Did he really die for our sins

a reply to: pthena

Couple of interesting things you touched on
The immortal souls is a very Greek concept, the Jews did not consider the human soul as immortal
You ask was the Jesus cult for a select few, all Calvinism. Considering one of Christs commands was preach the gospel, love other people as I have loved it indicates the gospel is for everyone

Be interested to learn a little more on What you touched on re transmigration of the soul, Pythagoras and Plato

a reply to: Raggedyman

Be interested to learn a little more on What you touched on re transmigration of the soul, Pythagoras and Plato

I'll have to get back with you on that. In the meantime see:
PHAEDO

Whether the souls of men after death are or are not in the world
below, is a question which may be argued in this manner: The ancient
doctrine of which I have been speaking affirms that they go from
this into the other world, and return hither, and are born from the
dead. Now if this be true, and the living come from the dead, then our
souls must be in the other world, for if not, how could they be born
again? And this would be conclusive, if there were any real evidence
that the living are only born from the dead; but if there is no
evidence of this, then other arguments will have to be adduced.

I highlighted the a priori authority part. I think I saw a footnote in another translation that identified it as Pythagorean teaching. Maybe the Perseus Project version.

I was thinking of starting a thread but I accidently wrote a poem instead. And it seems so controversial that I feel like I should have an apology written ahead of time. And it's past my nap time because I went shopping today instead of napping, because I didn't go yesterday. And I found a six pack of Newcastle Dark Ale, which I've been looking for for two months, because I told someone I would. And then I figured I better try it before commenting on whether I liked it or not. The combination of no nap and alcohol has me sort of befuddled. And besides that, I wanted to practice writing a wall of text because I've seen other people do it. And I don't know yet whether I've written enough to seem as impressive as other walls of text. And impressive or not I should really go take a nap now.

a reply to: Klassified

"Every culture puts their own twist on their gods"

In the context of Roman-Jewish hostilities its very possible that Rome not only wanted to destroy the Temple at Jerusalem but every facet of Judaism as well. By replacing it with a pacifists religion that made Rome, Gods spokesman on earth.

To pull it off they needed a writer with highly developed literary skills well versed in Jewish religion and customs. A person Rome arrested during the Jewish war fitted that bill. Flavious Josephus was arrested for two years and may have agreed to turned propagandist for his freedom. If you look for parallels between the life stories of Josephus and Paul its pretty much a slam dunk. Both shipwrecked on voyage to Rome. Both in the desert for three years, Both arrested for two years etc etc etc etc,

The dead sea scroll might hold another key. Their community were writing texts up to the middle of first century but fail to mention anything about Jesus Christ, A book called "James the Brother of Jesus - The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity" suggests there are strong links between the dead sea scroll "Righteous Teacher” with content that James the so called brother of Jesus. James may in fact be the Righteous Teacher that Josephus loosely based Christ on.

But in defending the status quo. Its also very possible that the gospel writers were real apostles that believed their leader was a man of God, Because they were poor and possibly illiterate could only spread their message by word of mouth. That was latter put to paper by those that could do so (Greeks and Romans).

Either way its wise to be sceptical of all religions. We can only find truth by searching within.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: dfnj2015
"Did he really die for our sins?"
No more than those who died for humankinds sins before him, like...

Prometheus - Circa 800BC

Lo! streaming from the fatal tree
His all atoning blood,
Is this the Infinite?—Yes, ’tis he,
Prometheus, and a god!
Well might the sun in darkness hide,
And veil his glories in,
When God, the great Prometheus, died
For man the creature’s sin.

Tammuz - Circa 400BC?

Trust, ye saints,
your Lord restored,
Trust ye in your risen Lord;
For the pains which Tammuz endured
Our salvation have procured.

Quoted from here.

Are you sure Klass
Are you sure you understand what is written

www.tektonics.org...
Not much really, I can go on, but I shouldn’t need to

Although you missed the point of my post completely, I do appreciate the link. I have been looking at some new(to me) evidence FOR the existence of Christ that has come to my attention, because unlike most Christians, I don't shy away from new evidence that doen't agree with my present understanding.

