Jesus sacrifice is completely pointless

[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.

Hello Yoshua.

Is that really all you got out of my post?

All that effort, I've got nothing to show for myself....



Being influenced upon early Christians have nothing to do with Israelite's bondage in Egypt.

It is highly doubtful that Moses exist, as well as that the Israelites ever being slaves in Egypt - historically or archaeologically. I have never implied that the Hellenistic Jews and Christians were influenced by Egyptian myths during the Bronze Age.

The foreign cultural and religion influences (Egyptian, Greek, Persian, etc) upon Jesus and his early 1st century followers were much recent in time, like after their return from exile from Babylon (538 BCE), like after the construction of second temple in Jerusalem (521 - 516 BCE), like after the death of Alexander the Great (d. 323 BCE), and when Ptolemaic dynasty rule Egypt (323 - 30 BCE).

The Hellenistic period (332 - 30 BCE) is when Jews in Alexandria began to long process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (hence the Septuagint bible), but it was during these times that works on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha began, like the Book of Jubilees and the books of Enoch were written.

In the Old Testament, there are not single mention of Enoch "prophecising", and yet Jude wrote of it:

14 It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

What is Jude's sources? If it is not from one of pseudepigraphal books, then where did he get it from?

And also from Jude is the mention of Michael and Satan quarrelling over Moses' body, also don't appear anywhere in the OT. Where did Jude get that it isn't from? Origen might have got it from another text known as the Assumption of Moses.

The 1s century Christians (and Jews of 1st century BCE and 1st century CE) were influenced by Egyptian and Greek religions, and though the Egyptian myths existed in the Bronze Age, it was not the myths brought back by the Israelite's Exodus, but by myths brought to them during the Hellenistic period 332 - 30 BCE.

 

[outhouse]

A dead man came back to life and said that we could, too.

[EDIT: oops, looks like I came too late.]

Your not late brother.

BUT Sorry that did no happen

Matthew and Luke copied Mark, Mark is out oldest tradition.

The ending of Mark that had the resurrection was added later, there is a short and long ending the church possesses.


Mark makes almost no mention of said resurrection, because that was not important to the first followers.

We believe it started as a spiritual resurrection, that evolved into a physical one later in time. "Matthew and Luke time"

 

[atpollard]

Your not late brother.

BUT Sorry that did no happen

Matthew and Luke copied Mark, Mark is out oldest tradition.

The ending of Mark that had the resurrection was added later, there is a short and long ending the church possesses.

Mark makes almost no mention of said resurrection, because that was not important to the first followers.

We believe it started as a spiritual resurrection, that evolved into a physical one later in time. "Matthew and Luke time"

I cannot refute your facts, and would not invest the time needed even if I could, however, I can say with almost absolute certainty that your bible history facts are NOT why Jesus is still famous 2000 years later.
(You asked why Jesus was famous.)

A brief historical question: Do you view the 1st century persecution as a lie as well?

The Pauline letters clearly present persecution for preaching a resurrected Christ ... That's a lot of grief for what they knew to be a lie.
That is not really human nature as I have seen it.

 

[outhouse]

The Pauline letters clearly present persecution for preaching a resurrected Christ ...

We early jewish Christians were persecuted, not just Christians, they did not exist yet.

It was not for believing in the resurrected Christ. It was because they followed this new sect splitting from Judaism.

Early followers believed many diverse things, they believed he was all man and on the other end of he spectrum, some believed all god.

There was no orthodoxy during this time period, and beliefs were all over the board.

 

[outhouse]

Do you view the 1st century persecution as a lie as well?

I did not claim anything was a lie.

Stop your rhetoric or I will not treat you as an equal. I require honesty.

 

[outhouse]

(You asked why Jesus was famous.)

I was asking a specific person. I already know why he was considered famous.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Incorrect.

There is zero evidence that Jesus existed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Evidence_of_Jesus
There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All the sources we have are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[39]

I asked you to name one that was similar to jesus, not supply a link that states the opposite

If you notice, I didn't say other gods were exactly like Jesus, but that many others before him had their own legends revolving around their own death's and resurrections. It is an anthropological fact that many cultures have had gods who were killed and then later resurrected. And when we look at Christianity as a whole, this seems obvious as the early church assimilated many Pagan beliefs into Christianity.

 

[outhouse]

There is zero evidence that Jesus existed.

