NO Unproved Blood Sacrifices!

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: WarminIndy
Jesus crucified 33 AD? Am I the only person here that doesn't feel that's historically correct. Lol

Say whatever date you want, but it was 40 years before the fall of Jerusalem..which historically happened as well.

Jesus referred to Herod's Temple, which was what the Romans sacked. Are you disputing the historicity of Herod's Temple? Are you disputing the fall of Jerusalem?

First Century....a lot happened then.

Roman Persecution of Christians

Should we now debate the fact that historically, the Romans forced Christians to perform sacrifices under penalty of death? Which is the death cult here?

Christianity was punishable by death during this era, yet pardon was available to those willing to renounce their religion by offering sacrifice to the emperor or Roman gods. The offering of sacrifices became a particularly contentious issue and a kind of religious litmus test. Honoring Rome's gods and goddesses was considered a civic obligation and, at times, a law.

It was a ROMAN law to perform sacrifices.

300 years, let's see that again 300, just to get that right, 300 years the Christians were persecuted all over the Roman empire. They were burned, used as lamps, thrown to lions, beaten, hung, crucified, chained, imprisoned...any torture that could be thought of Christians went through it.

And you call us the death cult.

So tell us, how does D-Day compare? Yes, D-Day was an extraordinary event that cost many lives and saved more, but it didn't take 300 years.

Might I remind you exactly what religions the Romans followed at the time...the death cult of the Emperor was first, then every idol was sacrificed to. Venus, death cult, Nike, death cult, Dionysius, death cult, Mars, death cult....EVERY cult that had an idol, the Christians were forced to sacrifice to or be killed.

Perpetua and Felicity were killed...for being Christian.

Was it then OK for the Romans to do this for all of their gods, in the names of their god? Throwing blood upon the altars of their gods?

a reply to: JUhrman

Exodus 13:2. Enough said. It is clearly you who lacks the info so please don't stoop to those levels of debate.

Was Abraham not told to sacrafice his child either?. We will end it there cos you won't even look for references yourself before typing what you feel.

I also didn't realise you meant only one particular type of sacrafice.

a reply to: WarminIndy
I could be having a really bad day here but what does AD stand for please?

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: JUhrman

Exodus 13:2. Enough said. It is clearly you who lacks the info so please don't stoop to those levels of debate.

Was Abraham not told to sacrafice his child either?. We will end it there cos you won't even look for references yourself before typing what you feel.

Dude, it's the OT.

Do you really see Christians around you obeying to the god of the OT? Like seriously? You really speak about Christians like you never really talked to one...

Also do you seriously not know the difference between "sanctify to me" and "sacrifice to me"?

originally posted by: rossacus
I also didn't realise you meant only one particular type of sacrafice.

How does making sacrifice (like fasting, remaining a virgin) equates with "death cult". Please explain your logic because you are probably the only person I know thinking like that.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: WarminIndy
I could be having a really bad day here but what does AD stand for please?

Can't you use google if you don't know the basic meaning of AD and BC?


At this point, given all your answers, I'm seriously wondering if you are trolling or not.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: WarminIndy
I could be having a really bad day here but what does AD stand for please?

Anno Dominus...

You thought I should say C.E.?

Well, this Common Era is ERA, that is common.

e·ra ˈirə,ˈerə/ noun noun: era; plural noun: eras a long and distinct period of history with a particular feature or characteristic. "his death marked the end of an era" synonyms: epoch, age, period, phase, time, span, eon; generation "the Roosevelt era" a system of chronology dating from a particular noteworthy event. "the dawn of the Christian era" synonyms: epoch, age, period, phase, time, span, eon; generation "the Roosevelt era" Geology a major division of time that is a subdivision of an eon and is itself subdivided into periods. "the Mesozoic era"

THIS Era could commonly go on for a long time.

Either use the term correctly when talking about dates or don't use it at all. THIS Common Era is not common for the First Century.

THIS Common Era will not be common for 200 years from now.

THIS Common Era was not the same era as 200 years ago.

A.D., I used it correctly, because it was referring to a specific date, your scholars who use the words Common Era is mere soft language.

So if you want to use the words Common Era...THIS is 2015 Anno Domini of the Christian Era.

Perhaps you can find another term to satisfy your own need for time keeping. Perhaps you can call this your own Year 40 of the Skeptic Era?

