It's said Jesus' sacrificed himself to save us...

[Unification]

Still waiting for some evidence of a sacrifice having taken place...

Jesus said: I am the truth and the life. Therefore whatever is truth and whatever is in existence(conscious being's) is Jesus.

He never said that he's the myth and the life.

 

[Unification]

Jesus said: I am the truth and the life. Therefore whatever is truth and whatever is in existence(conscious being's) is Jesus.

He never said that he's the myth and the life.

That which is, which was, and is to come (truth and conscious life)
The Almighty: eternal. Conscious/spirit cannot die.

 

[Awoon]

He was "an immortal super-being" before he became a man, there was no gain in his humanity.
His humanity was for our gain.
The sacrifice was leaving glory, becoming a man, suffering and dying.
Coming back to life and returning to glory was his right from eternity past to eternity future.

[Jesus speaking of His life]
John 10:18 "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

Jesus' teaching was a waste of time. Christians only wanna be saved.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus' teaching was a waste of time. Christians only wanna be saved.

What is your problem bud? many of your replies resemble trolling. You OK?

Everything all right at home?

 

[Awoon]

What is your problem bud? many of your replies resemble trolling. You OK?

Everything all right at home?

You know why don't you apply to be a Moderator.

 

[George-ananda]

...but then it says in the bible that on the 3rd day he rose into heaven.


So where the hell is the sacrifice?

One might argue that he sacrificed his earthly body and yet...

"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." - Mark 14:38

So god clearly didn't think that much of the flesh to make losing it a sacrifice.

I think modern Christians are wise to not overly concern themselves with dogma that doesn't square with modern logic. It seems atheists like to hold Christians feet to the fire on certain ancient dogma. I think Christians need to focus on the fact that Jesus is real and the spirit flows through His image in their hearts. Jesus is about love; not theologian's dogma.

 

[Mycroft]

Jesus said....

Is not evidence.

 

[Vishvavajra]

A sacrifice is making an unwilling loss without any gain.

That's not how sacrifice has ever been used in a religious context. Quite the opposite on all counts.

Sorry, I meant Nazareth - for which there's no archeological evidence at all.

You can visit it today, so it's not as if it's a fictitious place. And there's archaeological finds there going back some 9000 years. The question is whether it existed as a town by that name in the 1st century CE. The archaeological evidence in that regard isn't so much nonexistent as inconclusive, as it's not always clear what originated in Nazareth or in nearby Sepphoris.

Historical attestation goes back to around 200 CE even if you don't count the Gospels, which indicate there was a town by that name at least a couple of decades earlier. And why invent a town or pick the name of one that had just been built that year? But it was a purely Jewish village, ostensibly poor, and not likely to have had a lot in the way of monumental architecture to begin with, so actually the dearth of archaeological finds so far isn't surprising. Nor is it the case that the entire area has been excavated.

The whole "Nazareth didn't exist" thing is a popular conspiracy theory, but it doesn't actually teach us anything useful.

 

[outhouse]

But it was a purely Jewish village, ostensibly poor, and not likely to have had a lot in the way of monumental architecture to begin with

Exactly. Single story fieldstone windowless housed, packed with mud and feces, lit by a single oil lamp and dirt floors where people lived like animals, and often with them.

. And why invent a town or pick the name of one that had just been built that year?

Yes! exactly.


Not only that, to me it takes a mountain of ignorance to think that 20,000 people moving into that geographic location, would not require satellite villages for its agrarian needs, knowing how many wagon trains it took weekly to feed the city.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Jesus said: I am the truth and the life. Therefore whatever is truth and whatever is in existence(conscious being's) is Jesus.

He never said that he's the myth and the life.

I don't think that's a defensible reading, even if we were to accept that that statement was authentically Jesus and not something the early church put into his mouth as a kind of doctrinal touchstone.

For one thing, "life" is a programmatic term of great import to early Christians and represents the perfection that the Christ heralds. Or put in other terms, salvation and resurrection. It's contrasted with "death," which is often used to describe the conventional existence of people who have yet to experience the perfection of the world in Christ. It's not referring to biological life or even to sapient life as such, but a mode of existence that Jesus exemplifies, being the one to lead others to it.

"I am the Path, the Truth, and the Life." The Path leads to the Truth, which in turn leads to the Life. It's a shorthand for a rather complex set of soteriological ideas (that appear to have been lost in their original form, considering how badly modern Christians have mangled it).

 

[Vishvavajra]

Not only that, to me it takes a mountain of ignorance to think that 20,000 people moving into that geographic location, would not require satellite villages for its agrarian needs, knowing how many wagon trains it took weekly to feed the city.

Also a good point. Every time you see the word city in an ancient context, it's best to think of it as metropolitan area. The walled city itself was not a self-sufficient entity. Ancients just took for granted that it would have little exurbs and satellite villages and sometimes even minor cities that got annexed into its field of influence.

