Jesus Died On the Cross For Our Sins.. WHERE is the logic?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by sparky31

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by sparky31

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sparky31

 

I don't agree with your first statement, not at all.

well explain to me why?and exactly what statement your talking about.

The statement you made about no evidence for.

ok give me conclusive evidence he exists or any of it is true.

Not even atheist historians deny He existed.

i,m not an atheist historian tho so i still need evidence that this person came from some person who is suppose to be god who created everything when even scientists aren,t believing in a god anymore

mean scientists have us coming from a big bang which to me is still how do you get something from nothing?

should except that for the foreseeable future we are never going to know how we got here.

reply to post by adjensen

Well, idiots like Richard Carrier do.

Why do you think that Richard Carrier is an idiot? Because he doesn't agree with your teachers?

Let's not forget Joseph Atwell

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

Well, idiots like Richard Carrier do.

Why do you think that Richard Carrier is an idiot? Because he doesn't agree with your teachers?

No, because as an academically trained historian, I can see where he is not one, despite what his diploma claims. As I said, I have no idea why Columbia ever gave him a degree.

reply to post by adjensen


So you have nothing substantial to criticise? That's what I thought.

reply to post by sparky31


Are you asking me to put 10+ years of apologetics research into a post for you? I mean what do you want from me? If you really wanted to know any of this there is an abundance of sources available at your fingertips.

reply to post by windword


Well, I never said "all". I was speaking of two very notable ones in particular.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

So you have nothing substantial to criticise? That's what I thought.

Are you an historian? My academic criticism of him is of no bearing if you are not.

However, since you asked, I will say that there is sufficient Christian, non-Christian and anti-Christian historical evidence to demonstrate that someone existed in the First Century whose teachings and/or existence resulted in a religious movement now referred to as Christianity.

Whether Christ was "God" or the "son of God" or something else is debatable, but his historical existence is not. As NOTurTypical pointed out, even atheist or agnostic scholars such as Bart Ehrman recognize that someone who fits the description of Christ existed, the question is who he really was.

The last time we chatted, you were suggesting that Christ taught reincarnation -- are you now saying that you were wrong previously, and that there was no Christ who taught reincarnation? Or are you simply jumping on the bandwagon of anyone who is contrary to Christianity?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword

 

Well, I never said "all". I was speaking of two very notable ones in particular.

You might as well have.

Not even atheist historians deny He existed.

When the great sacrifice had been consummated, Christ ascended on high, refusing the adoration of angels until he had presented the request, "I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am."(John 17:24) Then with inexpressible love and power came forth the answer from the Father's throne, "Let all the angels of God worship him."(Hebrews 1:6) Not a stain rested upon Jesus. His humiliation ended, his sacrifice completed, there was given until him a name that is above every name.

Now the guilt of Satan stood forth without excuse. he had revealed his true character as a liar and a murderer. It was seen that the very same spirit with which he ruled the children of men, who were under his power, he would have manifested had he been permitted to control the inhabitants of Heaven. He had claimed that the transgression of God's law would bring liberty and exaltation; but it was seen to result in bondage and degradation.

Satan's lying charges against the divine character and government appeared in their true light. He had accused God of seeking merely the exaltation of himself in requiring submission and obedience from his creatures, and had declared that while the Creator exacted self-denial from all others, he himself practiced no self-denial, and made no sacrifice. Now it was seen that for the salvation of a fallen and sinful race, the Ruler of the universe had made the greatest sacrifice which love could make; for "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself."(2Cor.5:19) It was seen, also, that while Lucifer had opened the door for the entrance of sin, by his desire for honor and supremacy, Christ had, in order to destroy sin, humbled himself, and become obedient unto death.

God had manifested his abhorrence of the principles of rebellion. All Heaven saw his justice revealed, both in the condemnation of Satan and in the redemption of man. Lucifer had declared that if the law of God was changeless, and its penalty could not be remitted, every transgressor must be forever debarred from the Creator's favor. He had claimed that the sinful race were placed beyond redemption, and were therefore his rightful prey. But the death of Christ was an argument in man's behalf that could not be overthrown. The penalty of the law fell upon him who was equal with God, and man was free to accept the righteousness of Christ, and by a life of penitence and humiliation to triumph, as the Son of God had triumphed, over the power of Satan. Thus God is just, and yet the justifier of all who believe in Jesus.

