Jesus sacrifice is completely pointless

[fantome profane]

As you know, the healing was important and a great way to Proselytize your message.

Health care was for the rich, and even they had it very bad in these times.

I think he like any typical Galilean rabbi cold heal, I'm sure he learned much from John.


It has been my view that only his actions in the temple made him famous. We know John was much more famous and drew large crowds, Jesus to me, would have learned from Johns mistake and traveled to small villages to Aramaic crowds who would not rat him off to the authorities. Not having large crowds meant he could fly under Antipas radar.


I would bet if he had gone to Sepphoris and tried teaching, he would have been killed long before Passover.

I partially agree, but I think it was the actions of others long after the death of Jesus that are really responsible for his fame.

 

[outhouse]

I partially agree, but I think it was the actions of others long after the death of Jesus that are really responsible for his fame.

That's exactly what I have been saying all a long.

His fame came after his death and martyrdom in Hellenistic communities all over the diaspora when people would go to Passover yearly and exchange legends and myths and theology.

When the temple fell an instant need was created for literature and the gospels started to preserve the Passover information that had been shared for decades.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The symbolism of it is pretty awful, too.

Depends on what you mean.

"New Atheist" types respond to the religious beliefs they're presented with. It isn't their job to come up with religious understandings that theists "ought to have".

I think they tend to be just as ignorant as religious fundies are about religion, on the whole.

 

[psychoslice]

I think Jesus' sacrifice is pointless if taken literally, but when we see the meaning within the story we then realize that the sacrifice is our own. The sacrifice means to truly realize our own inner divinity, to realize that we are not the carnal self, to realize that we are One with all there Is, and this Oneness is called God. The cross represents our carnal self nailed down, to allow our true Self to resurrect, as Paul said: I live yet not I, but Christ liveth with me.

 

[bain-druie]

Do Muhammad showed us His love? Mohammad cannot do what Jesus Christ did. This is the real purpose why God’s used the highest form of punishment so no one can duplicate or boast of Christ’s suffering and crucifixion.

The next thing is when Jesus Christ died, He resurrected and not died forever. This is another scenario that nobody can duplicate nor boast of what he did for the sake of many.

Therefore, we cannot judge on it as nothing special or pointless. It is the opposite, obviously and logically the opposite.

How can you say that God is not bright for a man is like an ant in God’s eyes? God created us in His own image, no way to say that he treated as like a dumb.

Thanks

Hi Yoshua

In many ways I don't think you've thoroughly thought through your own argument. For instance, how is a Roman crucifixion 'the highest form of punishment' that 'no one can duplicate or boast of'? Do you realize how many people other than Jesus were subjected to it just like he was? Crucifixions were *everywhere*; Judea was a problem spot for Rome, so they had a general policy of extreme harshness especially with anyone who might cause unrest or rebellion. The death of Jesus was, sad to say, nothing remotely special at that time and place. Quite the contrary, it happened every day with horrifying regularity.

As for the resurrection, same thing, I'm afraid. Not even close to an original or unique claim; there are myths of dying and resurrected gods FAR more ancient than Christianity found in many cultures; as I stated previously, it's a myth with deep truth because it reflects the cycle of nature from death to life to rebirth.

Since Christianity [as presented by many Christians, at least] is in the end just a sad story among thousands that managed to get super popular, and a rather uncreative copy of older, sometimes more eloquent myths, it is in fact nothing unique. I won't say it's not special, because anything can be special to someone and meaningless to someone else. If it's special to you, that's fine for you; but don't buy into the exclusivist attitude of 'MINE IS BETTER THAN YOURS, MINE IS THE ONLY REAL ONE'. That's just childish and insulting to everyone else.

You're also assuming we all see your god as God, which we don't. If you want to elevate him, ok, but to me as he's presented by many believers, he's a very questionable character with a highly doubtful mental capacity [and I'm trying to be kind there ...].

 

[wizanda]

How could you prove that Christianity is anti-Christ teachings?

Christianity isn't established on Yeshua's teachings; yet the teachings of Paul, and Simon the stone (petros)....It then uses John to validate their Pharisaic theory.

So one of the clearest contradictions is the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, where Yeshua is saying, "those who think they will receive inheritance from his death, shall receive nothing, and instead be utterly condemned".

So when they're all teaching that is the reason he was sent, so that people might receive inheritance from his death, it is blatantly against his teachings....

Yet as saying since Christianity is established on these Pharisaic ideas in the first place, most people think that is what they're meant to follow.