Today is
Sivan 29, 5775 on the Hebrew Calendar
ath-thalatha': 28. Shaban 1436 in Islam
Ren-Wu(Horse) (5th month), (1) 4713 in China (also year of the sheep)
Ardibehesht (Bahman) in Zoroastrianism

You can choose whatever word you wish to call today on your own calendar. I chose A.D. because I am a Christian. Therefore, Anno Domini is correct for me.

a reply to: WarminIndy

In all that, you forgot the rabbis who have the actual documented evidence.

What are you going on about?

Awen parroted the same old tired lie that "no serious scholar has EVER tried to claim that Jesus never existed." That's a blatant lie.

If you Christians can't even acknowledge that simple truth, that there are serious scholars that doubt the historicity of Jesus Christ, how are we supposed to have any kind of intelligent and honest conversation about the religion and its demands on its adherants?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

In all that, you forgot the rabbis who have the actual documented evidence.

What are you going on about?

Awen parroted the same old tired lie that "no serious scholar has EVER tried to claim that Jesus never existed." That's a blatant lie.

If you Christians can't even acknowledge that simple truth, that there are serious scholars that doubt the historicity of Jesus Christ, how are we supposed to have any kind of intelligent and honest conversation about the religion and its demands on its adherants?

Hmmm, so you deny the historicity of every event prior to Jesus and immediately after?

Where does the word Christian come from?

Christians were in the First Century in Rome, their name comes from.........?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Stop trying to derail this thread! This thread is about "unproven sacrifices". It's absolutely appropriate to point out that not only is the sacrifice that Jesus supposedly made for mankind unproven, the man's very existence is yet unproven!

If you want to analyze the origin of the word Christian, make a new thread!

originally posted by: windword
It's absolutely appropriate to point out that not only is the sacrifice that Jesus supposedly made for mankind unproven, the man's very existence is yet unproven!

Even if it was all a myth, then it would be like most religions; using myths and metaphors about gods and heroes to teach morals and ethics.

I don't see how this is bad and how it makes Christian religion a death cult. Especially since the death of Jesus is almost irrelevant next to his teachings.

Christians are not asked to focus on Jesus death, but on being a good person.

I feel like a lot of people in this thread are confusing having a discussion about a religion and expressing their personal issues with said religion. I too don't like religious fundies and the other cons of religions. It doesn't mean I will start inventing things like calling Christian faith a "death cult" to comfort me in my opinion about religions.

a reply to: JUhrman

Even if it was all a myth, then it would be like most religions; using myths and metaphors about gods and heroes to teach morals and ethics.

When Christians, or anyone, takes biblical stories literally, and not allegorically, the morals and ethics are that are being passed down are misinterpreted.

I don't see how this is bad and how it makes Christian religion a death cult. Especially since the death of Jesus is almost irrelevant next to his teachings.

I agree with you, but unfortunately, most Christians believe that the only purpose for Jesus' actual miraculous visit to earth was to die, and it's through his death that all are saved. They preach that we are to "pick up our cross" and die ourselves, to Christ. That makes Christianity a death cult.

Another unhealthy and deathly tradition of Christianity is looking forward to the destruction of and the end of the world, Armageddon, and when all the sinners who didn't accept Jesus as their personal savior, will be thrown into the bowels of Hell. It could happen at any time now!

originally posted by: windword
When Christians, or anyone, takes biblical stories literally, and not allegorically, the morals and ethics are that are being passed down are misinterpreted.

Literalism in Christian faith is a modern and American invention. Almost no one excepted American Christian fundamentalists read the bible literally.

Actually almost all the theological literature since the first Church fathers is about how to interpret the texts correctly, i.e.: not literally, to get the gist of the spiritual teachings.

originally posted by: windword
most Christians believe that the only purpose for Jesus' actual miraculous visit to earth was to die, and it's through his death that all are saved. They preach that we are to "pick up our cross" and die ourselves, to Christ. That makes Christianity a death cult.

Another unhealthy and deathly tradition of Christianity is looking forward to the destruction of and the end of the world, Armageddon, and when all the sinners who didn't accept Jesus as their personal savior, will be thrown into the bowels of Hell. It could happen at any time now!

I disagree most Christian are not like this.

I met such Christians only exclusively within the US.

The "born-again" tradition and obsession with the end-times is typically American, mostly among evangelical/pentecostal cults, which are by definition fundamentalists and mostly literalists.

They probably represent less than 1 Christian over 10 worldwide.

I guess you are Americans and thus mostly see Christians through that deformed lens. I can't blame you but you need to understand this is not what most Christians believe. Most Christians are progressive, don't read the bible literally, don't believe in a place called hell, have no problems with science/evolution etc, don't go to Church and mostly see christian faith as a humanist spirituality/philosophy.

