Jesus so called "sacrifice" on the cross

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

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..

Understanding the verses and taking them literally are two different things.

What crucifixion? There's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived or was crucified and no one who wrote any of the words attributed to Jesus lived when he allegedly lived or witnessed him saying anything.

All of the new testament was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. So every book of the New Testament was written in less than 37 years after the Crucifixion.

All people, places and events mentioned are historically verified exactly as mentioned in the New Testament.

There are thousands of documents and fragments supporting the Gospel texts, some of them secular and anti-Christian.

The lives, exploits and deaths of the Disciples (who were there with Jesus in person) were documented and are historically verifiable.

To keep saying that there was no contemporary record of Christ is simply incorrect.

Everything in this post is a lie.

Really?

I am torn between pointing out that when you referred to "this post" it was to itself, creating a paradoxical loop and between wanting to advise you to never be part of a jury because you would never find enough evidence to convict.

The evidence is there, it fills books and museums.

THE OLDEST SECULAR ACCOUNTS & HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ON THE EXISTANCE OF JESUS OF NAZARETH
1. Cornelius Tacitus (AD55-120) Roman historian: Most acclaimed works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals cover the period from Augustus Caesar's death in AD14 to the death of the Emperor Nero in AD68, while the Histories begin after Nero's death and proceed to the reign of Domitian in AD96. In the Annals, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome. See Annals XV,44: But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumour, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." (The misspelling of Christ as "Christus" was a common error made by pagan writers). It is interesting that Pilate is not mentioned in any other pagan document which has survived. It is an irony of history that the only surviving reference to him in a pagan document mentions him because of the sentence of death he passed on Jesus the Messiah.

2. Suetonius: Roman historian and court official during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian. Suetonius wrote in his Life of Claudius: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." (Life of Claudius 25.4). Chrestus is a misspelling of Christus; the spelling probably assumes that the spelling of Jesus' title "Christos" was the same as ate ChiRho symbol which was also a literary device which indicated a quote worthy of note = the 'chrestus" symbol. Claudius' expulsion of the Christians form Rome is mentioned in Acts 18:2. This event took place in 49AD. In his work Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius also wrote: "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." Assuming Jesus was crucified in the early thirties, Suetonius places Christians in the Roman capital less than 20 years later and he reports that they were suffering for their faith and dying for their conviction that Jesus had really lived, died and that He had risen from the dead!

3. Pliny the Younger: Roman governor in Bithynia AD112 wrote to Emperor Trajan to seek advice as to how to treat the Christians. He recounts that he had been killing Christian men, women, and children. He is concerned that so many have chosen death over simply bowing down to a statue of the emperor or being made to "curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do." (Epistles X, 96)

4. Tallus: Tallus was a secular historian who (circa AD52) wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean from the Trojan War to his own time. The document no longer exists but it was quoted by other writers like the Christian, Julius Africanus, who wrote around AD221. He quotes Tallus' comments about the darkness that enveloped the land during the late afternoon hours when Jesus died on the cross. Julius wrote: Tallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun’ unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died." Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1 The importance of Tallus' comments is that the reference shows that the Gospel account of the darkness that fell across the earth during Christ's crucifixion was well known and required a naturalistic explanation from non-Christians.

5. Phlegon: Julius Africanus also quoted another secular scholar whose works are now lost. Phlegon wrote a history called Chronicles. Phlegon also comments on the darkness at the time of Christ's crucifixion: "During the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon." Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1
(The 3rd century Christian apologist Origen also references Phlegon's record of this event in his work Celsum, 2.14,33,59 as does the 6th century writer Philopon (De.opif.mund. II, 21.

6. Mara Bar-Serapion: Syrian stoic philosopher who wrote a letter from prison to his son circa 70AD. He compares Jesus to the philosophers Socrates and Pythagoras.

7. Josephus ben Mattathias (also known as Flavius Josephus): 37-100AD, Jewish priest, general and historian. He wrote two great works of Jewish history: The Jewish War, written in the early 70's and Jewish Antiquities, which was finished about AD94. In his work, Jewish Antiquities, there is a passage that has created heated debate among scholars for many decades: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." Antiquities, XVIII, 33

8. Lucian of Samosate: Greek satirist latter half of 2nd century spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians but never argued that Jesus never existed. "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day’ the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account..." The Death of Peregrine, 11-13

9. The Babylonian Talmud: "It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for 40 days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favour let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favour, they hanged him on the eve of Passover." Sanhedrin 43a; df.t.Sanh. 10:11; y. Sanh. 7:12; Tg. Esther 7:9 (Another version of this text reads: "Yeshu the Nazarene." Yeshu or Yehoshua is Hebrew (or Aramaic) for Jesus'in English this name is also translated "Joshua." The Old Testament hero bore the same name as Jesus the Messiah. "Hanged" is another way of referring to a crucifixion; see Luke 23:39 and Galatians 3:13

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

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..