• Paul contradicts Christ on well over 36 points.
  
  
• The gospel of John is made up.... When Yeshua warned against those who would use the term "I Am" (Ego I-mee) to deceive many within all the synoptic gospels; the gospel of John repeatedly uses it, and Christianity is established on that point.
  
  
• Simon was called the stone (petros) by Yeshua to fulfill prophecy, that he would mislead the whole world.
  
  
• 

 

[Mycroft]

It's weird how some people make it necessary to remind them that just because they don't understand something doesn't mean it can't be understood and that others haven't already done so.

What I understand is that your alleged god allegedly created the entire universe. It should, therefore, be within his power to simply say 'I forgive you' rather than go through this pantomime of sending his only 'son' to be sacrificed at the hands of disgruntled Romans.

What it does indicate, though, is a very human understanding of forgiveness and not a divine one.

 

[Yoshua]

By God's love, He could just do as He had always done and just go "yeah, man ... we cool". Jesus was unnecessary for God's forgiveness.

Hi kelly,

Oh really! I don’t think we should dictates God’s plan of sending Jesus Christ. here How you will know forgiveness if there is no one will tell us about forgiveness of God?

Harry Potter died to save us from Voldemort. Obi-Wan died to guide Luke into bringing balance to the Force. Sailor Moon has died a couple of times, I think, to save the world. Jesus Christ, has Goku sacrificed himself to save the planet ...

Is this a joke?

Jesus sacrifice is worthy.

And yet Christians still sin. Just read a story of a Christian throwing hot coffee on a Muslim at a park. Did Jesus tell her to do that?

Yes, Christian still sinned because Man is not a perfect being. A Christian may still sinning but he is now become aware of his sin, and does not continue to sin. I believed this is the reason why Jesus came here—to save us from sins.

Hitler was pops back in the day too, and is currently having a repeat upswing in the pops department thanks to people like Trump.

Yes, but Hitler and Jesus are obviously different in leadership and teachings.

Please explain how Abe can ask God about the morality of roasting two cities and how Gideon can test God several times if this is the case. Please explain the purpose of Jesus telling us to judge a tree by its fruit.

Abraham interceded with God, and did not insists with God about destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham showed concern by letting the cities spared from destruction..

Gen.18:19-21
19. "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.''
20. And the Lord said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave,
21. "I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.''

For Gideon, he is asking for a sign and wants to assure that it is God’s sign. God is a patient God.

Luke 6:43-45
43. "For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
44. "For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush.
45. "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

The purpose why Jesus told us about good fruit and bad fruit is found in v.44-45. We may know what is evil and what is good by their actions or by their words that they have spoken. In application, we may know them by their doctrines or teachings.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Hi Yoshua

In many ways I don't think you've thoroughly thought through your own argument. For instance, how is a Roman crucifixion 'the highest form of punishment' that 'no one can duplicate or boast of'? Do you realize how many people other than Jesus were subjected to it just like he was? Crucifixions were *everywhere*; Judea was a problem spot for Rome, so they had a general policy of extreme harshness especially with anyone who might cause unrest or rebellion. The death of Jesus was, sad to say, nothing remotely special at that time and place. Quite the contrary, it happened every day with horrifying regularity.

Hi Brain,

I know, there are even two people who are crucified beside Him.

Luke 23:39-41
39. Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.''
40. But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation?
41. "And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.''

Did the Roman crucifixion is not the highest form of punishment? Let us say this is common during the Roman Empire, the crucifixion are everywhere in their time. What is now the difference and importance of the crucifixion of Christ, and those who criminals on the cross? Is it none?

Of course not! In the first place, we must understand who Jesus was according to the Bible, He is the Son of God—God sent by the Father God, the Messiah, the Rabbi, teacher, Emmanuel, the Light, the way, the truth and the Life. His crucifixion serves as the atonement for man’s sins. He is the one who only have access to the Father for they are one with the Father (John 14:6, John 10:30). In Luke 23:41, it says Jesus did nothing wrong, sinless. Did someone who was also crucified have this kind of purpose like Jesus Christ?? Did someone who was also crucified have this kind of authority like Jesus Christ??

People may intentionally boast and discriminate Christ’ crucifixion, but not His authority , power and the purpose why He need to be crucified.

Phil. 2:9-11
9. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
10. that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
11. and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

As for the resurrection, same thing, I'm afraid. Not even close to an original or unique claim; there are myths of dying and resurrected gods FAR more ancient than Christianity found in many cultures; as I stated previously, it's a myth with deep truth because it reflects the cycle of nature from death to life to rebirth.