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: windword
When Christians, or anyone, takes biblical stories literally, and not allegorically, the morals and ethics are that are being passed down are misinterpreted.

Literalism in Christian faith is a modern and American invention. Almost no one excepted American Christian fundamentalists read the bible literally.

Actually almost all the theological literature since the first Church fathers is about how to interpret the texts correctly, i.e.: not literally, to get the gist of the spiritual teachings.

And politics is the art of "interpreting" the constitution, amirite?

a reply to: JUhrman

I guess you are Americans and thus mostly see Christians through that deformed lens.

Yep! You got me. Guilty as charged. Unfortunately, American politics are steeped in religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism is the reason George W Bush gave for knocking out Saddam Hussein.

These fundamental literalists want Creationism taught in public schools, the 10 Commandments represented in court houses, they want special rights to discriminate against their own brethren, dictate reproductive rights for women, etc., etc., etc........

Then of course, we've got the Vatican, who would rather have women sacrifice themselves and die in childbirth than use birth control, rather have people die of AIDS then condone the use of condoms.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

Stop trying to derail this thread! This thread is about "unproven sacrifices". It's absolutely appropriate to point out that not only is the sacrifice that Jesus supposedly made for mankind unproven, the man's very existence is yet unproven!

If you want to analyze the origin of the word Christian, make a new thread!

Ah, but the problem is that you said that His existence was unproven despite all the evidence.

The question is valid because it stays on topic, the very name Christian didn't just come in the fourth century, it was evident in ALL historic records to have been around since the first century. And that is the basis for the argument.

Since Jesus DID exist, those first Christians being called from Him, without Christ myths that the Roman documents could have easily disproven, but can't, therefore, because Jesus IS proven to have existed defacto by followers of His name and His mission, then it can no longer be called a myth.

And now, that truth must be examined because the OP used D-Day as an example of sacrifice comparing it to Jesus, that you brought up in the thread, then it is to be explored.

The mere fact that Christianity came into existence in the first century, proven by ALL historical documents relating to Christianity, from the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians AND Jewish sources, that Nero did accuse Christians, proven, then Tacitus is right, Christianity came from Christus and WAS NOT known as a Roman, Persian, Egyptian or Greek deity.

HAD the Romans thought Jesus was merely another form of their own worship, they would not have persecuted Christians. Not one single Roman, Greek, Persian or Egyptian record claims Jesus to have been related to any of their gods. And yet, Christianity of the first century proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus existed.

Not one of your secular scholars are willing to admit to you that Christianity never existed in the first century, because to do so would destroy their own argument, and yet, not one single secular scholar ever denies the first century Christians, because to do so would show their own intellectual dishonesty.

We are then left with this, if you cannot say where the term Christian comes from, even though ALL sources say so, then you would have to prove just when Christianity came into existence.

Are you willing to go against historical evidence?

PBS on Christianity
Historian.net
Coptic Christianity
Copts Through the Ages
Coptic Papyrus Codices
The Map of History, First Century Christian Centuries

Now that it is historically proven that there were Christians in the first century, the same century in which Jesus was crucified, and that EVERY Christian was known as a follower of Jesus that was never known as a Roman, Greek, Egyptian or Persian deity, we can discuss now whether or not His was a true sacrifice, but EVERY first century Christian believed it.

You brought the existence of Jesus forward again, you made it part of the discussion, so we are on topic.

Is it your belief that Christianity didn't exist until Constantine?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Nonsense. There is zero evidence, outside the Bible, for the existence of the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth. The term "Christian" does nothing to prove his existence, one way or the other.

His supposed sacrifice, as well as his very existence are unproven.

Is it your belief that Christianity didn't exist until Constantine?

There have been countless religions based on mythology and allegory. Christianity it no different.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

Nonsense. There is zero evidence, outside the Bible, for the existence of the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth. The term "Christian" does nothing to prove his existence, one way or the other.

His supposed sacrifice, as well as his very existence are unproven.

Is it your belief that Christianity didn't exist until Constantine?

There have been countless religions based on mythology and allegory. Christianity it no different.

Countless mythologies does not disprove any of them at all.

Yes, the evidence for Jesus is overwhelming. It doesn't cease to be overwhelming because you choose to ignore it. The fact is, you have been presented with sources outside the Bible and those sources are historically accepted as evidence.

But if you want to say those are myths of Jesus, then you are going to have to explain to us why the non-Christian sources would make up a religion they didn't follow.

