Jesus so called "sacrifice" on the cross

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Please identify to me, the specific forged Josephus texts and contrast them against the non-forged, since you obviously know. Sources please.

I already did supply you a very generous Christian source. Still, the conclusion remains the same. Josephus' work was forged, interpolated and edited by early Christian fathers, most likely by Eusebius and is, therefore, to weak to stand on its own.

Conclusion

Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

JOSEPHUS ON THE ROCKS

Please explain how you know that Tacitus, and specifically the Annals (where he mentions Jesus), was hearsay (note the spelling).

Tacitus NEVER mentioned JESUS! He mentions the followers of CHRESTUS

Again, I already explained that there were no end of people claiming to be "Christs" and Christ was a term shared by Jews and Pagans alike. As a matter of fact, Emperor Hadrain called the followers of Serapis "Bishops of Christ" SOUR CE

If modern believers were truly sincere in their desire for a more intimate relationship with the Lord, they would immediately want to know and question why "early believers avoided" using the name Christian? When it is realized that even the very name Christian was in use prior to the time of Jesus, we truly begin to grasp the Pagan connection. The name Christian was a term employed to describe one who was an initiate, and understood the inner meaning of the Greek and Roman mystery religions. Thus, the early followers of Jesus refused to be called Christian, and call Jesus the Christ, because the word was used in reference to enlightened Pagans and their gods.
nazirene.org...

Again, the account of John the Baptist as described by Josephus is in agreement with the Gospel accounts.

WRONG! SOURCE

Tell me, how could a historical figure like James be the brother of a fiction?

I never said the Jame the Righteous was fictional. Jesus Christ, no doubt is though. The physical brother relationship is highly debated even among devout Christians. That's another thread subject, though, that threatens the very roots and core of Christianity!

Perhaps I need to be clearer:

You provided me with a link to a commentary on Josephus that calls into question Antiquities Book 18, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3. I could provide, in return, links to commentaries that are antithetical to that commentary. We could play this game for hours.

What I would like for you to provide is definitive evidence for the alleged forgery.

Source documents, not commentary.

All you have provided so far is supposition.

a reply to: chr0naut

Are you denying that scholars believe certain citations within the works of Josephus regarding his supposed reference to Jesus the "supposed Christ, if he be a man", etc, are forgeries?

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
Oh boy, another anti-christian, mental masturbation, trolling thread... I haven't seen one of these in like 5 minutes.

If you don't 'get it', just accept that fact, and stop trying to convince those that do 'get it' that they really don't.

I mean seriously, is your worldview so unfulfilling, that you have no recourse but to purposefully antagonize others whose worldview actually gives them hope? If so, then I suggest you find a new one that works for you.

When people that claim no faith in Christ, have a pathological need to talk about him, it is quite revealing.

it strikes me as somewhat counter intuitive to give someone hope by telling them that in and of themselves, they are hopeless.

the whole point of jesus is that we cannot save ourselves no matter how hard we try to be good upstanding people. the only way to be at peace with yourself is to give someone else complete control. unless we love jesus and dedicate our lives to serving his every whim, we are worthless, helpless, useless wastes of space and matter. that is a tasteless, archaic and abusive message to spread.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Are you denying that scholars believe certain citations within the works of Josephus regarding his supposed reference to Jesus the "supposed Christ, if he be a man", etc, are forgeries?

No, I am not denying that. Neither am I denying that other scholars think quite the opposite.

It is a contentious issue and is unlikely to be resolved.

The section is unlikely from a Jewish standpoint but the Annals were written and distributed as pro-Roman propaganda. Josephus was a turncoat who was trying to ingratiate himself to Vespasian, so he may have applied some 'spin' that he (perhaps erroneously) believed Vespasian would like. You must remember that the first persecutions of Christians by Roman officialdom did not occur until 64 AD under Nero.

The section, however, was written in the same style and vocabulary as the rest of Josephus' documents and does not carry any other indicator that it may have been inserted by other parties.

So, I'd say that there is insufficient evidence to state it is a forged insertion. The resolution, of course, would be an earlier text that did not include the contentious section.

Our law states that someone is innocent until proven guilty. My view on how this applies is that we must consider the document is true (with reservations) until proven a forgery. That would be the most balanced and reasoned approach.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
Oh boy, another anti-christian, mental masturbation, trolling thread... I haven't seen one of these in like 5 minutes.

If you don't 'get it', just accept that fact, and stop trying to convince those that do 'get it' that they really don't.

I mean seriously, is your worldview so unfulfilling, that you have no recourse but to purposefully antagonize others whose worldview actually gives them hope? If so, then I suggest you find a new one that works for you.

When people that claim no faith in Christ, have a pathological need to talk about him, it is quite revealing.

it strikes me as somewhat counter intuitive to give someone hope by telling them that in and of themselves, they are hopeless.

the whole point of jesus is that we cannot save ourselves no matter how hard we try to be good upstanding people. the only way to be at peace with yourself is to give someone else complete control. unless we love jesus and dedicate our lives to serving his every whim, we are worthless, helpless, useless wastes of space and matter. that is a tasteless, archaic and abusive message to spread.