The point by the way, is that Jesus is only one in a long line of "saviors" that predate him. The point is NOT parallels. Every culture puts their own twist on their gods. And yes, I understood quite well what I read.

Jesus is not in a long line of saviours, He was unique
Incredibly unique and still is, hence your absolute hate for everything christian.

I don’t shy away from evidence, clearly I am a unique person just like you? So what?
Prove something, anything

You havnt offered anything that would suggest Jesus was a cookie cutter deity copied from other beliefs
You have insinuated such but offered nothing
To much Zeitgeist for you Mr Klass, prove otherwise

It has always been, and is, up to the Christian to prove their assertions. Something they have never been able to do. It is not up to the non-believer to prove a negative. Not that it would be received anyway. In the face of a complete lack of evidence, the logical stance is one of disbelief.

The only thing unique about Jesus is a different take on an old story, that humans need salvation. They don't. Especially from the same "god" that is responsible for their supposed sinful state in the first place.

BRILLIANT, you have taken my argument against evolution and the claim evolution a science and used it against me in relation to my FAITH, pure brilliance, but
What an utter failure

Christianity is a faith

I asked if you could leave your pop culture zitgeist aside and prove that the other "saviors" we're anything like Jesus, nothing, echo, empty, zero, zip, Klass, what have you got?

Alternatively, you have made a statement that Jesus is like other pre existing saviors, was a copy of others. You have made that statement, then PROVE IT

Come on Klass I thought you were smarter than this, I really did, you are letting me down.
Do you know the story of Mr Ballony and his son, search it on google

Now you're just being intentionally obtuse. Not that you will ever bother to do any research that doesn't confirm your bias, but along with the link in my first post, you can go here and here.

Jesus is not in a long line of saviours, He was unique Incredibly unique and still is...

Every person on this planet is unique. Even identical twins are unique from one another. Being unique does not make one human better than another. Neither does it make one savior better, or more authentic than another.

a reply to: pthena

Is it all about life and living and eating and building and sharing in community; or is it all about the condition of the dead and what happens to the "immortal soul"?

On the philosophical end, this is an interesting question in that you will get a different answer from a priest than you will a peasant, so to speak. But your better question is...

A big question remains: Was the Jesus Cult intended to be a secret mystery for the select few, or was it intended to be a public religion, suitable for common consumption? Something that society as a whole could celebrate as foundational for harmonious living.

My answer would be both. For the early Catholic church, it was about the few keeping the "mystery" to themselves, and the many being told only what they needed to know to be controlled by the Rome's newly formed theocracy.

a reply to: glend

In the context of Roman-Jewish hostilities its very possible that Rome not only wanted to destroy the Temple at Jerusalem but every facet of Judaism as well. By replacing it with a pacifists religion that made Rome, Gods spokesman on earth.

To pull it off they needed a writer with highly developed literary skills well versed in Jewish religion and customs. A person Rome arrested during the Jewish war fitted that bill. Flavious Josephus was arrested for two years and may have agreed to turned propagandist for his freedom. If you look for parallels between the life stories of Josephus and Paul its pretty much a slam dunk. Both shipwrecked on voyage to Rome. Both in the desert for three years, Both arrested for two years etc etc etc etc.

I have read a fair amount about this, and agree that Josephus was likely involved in the creation of Rome's version of Christianity. However, I'm not so sure Rome created Christianity itself. I am certainly convinced that the biblical version of Jesus never existed, but at this point, I am willing to allow for the possibility of a rebel preacher in first century Israel might have existed, and could be the person of mythology we know today as Jesus.

I do find the parallels between Jesus and Paul intriguing.

a reply to: dfnj2015

So my paradoxical question for 2019 is this: If Jesus was resurrected, did he actually die? It was just for 3 days. I mean, no harm no foul? Maybe I'm reaching here. You can't really kill God anyway.