There's a reason why the city is the chief locus of the state in ancient times, and it's not because they were super good at fitting everything behind a set of walls.

 

[Awoon]

That's not how sacrifice has ever been used in a religious context. Quite the opposite on all counts.


You can visit it today, so it's not as if it's a fictitious place. And there's archaeological finds there going back some 9000 years. The question is whether it existed as a town by that name in the 1st century CE. The archaeological evidence in that regard isn't so much nonexistent as inconclusive, as it's not always clear what originated in Nazareth or in nearby Sepphoris.

Historical attestation goes back to around 200 CE even if you don't count the Gospels, which indicate there was a town by that name at least a couple of decades earlier. And why invent a town or pick the name of one that had just been built that year? But it was a purely Jewish village, ostensibly poor, and not likely to have had a lot in the way of monumental architecture to begin with, so actually the dearth of archaeological finds so far isn't surprising. Nor is it the case that the entire area has been excavated.

The whole "Nazareth didn't exist" thing is a popular conspiracy theory, but it doesn't actually teach us anything useful.

The above is why apologist scholars and non have to sit down in a locked room for however long it takes and hash out the facts of 1st c Palestine, Rome, Greece, the rulers, the characters, the local languages area which are placed in the Bible once and for all time. The cultural idioms, allegories, slang, poetic prose, things written in stone must be determined and agreed upon to be relevant to the writers of the Bible and not some religious beliefs.

Humans can negotiate Atomic weapons treaties, surely they can figure out if the Bible and it's characters are historical beings without a doubt.

 

[outhouse]

Humans can negotiate Atomic weapons treaties, surely they can figure out if the Bible and it's characters are historical beings without a doubt.

To many grey areas, and an overall lack of evidence that can be used to paint a picture of the past with the clarity you desire.

 

[Awoon]

To many grey areas, and an overall lack of evidence that can be used to paint a picture of the past with the clarity you desire.

They gotta try. But I realize there would be $$$ winners and $$$ losers. So nothing is accomplished.

 

[outhouse]

There's a reason why the city is the chief locus of the state in ancient times, and it's not because they were super good at fitting everything behind a set of walls.

For me its great evidence of the Hellenistic division between the Aramaic peasant farmers.

The people of Sepphoris stood with Romans when the temple fell. As a Hellenistic client ruler would. It was a city of his people exploiting the Aramaic peasants who lived nearby.

Jonathon Reed has also found evidence of Judaism and less gentiles, but inly based on lack of pig bones. But yet stands behind the Hellenistic veneer.

I find importance here, because it sets up in context, Jesus reason for the disturbance in the temple.

 

[outhouse]

They gotta try. But I realize there would be $$$ winners and $$$ losers. So nothing is accomplished.

You have a bone to pick with theology not history.

 

[Vishvavajra]

The above is why apologist scholars and non have to sit down in a locked room for however long it takes and hash out the facts of 1st c Palestine, Rome, Greece, the rulers, the characters, the local languages area which are placed in the Bible once and for all time. The cultural idioms, allegories, slang, poetic prose, things written in stone must be determined and agreed upon to be relevant to the writers of the Bible and not some religious beliefs.

Humans can negotiate Atomic weapons treaties, surely they can figure out if the Bible and it's characters are historical beings without a doubt.

It's true that apologists need to come to the scholarly table, which is open to all. The problem is that many of them would rather keep those definitions fuzzy so that they can wiggle and equivocate their way out of things when backed into a corner. Scholars, by contrast, prefer clear operational definitions and methodologies and standards of evidence, since the point is to construct an objective view of things, not to seek converts (or prevent them). The problem really is that insofar as apologists do not operate as scholars, it's because they have fundamentally different and incompatible aims.

 

[Mycroft]

You can visit it today, so it's not as if it's a fictitious place. And there's archaeological finds there going back some 9000 years. The question is whether it existed as a town by that name in the 1st century CE. The archaeological evidence in that regard isn't so much nonexistent as inconclusive, as it's not always clear what originated in Nazareth or in nearby Sepphoris.

Yes, there is a Nazareth today. And if you go there, people will happily point to various 'biblically significant' spots for which no confirming evidence has ever been produced. My point was there was no Nazareth in the first century. It came later.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Yes, there is a Nazareth today. And if you go there, people will happily point to various 'biblically significant' spots for which no confirming evidence has ever been produced. My point was there was no Nazareth in the first century. It came later.

You don't know that. All you know is that the first non-Biblical historic evidence comes from the beginning of the 2nd century, which is not itself evidence that the town didn't exist in the 1st century. I don't have any evidence of your existence prior to today. Were you just born?

I'm not saying you should buy into every tourist attraction in Palestine, but you've gone too far in the other direction and are making positive statements for which there is no positive evidence.

 

[outhouse]

. My point was there was no Nazareth in the first century. It came later.

Nazareth was there. Its why people in the first century wrote about it. There was no reason to make it up.