1 Cor. 15:13-17
13. But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.
14. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain.
15. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up if in fact the dead do not rise.
16. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.
17. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

I firmly believed that there is no substitute for Christ’ resurrection. His resurrection is not about rebirth nor cycle of life. This is the foundation of Christianity, the truth, the gospel or the good news for everyone.

Since Christianity [as presented by many Christians, at least] is in the end just a sad story among thousands that managed to get super popular, and a rather uncreative copy of older, sometimes more eloquent myths, it is in fact nothing unique. I won't say it's not special, because anything can be special to someone and meaningless to someone else. If it's special to you, that's fine for you; but don't buy into the exclusivist attitude of 'MINE IS BETTER THAN YOURS, MINE IS THE ONLY REAL ONE'. That's just childish and insulting to everyone else.

You're also assuming we all see your god as God, which we don't. If you want to elevate him, ok, but to me as he's presented by many believers, he's a very questionable character with a highly doubtful mental capacity [and I'm trying to be kind there ...].

I did not say that my belief is better than your belief. I shared my belief and posted supporting Scriptures to prove my point. The Bible is our reference. Just an example with the word of Christ, He said that He is the way, the truth and the life. This is what the Bible says. Now, when I shared and posted it here. I’m just repeating and shared what I know is the truth.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Christianity isn't established on Yeshua's teachings; yet the teachings of Paul, and Simon the stone (petros)....It then uses John to validate their Pharisaic theory.

So one of the clearest contradictions is the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, where Yeshua is saying, "those who think they will receive inheritance from his death, shall receive nothing, and instead be utterly condemned".

So when they're all teaching that is the reason he was sent, so that people might receive inheritance from his death, it is blatantly against his teachings....

Yet as saying since Christianity is established on these Pharisaic ideas in the first place, most people think that is what they're meant to follow.

• Paul contradicts Christ on well over 36 points.
  
  
• The gospel of John is made up.... When Yeshua warned against those who would use the term "I Am" (Ego I-mee) to deceive many within all the synoptic gospels; the gospel of John repeatedly uses it, and Christianity is established on that point.
  
  
• Simon was called the stone (petros) by Yeshua to fulfill prophecy, that he would mislead the whole world.
  
  
• 

Hi Wizanda,

Oh. It is about Paul’s message. This is a long discussion which I‘ve discussed in the past on this rf forum entitled (if I’m not mistaken) Paul and Christ Teachings. There are misconception about what Paul's and Christ’s teachings. Paul expounded more on details about Christ’s teachings but not contradictory if we diligently studied their teachings/messages.

As I know in the gospel of John, the “I am” was used by Christ and not by any disciples or John’s. About Simon Peter, a misconception again about the stone.

Thanks

 

[wizanda]

Oh. It is about Paul’s message.

It isn't simply Paul's message; yet the pharisee premise he built his theology on.... Yeshua challenged the Pharisees over murdering the prophets in Matthew 23, by their made up oral traditions, 'that the death of the righteous can atone for sin'.

Paul, John and Simon the stone all teach upon this concept; yet fail in terms of what Yeshua in the synoptic gospels, the prophets, and the Law state.

As I know in the gospel of John, the “I am” was used by Christ and not by any disciples or John’s.

Yeshua didn't speak that way within the synoptic gospels, and instead warns against it..... So it makes more sense, John is a forgery, and isn't the teachings of Yeshua.

About Simon Peter, a misconception again about the stone.

Yeshua called him petros (stumbling stone) for a reason; I'd trust him, more than the Christian church Revelations says is corrupt.

So to clarify, you're still missing the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen states, those who think they get inheritance from the death of Yeshua shall be condemned....

Christianity is teaching you get free inheritance/salvation from the death of Yeshua.

 

[Yoshua]

It isn't simply Paul's message; yet the pharisee premise he built his theology on.... Yeshua challenged the Pharisees over murdering the prophets in Matthew 23, by their made up oral traditions, 'that the death of the righteous can atone for sin'.

Paul, John and Simon the stone all teach upon this concept; yet fail in terms of what Yeshua in the synoptic gospels, the prophets, and the Law state.

Hi Wizanda,

We both all know who is Paul before he converted to be a follower of Christ. He did not lived in his former life as persecutor to the Christians. Therefore, the transformation can be obviously seen from persecutor to a man of peace.