Understanding the verses and taking them literally are two different things.

What crucifixion? There's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived or was crucified and no one who wrote any of the words attributed to Jesus lived when he allegedly lived or witnessed him saying anything.

All of the new testament was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. So every book of the New Testament was written in less than 37 years after the Crucifixion.

All people, places and events mentioned are historically verified exactly as mentioned in the New Testament.

There are thousands of documents and fragments supporting the Gospel texts, some of them secular and anti-Christian.

The lives, exploits and deaths of the Disciples (who were there with Jesus in person) were documented and are historically verifiable.

To keep saying that there was no contemporary record of Christ is simply incorrect.

Everything in this post is a lie.

Really?

I am torn between pointing out that when you referred to "this post" it was to itself, creating a paradoxical loop and between wanting to advise you to never be part of a jury because you would never find enough evidence to convict.

The evidence is there, it fills books and museums.

Yeah, sure. You just can't cite any of it.

a reply to: chr0naut

Apparently, you are oblivious to the fact that none of the people you named lived when Jesus allegedly lived and thus could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Therefore, they can not possibly provide contemporaneous documentation of Jesus. Your written source, the Babylonian Talmud, was also not written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived and thus could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Therefore, it can not possibly provide contemporaneous documentation of Jesus.

If you do not understand that one has to be alive to witness someone living, I don't what I can say to convince you.

Here is a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament." Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

"Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . ."

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother." And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . . condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.[18] But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200. The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus. So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do. If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching. Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

Evidence from Lucian

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

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..

Understanding the verses and taking them literally are two different things.

What crucifixion? There's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived or was crucified and no one who wrote any of the words attributed to Jesus lived when he allegedly lived or witnessed him saying anything.

All of the new testament was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. So every book of the New Testament was written in less than 37 years after the Crucifixion.

All people, places and events mentioned are historically verified exactly as mentioned in the New Testament.

There are thousands of documents and fragments supporting the Gospel texts, some of them secular and anti-Christian.

The lives, exploits and deaths of the Disciples (who were there with Jesus in person) were documented and are historically verifiable.

To keep saying that there was no contemporary record of Christ is simply incorrect.

Everything in this post is a lie.

Really?

I am torn between pointing out that when you referred to "this post" it was to itself, creating a paradoxical loop and between wanting to advise you to never be part of a jury because you would never find enough evidence to convict.

The evidence is there, it fills books and museums.

Yeah, sure. You just can't cite any of it.

OK, where's yours?

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: chr0naut

Apparently, you are oblivious to the fact that none of the people you named lived when Jesus allegedly lived and thus could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Therefore, they can not possibly provide contemporaneous documentation of Jesus. Your written source, the Babylonian Talmud, was also not written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived and thus could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Therefore, it can not possibly provide contemporaneous documentation of Jesus.

If you do not understand that one has to be alive to witness someone living, I don't what I can say to convince you.

So, by your reasoning, because there is no one alive who lived through the First World War, then it obviously didn't happen!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

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..

Understanding the verses and taking them literally are two different things.



What crucifixion? There's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived or was crucified and no one who wrote any of the words attributed to Jesus lived when he allegedly lived or witnessed him saying anything.

All of the new testament was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. So every book of the New Testament was written in less than 37 years after the Crucifixion.



All people, places and events mentioned are historically verified exactly as mentioned in the New Testament.



There are thousands of documents and fragments supporting the Gospel texts, some of them secular and anti-Christian.



The lives, exploits and deaths of the Disciples (who were there with Jesus in person) were documented and are historically verifiable.



To keep saying that there was no contemporary record of Christ is simply incorrect.

Everything in this post is a lie.

Really?



I am torn between pointing out that when you referred to "this post" it was to itself, creating a paradoxical loop and between wanting to advise you to never be part of a jury because you would never find enough evidence to convict.



The evidence is there, it fills books and museums.

I hope by reading this i am not now myself caught up in some fancy loop.

a reply to: rokkuman

The paradox of a god on the cross.

