, they may be lies, but that is just an opinion. Mine differs from yours.

a reply to: chr0naut

The post you're quoting is specifically referring to the Josephus forgeries, I believe.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Yeah, thanks. When I was talking about lies. I was referring to the Josephus forgeries.

a reply to: chr0naut

None of the gospels claim to be written by their name sake or to be an eye witnesses to the narratives they present.

a reply to: windword

I really think I'm the only person on this thread that got that, LoL. At least 4 people have jumped down your throat about it because their reading comprehension sucks.

Religions greatest tool: lack of critical thought