Yeshua didn't speak that way within the synoptic gospels, and instead warns against it..... So it makes more sense, John is a forgery, and isn't the teachings of Yeshua.

Where is your basis here? What is your source of telling John is a forgery?

Yeshua called him petros (stumbling stone) for a reason; I'd trust him, more than the Christian church Revelations says is corrupt.

So to clarify, you're still missing the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen states, those who think they get inheritance from the death of Yeshua shall be condemned....

Christianity is teaching you get free inheritance/salvation from the death of Yeshua.

Can you give me your reference of the wicked husbandmen?

Thanks

 

[aoji]

Of course we don't.

Not now, because we're living in a different time. But back then, who knows?, maybe you wouldn't have been an atheist. Maybe you'd be just another Jew living under the yoke of the Romans. And being a Jew then you would look at the world differently. As the chief priest said, it was better that one Jew died than the whole nation was destroyed. Of course, the nation was destroyed anyway in 66 A.D., and all the Jews became scattered to the four winds.

When one lives the lives they led, it takes on a different perspective. Take for example Job... Or the Jews in Sodom and Gomorrah. It's easy to compromise when one is suffering.

We, in America, have it good, for the most part. Usually, the richer the country the less need for religion. But if the whole country is poor, starving, dying of illnesses, then hope usually only exists through prayer.

Only true reason is that it would fulfill a prophecy present in the bible and since the bible is god inspired than why put that particular prophecy there in first place than?

Listen to what you're saying. Your logic is all messed up. You are taking a revisionist perspective. For example, "to be the son of god" is a conclusion. Jesus was a son of God. Period. He was called a Son of God by others after his death. You have your facts backwards. And so your logic fails.

I've always heard god is so great because he incarnated in order to experience first hand our human condition but that is pointless [be]cause god by definition already knows everything.

The East says the same thing about us, that God incarnates in each of us to experience life. By your logic your life is pointless... Again, you seem mixed up because by your logic we should know everything. But we don't, do we? We love living and everything in it, like sex, eating hot pizza and washing it down with cold beer. You've already had pizza and beer, so by your logic you should only have it once and then forget it. If you know something already then why repeat it?, right? Logic and Rationalism don't work too well with real life. For example, if you have ever had a hangover, why ever drink again? If you've been divorced, why marry again? If you've had children before, why have another? We are sensates, we feel the world. Logic and Rationalism only come later, used as tools of the mind.

Just because you can't see the need for a saviour, much less religion, doesn't mean that others don't have such a need. For that matter, I've never understood the need for atheists to attack believers, much less argue on religious forums. Why does the atheist have this need? Just to feel superior? That makes for a poor person. And yes, we all need to feel superior to others. In the case of the poor, that may be the only solace they have. But you won't understand that until you have nothing in this world, when everything you have is taken away from you. In religious terms, death will take everything you have away from you. Death is what concerns most people. If you think being an atheist will somehow prepare you for death, we'd all like to hear it. Here's a clue: when it really happens to you, when you are actually dying, when you actually experience death happening - you will realize your foolishness.

 

[wizanda]

Therefore, the transformation can be obviously seen from persecutor to a man of peace.

Fine, Paul went from a lying cheating murderer, to claiming to be a follower of Yeshua's....

Do his words add up to be that of a follower of Yeshua's teachings?

No; instead Paul rewrites and contradicts most of what Yeshua was teaching, into some mixed up Hellenistic Pharisee belief system we call Christianity.

Where is your basis here? What is your source of telling John is a forgery?

The gospel of John Vs the synoptic gospels, shows numerous contradictions, and errors within testimony, accounts, etc....

There are no parables in John, Yeshua has an entirely different personality....

Personally only read it twice, and noticed the 2nd time it wasn't the same person related in the synoptic gospels.

Here is a start to the differences, yet really need to go over the whole thing again, and show where almost every line is in error.

Can you give me your reference of the wicked husbandmen?

Luke 20:9-19, Mark 12:1-12, and Matthew 21:33-46

 

[gnostic]

Fine, Paul went from a lying cheating murderer, to claiming to be a follower of Yeshua's....

Do his words add up to be that of a follower of Yeshua's teachings?

No; instead Paul rewrites and contradicts most of what Yeshua was teaching, into some mixed up Hellenistic Pharisee belief system we call Christianity.

Everything written in the New Testament, especially resurrection and the afterlife, is that of Hellenistic-influenced and Egyptian-influenced.