Jesus was never God according to the letters of the NT and those letters state this very plainly. Jesus was terrestrial flesh and blood the same as you and I are of the same substance and that is the substance that must perish. In fact the entire universe is composed of the same substance in various forms. According to Christian philosophy, all earth was cursed by the Creator and all earth must perish in the same manner. Jesus' image was of earth and and being of earth cannot be allowed in the celestial realm. What you should consider is substance change.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: dfnj2015

We always said no blood, no foul...so in that context, he seemed to of bled a lot.

Now Im a tad agnostic these days, I guess I need to have the "did a fellow named Jesus exist" conversation 1st.

Bart Ehrman, an atheist New Testament scholar, says that it's "ridiculous" to claim that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist. The evidence for his existence, both internal in the New Testament AND external sources, are better than any evidence we have for other ancient people. He says there are 11 valid references for his existence. He compares it to Plato or maybe Alexander the Great, for which there are only 2.

He also argues that the Resurrection happened as well.

Again- he's an atheist, but he argues FOR the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and even for his death and resurrection.

I would like to see some links for your claim that Ehrman believes the resurrection please. I don't believe Bart is that gullible, but I'm willing to listen to his reasoning if he has indeed said that.

I'll find some links for you.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: dfnj2015

We always said no blood, no foul...so in that context, he seemed to of bled a lot.

Now Im a tad agnostic these days, I guess I need to have the "did a fellow named Jesus exist" conversation 1st.

Bart Ehrman, an atheist New Testament scholar, says that it's "ridiculous" to claim that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist. The evidence for his existence, both internal in the New Testament AND external sources, are better than any evidence we have for other ancient people. He says there are 11 valid references for his existence. He compares it to Plato or maybe Alexander the Great, for which there are only 2.

He also argues that the Resurrection happened as well.

Again- he's an atheist, but he argues FOR the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and even for his death and resurrection.

I would like to see some links for your claim that Ehrman believes the resurrection please. I don't believe Bart is that gullible, but I'm willing to listen to his reasoning if he has indeed said that.

I stand corrected. The claim was made by the host in an episode of a podcast I listen to. The episode is from 2016, so unless he's changed his view since then, you're right- he doesn't affirm the resurrection.

But he does affirm a historical Jesus. Just not the resurrection. Thank you for pointing it out.

a reply to: Klassified

I do find the parallels between Jesus and Paul intriguing.

Oops. That was supposed to say Josephus and Paul.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: dfnj2015

We always said no blood, no foul...so in that context, he seemed to of bled a lot.

Now Im a tad agnostic these days, I guess I need to have the "did a fellow named Jesus exist" conversation 1st.

Bart Ehrman, an atheist New Testament scholar, says that it's "ridiculous" to claim that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist. The evidence for his existence, both internal in the New Testament AND external sources, are better than any evidence we have for other ancient people. He says there are 11 valid references for his existence. He compares it to Plato or maybe Alexander the Great, for which there are only 2.

He also argues that the Resurrection happened as well.

Again- he's an atheist, but he argues FOR the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and even for his death and resurrection.

No he definitely does not believe that. Someone has lied to you. There are no historians outside apologetics who believe the supernatural claims of any religion. Ehrman believes Jesus was a man who was later mythicized into a savior deity.

" The 2014 release of How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee examines the historical Jesus, who according to Ehrman neither thought of himself as God nor claimed to be God, and proffers how he came to be thought of as the incarnation of God himself.


"Gary Kamiya states in Salon that "Ehrman's scholarly standing did not soothe the evangelical Christians who were outraged by Misquoting Jesus. Angered by what they took to be the book's subversive import, they attacked it as exaggerated, unfair and lacking a devotional tone. "

""For conservative Christians, Ehrman is a bit of a bogeyman, the Prof. Moriarty of biblical studies, constantly pressing an attack on their long-held beliefs about God, Jesus, and the Bible.... For secularists, the emerging generation of 'nones' (who claim no religion, even if they are not committed to atheism or agnosticism), Ehrman is a godsend."[36]"


Like all other historians Ehrman learned that religion is not literal.