If anything it was a ploy, an act of a bored God, conceived in order to get people to renounce the flesh in favor of the spirit.

a reply to: chr0naut

Josephus is unusable

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...

Tacitus is heresay and misunderstood.

The Talmud has been edited and censored by Christians, while Jewish scholars continually deny that the Talmud mention Jesus Christ at all. There were, after all, many, many, many people named Jesus. One such one, who fits the description of the Talmud, is Jesus the Sorcerer from Acts of the New Testament.

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus Christ ever existed at all. But IF he did, he wasn't crucified in 33 AD, because John the Baptist, who WAS a real person didn't die till 36 CE and Pontius Pilate retired as Prefect in 37CE. So, Jesus, if he existed he HAD to have been crucified in 37CE.

a reply to: Tangerine

No matter how hard a fruit tries it can not change history but a group of fruits can distort the events and even attemp to rewrite history as it truely is.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

renounce the flesh in favor of the spirit.

Actually that part is true and is exactly the reason satan likes to fuel the athiest and spiritual movements.

There is life after death and choices today are us choosing our master in the future but either way there is masters that will own us and do.

a reply to: deadeyedick

No matter how hard a fruit tries it can not change history but a group of fruits can distort the events and even attemp to rewrite history as it truely is.

Such is the nature of the Bible and the early Christian fruits who wrote it!

Having gathered therefore from the matters mentioned here and there by them whatever we consider important for the present work, and having plucked like flowers from a meadow the appropriate passages from ancient writers, we shall endeavor to embody the whole in an historical narrative
Eusebius
www.newadvent.org...

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine

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..

Understanding the verses and taking them literally are two different things.

What crucifixion? There's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived or was crucified and no one who wrote any of the words attributed to Jesus lived when he allegedly lived or witnessed him saying anything.

All of the new testament was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. So every book of the New Testament was written in less than 37 years after the Crucifixion.

All people, places and events mentioned are historically verified exactly as mentioned in the New Testament.

There are thousands of documents and fragments supporting the Gospel texts, some of them secular and anti-Christian.

The lives, exploits and deaths of the Disciples (who were there with Jesus in person) were documented and are historically verifiable.

To keep saying that there was no contemporary record of Christ is simply incorrect.

Everything in this post is a lie.

Really?

I am torn between pointing out that when you referred to "this post" it was to itself, creating a paradoxical loop and between wanting to advise you to never be part of a jury because you would never find enough evidence to convict.

The evidence is there, it fills books and museums.

Yeah, sure. You just can't cite any of it.

OK, where's yours?

My what?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: chr0naut

Apparently, you are oblivious to the fact that none of the people you named lived when Jesus allegedly lived and thus could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Therefore, they can not possibly provide contemporaneous documentation of Jesus. Your written source, the Babylonian Talmud, was also not written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived and thus could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Therefore, it can not possibly provide contemporaneous documentation of Jesus.

If you do not understand that one has to be alive to witness someone living, I don't what I can say to convince you.

So, by your reasoning, because there is no one alive who lived through the First World War, then it obviously didn't happen!

No. People who were alive during the First World War and witnessed it happening documented it. Historians rely on their first-hand accounts.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Josephus is unusable

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...

Tacitus is heresay and misunderstood.

The Talmud has been edited and censored by Christians, while Jewish scholars continually deny that the Talmud mention Jesus Christ at all. There were, after all, many, many, many people named Jesus. One such one, who fits the description of the Talmud, is Jesus the Sorcerer from Acts of the New Testament.

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus Christ ever existed at all. But IF he did, he wasn't crucified in 33 AD, because John the Baptist, who WAS a real person didn't die till 36 CE and Pontius Pilate retired as Prefect in 37CE. So, Jesus, if he existed he HAD to have been crucified in 37CE.

It doesn't matter an iota what Josephus said or didn't say about Jesus or whether Tacitus is misunderstood. Neither lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus living. Their writings (or writings attributed to them) are immaterial in this regard.

It doesn't matter whether the Talmud has been edited. It wasn't written by anyone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived.

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.

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.

Accept that fact? The absence of fact is precisely the problem. When people make a claim of fact, it's up to them to prove it. Many believers seem to be incapable of distinguishing between belief and fact. When this is pointed out to them, they wig out.

What is so unfulfilling in the lives of some believers that they pound on doors and stop people in public to proselytize to them?

a reply to: Tangerine

You are bent

Proof or lack of proof in no way can change the fact but it can only convince.

I cooked today but i have no evidence that it happened. My lack of evidence can not change what i done.

Come back to earth