In the final execution of the Judgment it will be seen that no cause for sin exists. When the Judge of all the earth shall demand of Satan, "Why hast thou rebelled against me, and robbed me of the subjects of my kingdom?" the originator of evil can render no excuse. Every mouth will be stopped, and all the hosts of rebellion will be speechless.

The cross of Calvary, while it declares the law immutable, proclaims to the universe that the wages of sin is death. In the Saviour's expiring cry, "It is finish," the death-knell of Satan was rung. The great controversy which had been so long in progress was then decided, and the final eradication of evil was made certain. The Son of God passed through the portals of the tomb, that "through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil."(Hebrews 2:14)

After Jesus ascended to Heaven: They are eager to celebrate His triumph and to glorify their King. But He waves them back. Not yet; He cannot now receive the coronet of glory and the royal robe. He enters into the presence of His Father. He points to His wounded head, the pierced side, the marred feet; He lifts his hands, bearing the print of nails. he points to the tokens of His triumph: He presents to God the wave sheaf, those raised with Him as representatives of that great multitude who shall come forth from the grave at His second coming.

He approaches the Father, with whom there is joy over one sinner that repents; who rejoices over one with singing. Before the foundations of the earth were laid, the Father and the Son had united in a covenant to redeem man if he should be overcome by Satan. They had clasped Their hands in a solemn pledge that Christ should become the surety for the human race. This pledge Christ has fulfilled. When upon the cross He cried out, "It is finished," He addressed the Father. The compact had been fully carried out. Now He declares: Father, it is finished. I have done They will, O My God. I have completed the work of redemption. If They justice is satisfied, "I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am."(John 19:30; 17:24)

reply to post by adjensen

Are you an historian? My academic criticism of him is of no bearing if you are not.

I am perfectly capable of judging for myself any information presented and fact checking for myself. Dismissing me or anyone else for not having critical thinking skill based on your opinion of yourself and your supposed higher intelligence betrays your lack of argument, and you tactic of personally insulting those who oppose your point of view.

However, since you asked, I will say that there is sufficient Christian, non-Christian and anti-Christian historical evidence to demonstrate that someone existed in the First Century whose teachings and/or existence resulted in a religious movement now referred to as Christianity.

There is no evidence outside of the Bible that proves the existence of the biblical Jesus.

Whether Christ was "God" or the "son of God" or something else is debatable, but his historical existence is not. As NOTurTypical pointed out, even atheist or agnostic scholars such as Bart Ehrman recognize that someone who fits the description of Christ existed, the question is who he really was. The last time we chatted, you were suggesting that Christ taught reincarnation -- are you now saying that you were wrong previously, and that there was no Christ who taught reincarnation? Or are you simply jumping on the bandwagon of anyone who is contrary to Christianity?

The biblical character of Jesus taught reincarnation. Whether or not the biblical character of Jesus really existed or not......I'm on the fence. But I'm knowledgeable enough in biblical stories to argue doctrinal theory.

(Continued) The voice of God is heard proclaiming that justice is satisfied. Satan is vanquished. Christ's toiling, struggling ones on earth are "accepted in the Beloved." (Eph. 1:6) Before the heavenly angels and the representatives of unfallen worlds, they are declared justified. Where He is, there His church shall be. "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." (Psalm 85:10) The Father's arms encircle His Son, and the word is given,"Let all the angels of God worship Hom." (Hebrews 1:6)

(This post and my post above were taken from two different books. Sorry about the length)

@ OP

Heres another twist...
According to Christians Jesus died as a "sin sacrifice" like in the way animals were sacrificed in the Old Testament... and then the Bible tells us that animal sin sacrifices would be restored in the future.

So just what was the point of Jesus dying a torturous death as a human sin sacrifice... if animal sin sacrifices are to be restored?

reply to post by windword


The two I had in mind when I said that still would apply to what I said. And the strongest proof of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth would be what historians call "hostile source attestation", in the Babylonian Talmuds. They never stated that He never existed, but that He was not the Messiah and that He was a magician.

reply to post by windword

Originally posted by windword
Also, not true. Outside of the Bible, there is no evidence of his death.

Actually nothing could be any further from the truth.

Nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed.

