It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: JackReyes
"... if you did witness his miracles, you would soon forget them, and get in line with those who scoff at, and spit on him."
If I may, please detail what I said that would lead to such a reply.
To the faithful, no explanation is needed
to the disbeliever, no explanation is possible.
originally posted by: Talorc
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: Talorc
I'm not well-versed in Christian theology, but I think you guys are missing the point. Probably on purpose, because it doesn't seem a hard concept.
I've always interpreted it this way: Jesus' sacrifice wasn't in dying on the cross. He felt and experienced (and still does) the suffering of all humanity. Because he loved everyone and had essentially limitless empathy, he lived the pain of everyone, every starving child, every sick man and woman, tortured prisoner, and wounded soldier. Not only that, he felt their fear and sadness, and all their emotions, good and bad.
His sacrifice was in coming here, seeing us, and forever taking on our suffering in the name of love. You can't love someone if you don't understand them, and to understand humanity, you must understand suffering. It is one sure thing that defines us.
I'm not saying any of this is true. But this is essentially the concept that the OP is (conveniently) missing.
In the cosmic scope, that should amount to a perpetually stubbed toe.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Are you referring to the time he spent here, or the scope of the universe?
If it's an issue of he time he spent here, then it's a non-issue. He still loves everyone, and so he still "suffers" in a way. If he really loved everyone, he wouldn't just be "happy" in heaven and completely forget about us.
If it's an issue of universal scope, then I'd say there's still consistency. The story happened (or was contrived) at a time when this world was the cosmos, and there was no notion of a wider universe.
So I think there's still consistency, and the OP's attempt to "poke holes" in the story hasn't really worked.
Yeah that is occams razor. Political and religious dissidents always get killed and yeah crucifying was the roman mode of choice.
originally posted by: daaskapital
Jesus didn't sacrifice himself for our sins, but he did sacrifice himself for his beliefs.
I think the sacrifice story was devised after Jesus died and never fulfilled the prophecies expected of the Jewish messiah. That's why Christians believe he will rise again and fulfill everything else. On the contrary, Jews believe that the messiah will be a human who fulfills the prophecies in their life, so they obviously discount Jesus.
It is a sound assumption that Jesus led his own sect of Judaism with its own beliefs - some of which may have been centered on him being the Jewish messiah. Add to this the fact that some scholars believe Jesus was an activist-type figure, and that is a recipe to get him nailed to a cross by the establishment.
He was a Jew with some distinctly different beliefs from his peers. He was a political and religious activist, which we can see in the bible. It's a safe bet that he died because of his own beliefs rather than some story about negating original sin and saving humanity through some divine sacrifice.
With all this said, Jesus was very much human and experienced the trials of life. It would have sucked being nailed to a cross, regardless of the reasons.
originally posted by: JackReyes
It is easy to be a skeptic. It takes courage and honesty and boldness, and humility, and truth, to believe what is true.