But we all do something wrong, at some stage in our lives. God just wants to forgive us. The fact that God would go so far on our behalf does not suggest that we are worthless.

Christians are also not required to serve Jesus' every whim.

The message of Jesus is reconciliation to God through undeserved forgiveness.

a reply to: chr0naut

Our law states that someone is innocent until proven guilty. My view on how this applies is that we must consider the document is true (with reservations) until proven a forgery. That would be the most balanced and reasoned approach.

Innocent until proven guilty?????

Christians KNOW that these segments from Josephus' journals are fraught with lies, and admit that they don't know where the lie ends and the truth begins. But they continue to promote the lies and say "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!"

You are welcome to believe lies, but don't try to coerce me into believing them! You are barking up the wrong tree!

Lying for Jesus indeed!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Our law states that someone is innocent until proven guilty. My view on how this applies is that we must consider the document is true (with reservations) until proven a forgery. That would be the most balanced and reasoned approach.

Innocent until proven guilty?????

Christians KNOW that these segments from Josephus' journals are fraught with lies, and admit that they don't know where the lie ends and the truth begins. But they continue to promote the lies and say "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!"

You are welcome to believe lies, but don't try to coerce me into believing them! You are barking up the wrong tree!

Lying for Jesus indeed!

Christians do admit that the paragraph mentioning Jesus may possibly be a late addition. So your statement that they don't is incorrect.

Similarly, they do know the boundaries of the contested text (it is one paragraph). So that statement is incorect too.

If anyone is handling the truth a bit too carelessly, it is you, stating that the paragraph is false, when you do not and cannot know for certain.

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.

a reply to: rokkuman

Its kinda funny because in the Bible we read that Jesus came back to life a few days after his so called "death" / "sacrifice". So what kind of a sacrifice is it when you lose something knowing you would get it back shortly?

You are somewhat confused. Jesus did not come back to terrestrial life. At least not the life that you understand as life. Jesus the man died forever more the same as all earthly life dies. You are ignorant of what resurrection is. Jesus was restored to His original substance which was spirit and His original celestial body which is The Word. He was not reincarnated back into this terrestrial existence as you understand.

The resurrection of created people and the resurrection of "The Word" are two different types of our understanding the word resurrection. Jesus had preexistence as the celestial Son of God (The Word) whereas terrestrial created people have had no preexistence and must be reborn. The proper understanding of Christ Jesus' resurrection is restoration and not rebirth. The image of terrestrial is the same as that of celestial. The difference being the substance.

The Word of God did not get back life as you have stated. When He was begotten of God He had life within Him even as the Father has within Him. As He became the flesh of man He still retained life within Himself as the man Jesus. No man took His life but He gave His terrestrial life to seal His new covenant. The new covenant was to deliver the justified from Sheol into the New Celestial Jerusalem. To eat and drink the food and water of eternal life. Without that experience all creation would eventually perish. That was the sacrifice.

a reply to: Seede

You almost had me going along with it until you talked about celestial persons needing sustenance from food & water.

a reply to: windword

Belief in Jesus is about faith, not facts.

Yes windward you are correct. The fact is that belief in Christ Jesus is faith.

It is true that most Christians will go to any length to protect that faith in Christ Jesus and it is also true that most who do not have that faith in Christ Jesus will go to any length to discredit His existence. With that said can you vouch for the accuracy of this .


"Overall, the two historian believe that only 10 out of the 126 writers listed by Paulkovich would ever be expected to mention Jesus Christ at all. They also noted that Bible scholars believe historians of the time simply did not see Jesus as being important since the “prime candidate for ‘Son of God’ in the Roman world was the emperor himself, who had coins, statues, and temples to back those claims up. Jesus had a small band of followers and a lot of stories about sheep.”
Read more at www.inquisitr.com..."
www.inquisitr.... com/1523534/jesus-christ-never-existed-atheists-and-historians-dispute-michael-paulkovichs-jesus-myth/

a reply to: Eunuchorn

You almost had me going along with it until you talked about celestial persons needing sustenance from food & water.

I wasn't preaching but only condensing the structured doctrine of Jesus. Did not intend to convince anyone of the purpose of the Christ Jesus mission but only show the finality of terrestrial life as believed by prophets and apostles of bible.

It is a hard pill to swallow at first but as one will believe then it becomes very clear. I agree it is not for everyone. Both authors of Isaiah and Revelation have the same message of New Jerusalem and the tree and water of life.

a reply to: Seede

No I mean I understood your whole point of it being a restoration vs a physical rebirth; but when you got to the part about needing food & water post-restoration, the whole theory fell apart imo, because it's obviously just human projection.
As is all theology & philosophy.

a reply to: Seede

it is also true that most who do not have that faith in Christ Jesus will go to any length to discredit His existence.

its impossible. by the same token it cannot be prove correct, it also cannot be proven false.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Seede

it is also true that most who do not have that faith in Christ Jesus will go to any length to discredit His existence.

its impossible. by the same token it cannot be prove correct, it also cannot be proven false.