The Romans in the first century created a religion just so they could persecute a bunch of people for no reason? The Jews created a religion that denies their own future belief in a Messiah and then said those Christians were myths?

What does it matter to you that Jesus existed or not, when you don't even believe in the Bible to begin with? What difference does it make to you?

Jesus did exist, what changes anything for you? You could say He was not the Messiah, that's up to you. But the fact is, overwhelming evidence outside the Bible or Christianity proves it. There has been no doubt for 2,000 years. Modern scholars choosing to ignore the evidence of persecutions of Christians changes nothing historically.

If you say that Christianity did not exist prior to Constantine, what you are then left with is explaining the documents of the Romans who were pagans that simply targeted a group of people that had no religion at all.

And if there were no Christians then, there can be no Christians now, it would be impossible for Christianity to just suddenly appear on the later stages of history without some beginning.

The belief in Jesus as Messiah and Savior has not changed for 2,000 years. Christianity itself proves it.

You may choose to not believe in Jesus, but the one thing you cannot honestly or intellectually do is ignore the fact that since 2,000 years ago, Christians have been saying the same thing. Even the Gnostics believed that Jesus existed, even though they say His message was Gnostic. They have to admit that even the Gnostics knew Jesus existed...see, like this...no Jesus means no Gnostic texts....but the Gnostic texts themselves say Jesus existed.

And since the Gnostic texts admit Jesus existed, as well as Judas, Peter, Philip and Mary Magdalene, then you can't use the Nag Hammadi any more, because the Nag Hammadi codexes even say Jesus existed.

Copts are the most ancient of Christianity, their records are preserved for 2,000 years. Are you saying the Copts were wrong then? Copts are from Egypt. Why didn't the Copts relate Jesus with any other deity?

Does it make a difference to you that Jesus existed? You don't have to believe He is the Son of God, born of a virgin. That's up for Christians to believe, if you don't it doesn't matter.

So how would it change anything for you? By admitting Jesus existed historically doesn't mean that you have to accept anything else about Him. Unless to you it would mean that, but it is possible to say yes, the man existed without having to believe anything else about Him.

We have 2,000 years of the same message, records, documents both secular and religious that has never wavered in the fact that the earliest Christian tradition has not changed. Who then would you try to convince?

The Jews say yes, and what would be the purpose for them admitting it? They have in their Talmud (not even Biblical) the trial of Jesus. Their rabbis admit it, so their own court records not in the Bible should be viewed as the same as the Bible?

No serious Jewish person would even say the Talmud is scripture, because it is just records of courts and opinions. It's not the Bible, so then why think the Jews would make up a story in support of a Jesus that they didn't want to believe in the first place?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Yes, the evidence for Jesus is overwhelming.

Overwhelmingly absent!

But if you want to say those are myths of Jesus, then you are going to have to explain to us why the non-Christian sources would make up a religion they didn't follow.

NO! You're just trying to derail this thread. We've got tons of threads, here on ATS, discussing the (lack of) historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, that go on for very many pages, already going over this stuff. You just want to truck it out all over again to distract the discussion of "unproven sacrifice".

The supposed sacrifice of the biblical character of Jesus of Nazareth is unproven, as is the very existence of such a character.

'Jesus NEVER existed': Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a

Is there evidence that Jesus Christ existed?

Why is there no real proof of Jesus existing outside of biblical references?

Countless mythologies does not disprove any of them at all.

You completely miss the point. It's not about proving mythical stories are true, it's about understanding the lessons the myths are trying to get through to you!

You're all caught up proving that Jesus really was a real person, who bled and suffered and died for the sins of the world, and that the world needs to believe that, or else! You miss the essence of the message that the Bible and the biblical Jesus was trying to tell.

It's not truly clear enough that the historical Jesus of Nazareth existed; there's nothing resembling an "AHA!" moment of (real, undisputed) proof. However, if he really did exist in some at least noteworthy form, why is the story told about him (that was written long enough after his alleged death) so strikingly similar to that of the Egyptian god Horus, written 3000 years earlier? Or that's assuming the basic facts about the Horus story -- also a resurrected god-man, for example -- are true. Horus allegedly brought a man named El-Azur-Us back from death, whereas Jesus allegedly brought LAZARUS back in the same way. That's practically an anagram name.

Back on topic, or properly: I still see nothing not only convincing, but not even compelling enough against my initial assertion that all types of merely BELIEVED -- no real or absolute proof by definition -- "greater good" that come from death/blood sacrifice are not morally or mentally-emotionally sound, and even more definitely not valid in political influence. If only...