The whole war between good and evil, Michael and Satan/Devil, light and darkness, were all influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism, the Egyptian cult of Isis and Horus (referring to the conflict between Horus and Set), and various Greek cults, particularly that of Orphic Dionysus.

Set murdering Osiris, Osiris going to the other side - or the afterlife. The soul being weighed on the scale, as judgement. Does that not sound familiar?

The whole virgin birth and Virgin Mary come from the story of Osiris, Isis and Horus. And Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life, also come from Thoth bringing the infant Horus back to life. And the whole judgement and afterlife, from the Osiris myth. And the all good things come in Three - referring to the Christian Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) - originated from the holy triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus.

The whole symbolism of the New Testament bear some striking resemblance to that of Egyptian myth. Myth that predated Jesus by over a thousand years. And when Jews were translating the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, they began in Alexandria, Egypt...or so the LXX Septuagint legend say.

And during those days of "translating", apocryphal and pseudepigraphal stories, like from the book of jubilees and the books of Enoch began appearing before Jesus' birth.

Coincidences? I would say not.

Had Jesus being born 500 years earlier, I don't think we would have the same Jesus story as that we do now, from the 1st century Jesus.

Without Egyptian and Greek influences on the Christians, there wouldn't be afterlife and last judgement, there would be no apocalyptic battle between Michael and dragon (Devil/Satan), and no evil Satan. Jude wouldn't have written anything about prophecy from Enoch, because the books of Enoch wouldn't have been written yet. And Jesus would have been a totally different Jesus.

 

[Yoshua]

The whole virgin birth and Virgin Mary come from the story of Osiris, Isis and Horus. And Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life, also come from Thoth bringing the infant Horus back to life. And the whole judgement and afterlife, from the Osiris myth. And the all good things come in Three - referring to the Christian Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) - originated from the holy triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus.

The whole symbolism of the New Testament bear some striking resemblance to that of Egyptian myth. Myth that predated Jesus by over a thousand years. And when Jews were translating the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, they began in Alexandria, Egypt...or so the LXX Septuagint legend say.

Hi gnostic,

It may seem they have similarity on the numbers as "three," but not totally the doctrine itself same as the Egyptian triad. If we will remember how God delivered the Israelites from the bondage of the Egyptian empire. No way God will use their teachings nor concept for Christianity.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Fine, Paul went from a lying cheating murderer, to claiming to be a follower of Yeshua's....

Do his words add up to be that of a follower of Yeshua's teachings?

No; instead Paul rewrites and contradicts most of what Yeshua was teaching, into some mixed up Hellenistic Pharisee belief system we call Christianity.

Hi Wizanda,

What particular statements or teachings that contradict with Christ teachings?

The gospel of John Vs the synoptic gospels, shows numerous contradictions, and errors within testimony, accounts, etc....

There are no parables in John, Yeshua has an entirely different personality....

Of course, that shows that people are different, but their concept about God is the same. John’s gospel is telling us who Jesus was? He focused on the divinity and deity of Jesus Christ.

Personally only read it twice, and noticed the 2nd time it wasn't the same person related in the synoptic gospels.

Here is a start to the differences, yet really need to go over the whole thing again, and show where almost every line is in error.

I think it is better to cite some scriptures for example at least one to start with.

Luke 20:9-19, Mark 12:1-12, and Matthew 21:33-46

This parable is not about inheritance or something that they will get. This is about the consequence of the nation’s rejection of Christ as the Messiah. This is more focused on how people will accept Jesus Christ who came here, so people will received Him as the Son of God/Messiah. The condemnation was already laid down to all humanity. This is why in Rom. 8:1 says there will be no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Rom.8:1-2
1. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

Thanks

 

[Scott C.]

I won't deny you the right to mock my ignorance but it's a bit pointless if you dont want to share a bit of your wisdom in exchange so feel free to provide your view on the subject unless you're afraid it couldn't stand the forum scrutiny

Christianity can't withstand the forum scrutiny? Now that's hilarious.

 

[cambridge79]

Christianity can't withstand the forum scrutiny? Now that's hilarious.

You seem to ignore that the majority of the people on the planet aren't Christians and they probably have their reasons for that

 

[Scott C.]

You seem to ignore that the majority of the people on the planet aren't Christians and they probably have their reasons for that

Christianity has been debated for centuries by some of the best minds on the planet, both for and against. I find the suggestion to be humorous that Christianity can't withstand the scrutiny of a hand full of forum members.