Q: I have no powers! Q the ordinary!

Picard: Q the liar! Q the misanthrope!

Q: Q the miserable, Q the desperate! What must I do to convince you people?

Worf: Die.

Q: Oh, very clever, Worf. Eat any good books lately?

a reply to: Eunuchorn

No I mean I understood your whole point of it being a restoration vs a physical rebirth; but when you got to the part about needing food & water post-restoration, the whole theory fell apart imo, because it's obviously just human projection. As is all theology & philosophy.

Yes I agree some what with you in that it is all theological and probably the same discussion has been made countless times and in many years ago. I don't have the key to everlasting life but do have faith that there is a key somewhere. I am quite old now but am still looking and I think that is the case in all people.

The message of New Jerusalem being the kingdom of heaven is prophesied by Isaiah and fulfilled in the teachings of Jesus through His apostles. In the biblical accounts Jesus never actually revealed the kingdom of heaven in His preachings. It was always a vague understanding that there was a third heaven and that the spirits of people were invited to have everlasting life in this kingdom. Naturally there were requirements for qualifications.

As I was reading the Luke account one day my attention was on Luke 23:43. Why I can't really say but that kind of teased my mind for quite awhile. -- "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Eventually I searched for the word "Paradise" and found it only three times in my NT KJV bible.
The second time "Paradise was used was in 2nd Corinthians 12:2-4 -- "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Well, that told me that Paradise was out of this universe and in the celestial realm.

Then the third time I saw "Paradise" in my bible it was in Revelation 2:7 -- "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God."

That told me that there is a tree of life in this "Paradise" and that led me to read the entire 22nd chapter of Revelation to find out more about this tree in "Paradise"-- That is when I read that paradise has not only trees of life giving fruit but also water of life.

By putting all of this together I came to understand that this companion who died beside Jesus actually was given (the same day) everlasting life in a "Paradise" which is in a celestial city called New Jerusalem. So this perked my interest in searching for this New Jerusalem. Found it way back in the book of Isaiah chapters 65 and 66.

Anyway, that is how I came across a new celestial body fed by the celestial food and water of life. All theology of course and not for everyone, of course. It's easy to say hog wash but then I really don't see much of any other theology here in this forum. Wonder why that is?

a reply to: Seede

I even have a problem with calling it new Jerusalem. Heaven is named after a human city?

The way I see religion is fear of losing our identity in death. I don't care what religion you are, if you think you're gonna die & maintain your name social security modern clothing style etcetcetc then you're delusional. All we know as humans is materialism & heaven will be great because it'll look like New York but with buildings made of clouds & rainbows & a Starbucks on every corner. As hard as the scripture tries, it just can't seem to detach spiritually from the mirror.

You have to remember that God (the Father) told Jesus (the Son) exactly what to say and exactly what to do. These things were laid out from the foundation of the heavens and earth. He opened his mouth in parables because of people like you who are merely "curious" as to why those of us who follow him choose to call him, God, Savior, or a sacrifice.

He plainly said that he was going to die and on the third day rise again. He didn't lie. But what is veiled within the parables and his teachings is how he the Son of God who has been given EVERYTHING has the power to resurrect inside of you and me. NO ONE else has the ability to do such things! No one else has the power to achieve such a feat but Jesus and that makes him the One.

He sacrificed his life to bring us the truth and part of knowing the truth is understanding how he gets inside us - that is why there are miracles, signs, miraculous signs and wonders. All enlightening the spiritual narrow path.

Jesus called some of his own disciples dull and you really need to start asking some harder questions about him. You have the ability to get his full undivided attention or a big eye roll.Lol

originally posted by: Myrtales Instinct
You have to remember that God (the Father) told Jesus (the Son) exactly what to say and exactly what to do. These things were laid out from the foundation of the heavens and earth. He opened his mouth in parables because of people like you who are merely "curious" as to why those of us who follow him choose to call him, God, Savior, or a sacrifice.

He plainly said that he was going to die and on the third day rise again. He didn't lie. But what is veiled within the parables and his teachings is how he the Son of God who has been given EVERYTHING has the power to resurrect inside of you and me. NO ONE else has the ability to do such things! No one else has the power to achieve such a feat but Jesus and that makes him the One.

He sacrificed his life to bring us the truth and part of knowing the truth is understanding how he gets inside us - that is why there are miracles, signs, miraculous signs and wonders. All enlightening the spiritual narrow path.

Jesus called some of his own disciples dull and you really need to start asking some harder questions about him. You have the ability to get his full undivided attention or a big eye roll.Lol

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?

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?