The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is practically indisputable and only a fool would argue otherwise.

This is a TON of information about the man we know as Jesus and all of it comes from witnesses who were HOSTILE to the truth claims of Christianity!

Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?

"Here is a fact: There is far more evidence for the existence of Jesus than for virtually anyone in ancient history. Anyone who peddles that “Christ-myth” theory, does NOT do so on the ground of historical evidence. The fact of Jesus Christ in history is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as is the fact of Julius Caesar. Get this straight. It is not historians who promote the “Christ-myth” notion. ...his alleged words and actions were documented by numerous people." LINK

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Well, The Babylonian Talmud wasn't complete until the 5th century.

Finally, there is the anonymous redactional layer, which constitutes just over half of the total text of the Babylonian Talmud and which frames the discussion of the rest. This framework, post-dating the statements of identified figures, introduces questions, often provides solutions, and, in general, controls the interpretation of the earlier sources. It was composed by the late-fifth/early-sixth centuries, no later than c. 542 when the Black Plague appeared in Byzantium and proceeded to ravage the region for two centuries.3

It was highly edited and subject to censor by the Catholic church, as well.

It is important to note that many of these quotations had been altered during the nearly three centuries of their transmission from the end of the classical period in the middle of the third century. The sources of the Babylonian Talmud, transmitted orally, were also subject to changes in wording, context, and, occasionally, substance

This video, The Empty Cross, is pretty convincing, in my opinion.

"Jesus died for our sins"; this statement is a misquote/misinterpretation, imo on purpose. The truth of the matter, and how it really is, is 'Jesus died because of your sins', and I dont mean your sins, I mean 'Jesus died because of the sins of those living back in his time and area, and those who killed him'. Jesus was a cultural, ideological,political,revolutionary, philosopher who was killed because those living during his time could not accept to conform to his ideals, which he claimed to be 'perfect, righteous, sinless, a heaven on earth', because people are and were unwilling to live in and create a perfect world for everyone, because people want to live in sin, jesus was killed. "Jesus died from our sins", not for them.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The Bible says that God the Father placed all our sin on His Son and He died for all our sin. So the Father punished the Son for all our sin. All throughout scripture God does things that don't make sense to us, but it says His ways are not our ways.

His ways sound Alien to me.

Hmmm..



So he did all that horrific torture stuff to his only son, and then left us to wallow in sin even further. We still have war, poverty, pestilence, famine, catastrophe, destruction, greed...

He should have had a bunch of sons, maybe one of them would have gotten this crucifixion thing done properly.

reply to post by Murgatroid


Look what I found from your link:

Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen (an early church theologian and scholar, born in Alexandria):

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)

“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)

“Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)

From these accounts, we can add something to our understand of Jesus and conclude that Jesus had the ability to accurately predict the future, was crucified under the reign of Tiberius Caesar and demonstrated his wounds after he was resurrected!

Origen was the man who taught about reincarnation, and one of the people this thread is based on. I wonder if your Christian site realizes who Origen was?

Would you consider Origen's word in this case but not on reincarnation?

I just wanted to point that out because I found it somewhat ironic and interesting. Not really a rebuttal, just thought I'd point it out.





Oops, I confused this thread with another one. The thread that was based on Origen's teachings is this one.

You already lost it at the title. There is nothing logical at all about Jesus' dying for us, it was not a logical choice, it was a choice out of love, is love ever logical?

Why was it on a cross and crucified? Because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, and had to follow some rules layed down for a sacrifice in atonement as layed out in Leviticus and all throughout the Bible.

Why did it have to be that certain way? Why didn't Jesus say "your forgiven" and have that work? It would work, but to be honest I really do not know. But as illogical as the sacrifice seems, it does have alot of logic and meaning behind it, its not completely random, its all layed out in the Bible.

On a final note, if your using logic to find the Lord, you wont find it, God seeks out the heart, the heart of all things is not logical. It doesn't mean to have no logic behind your research, but if logic is your main focus, than it will never make sense. good topic.

Originally posted by honested3
There is nothing logical at all about Jesus' dying for us, it was not a logical choice

But as illogical as the sacrifice seems, it does have alot of logic and meaning behind it

On a final note, if your using logic to find the Lord, you wont find it

What are you trying to say here? You basically just argued against yourself.