"In Misquoting Jesus Ehrman recounts becoming a born-again, fundamentalist Christian as a teenager.[1] He recounts being certain in his youthful enthusiasm that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[1] His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages, particularly Koine Greek, and to textual criticism. During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled:[1"

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: dfnj2015
"Did he really die for our sins?"
No more than those who died for humankinds sins before him, like...

Prometheus - Circa 800BC

Lo! streaming from the fatal tree
His all atoning blood,
Is this the Infinite?—Yes, ’tis he,
Prometheus, and a god!
Well might the sun in darkness hide,
And veil his glories in,
When God, the great Prometheus, died
For man the creature’s sin.

Tammuz - Circa 400BC?

Trust, ye saints,
your Lord restored,
Trust ye in your risen Lord;
For the pains which Tammuz endured
Our salvation have procured.

Quoted from here.

None of that is sourced and the Mithras thing is definitely wrong. Some of that sounds like stuff D.M. Murdock used to write which was good but PhD Richard Carrier has exposed some flaws there.

When something is from "anonymous poet" it's hard to use as evidence for shared mythology. Those ideas about solar gods directly influencing Christianity are not as true as Murdock said in the Zeitgeist video.

This is a good sourced article on what was going on around 1AD for religious myths:


www.richardcarrier.info...


"The Savior-God Mytheme

Not in ancient Asia. Or anywhere else. Only the West, from Mesopotamia to North Africa and Europe. There was a very common and popular mytheme that had arisen in the Hellenistic period—from at least the death of Alexander the Great in the 300s B.C. through the Roman period, until at least Constantine in the 300s A.D. Nearly every culture created and popularized one: the Egyptians had one, the Thracians had one, the Syrians had one, the Persians had one, and so on. The Jews were actually late to the party in building one of their own, in the form of Jesus Christ. It just didn’t become popular among the Jews, and thus ended up a Gentile religion. But if any erudite religious scholar in 1 B.C. had been asked “If the Jews invented one of these gods, what would it look like?” they would have described the entire Christian religion to a T. Before it even existed. That can’t be a coincidence....."

a reply to: joelr
Thank you for a good post. I respect the work of Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman, and D.M. Murdoch as well as others. The truth is, there is much we don't know yet. Even the best minds our civilization has to offer don't agree on certain points. Whether or not Jesus even existed being just one among many. They're all bound to make mistakes occasionally. Weeding out the truth of thousands of years of history is a daunting and arduous task. The one thing we can agree on is that we have enough evidence to know that the Abrahamic and other religions are a mix of history, tradition, and plenty of mythology. Kind of like the Iliad and Odyssey.

The links I gave were not meant to be definitive by any means, but rather a starting point for research. If someone is genuinely interested in learning the origins of their religious beliefs, even Zeitgeist with its errors is a starting point.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Is God a rapist?
Did Mary consent?

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: joelr
Thank you for a good post. I respect the work of Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman, and D.M. Murdoch as well as others. The truth is, there is much we don't know yet. Even the best minds our civilization has to offer don't agree on certain points. Whether or not Jesus even existed being just one among many. They're all bound to make mistakes occasionally. Weeding out the truth of thousands of years of history is a daunting and arduous task. The one thing we can agree on is that we have enough evidence to know that the Abrahamic and other religions are a mix of history, tradition, and plenty of mythology. Kind of like the Iliad and Odyssey.

The links I gave were not meant to be definitive by any means, but rather a starting point for research. If someone is genuinely interested in learning the origins of their religious beliefs, even Zeitgeist with its errors is a starting point.

It is a good starting point. And I agree from a broad perspective it really doesn't matter which myth came from where.
But when it comes to debates people will get very literal and that's where it's good to be able to pin down facts and sources.