There is more to evidence then just physical or archaeological

Most people in history not even debated, have none.

This debate will not end well for you. jesus has historicity as existing. To the point it is almost unanimous for those educated on the topic.

 

[outhouse]

It is an anthropological fact that many cultures have had gods who were killed and then later resurrected

Can you name the deity?

Were any of them humans who were deified after a real death?

 

[outhouse]

And when we look at Christianity as a whole, this seems obvious as the early church assimilated many Pagan beliefs into Christianity.

So what?

Most of his mythology was generated by plagiarizing the OT where this exact concept already existed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is more to evidence then just physical or archaeological

If there is no physical evidence, there is no evidence. The few writings of people that are claimed as evidence were not even written during the appropriate time. Josephus was born after the estimated dates of Christs' death, and Tacitus wrote nearly a century after. There probably was someone who inspired the stories of Jesus (afterall, so much of what he did is very similar to what just about any shaman would do), but Jesus Christ, the Biblical Nazarene, has not a shred of evidence to support he existed.

To the point it is almost unanimous for those educated on the topic.

To those educated in Young Earth Creationism the point is unanimous.

 

[outhouse]

If there is no physical evidence, there is no evidence.

Not true. You should not make comments on topics you know little or nothing about. Unless you want to learn. And it does not look like it.

There is lot of evidence, he existed.

The few writings of people that are claimed as evidence were not even written during the appropriate time.

Typical for just about everyone from this period.

Is Paul mythical? is Josephus mythical? is John the Baptist mythical to ?


If we follow your method, literally no one is historical.

Your only showing how little you know with every single reply.

the Biblical Nazarene, has not a shred of evidence to support he existed.

The biblical jesus, is not the historical jesus.

The NT is factual evidence he existed. It may not be great evidence, but it is factual evidence.


What part of the man has historicity don't you understand?

 

[outhouse]

To those educated in Young Earth Creationism the point is unanimous.

Factually false.

Credible unbiased historians almost all state this.


What part of the man has historicity don't you understand?

And people who do no study at all, get nothing to say about it. You know better then to study like a YEC.

 

[atpollard]

I did not claim anything was a lie.

Stop your rhetoric or I will not treat you as an equal. I require honesty.

Fair enough.
I apologize. (I tend towards hyperbole, no malice was intended).

Lie was too strong a word.
Unsupported would probably have been a more accurate term.

 

[outhouse]

Fair enough.
I apologize. (I tend towards hyperbole, no malice was intended).

Lie was too strong a word.
Unsupported would probably have been a more accurate term.

Thank you brother.

I have a passion for this and study it deeply, if I can be of help I will always try.

 

[prometheus11]

Couldn't the historical Jesus be a conglomeration of a number of messianic type prophets in that area and time period?

 

[Neo Deist]

There is zero evidence that Jesus existed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Evidence_of_Jesus
There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All the sources we have are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[39]

If you notice, I didn't say other gods were exactly like Jesus, but that many others before him had their own legends revolving around their own death's and resurrections. It is an anthropological fact that many cultures have had gods who were killed and then later resurrected. And when we look at Christianity as a whole, this seems obvious as the early church assimilated many Pagan beliefs into Christianity.

Some people are just wrong, as usual.

 

[outhouse]

Couldn't the historical Jesus be a conglomeration of a number of messianic type prophets in that area and time period?

We do not think so.

Its very specific to a Galilean from Nazareth trained by John. And it makes perfect sense the Galilean was the one who took over Johns movement when Johns was murdered, and met a similar fate as John soon after taking over his movement. And to have Paul out hunting others adds more credibility to the overall picture here.


Most of the NT generally speaks of the last week of his life. Its all they really knew.

 

[fantome profane]

The ending of Mark that had the resurrection was added later, there is a short and long ending the church possesses.


Mark makes almost no mention of said resurrection, because that was not important to the first followers.

This is not correct. The part of Mark with the resurrection is in the original ending. Mark 16:6 "Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen"

The part that was added latter begins with Mark 16:9.

Yest it is true that the resurrection was only mentioned once, but it was pretty much the dramatic climax to the story. It may not have been important to all of the early followers, but it was important to some (they were quite a diverse group as you know).

But the resurrection is in the original ending to Mark, and it is an important part of that narrative.


Original ending: Jesus is risen - (fade to black, dramatic music plays)

New extra special add on ending: Jesus pops up in different places and says a lot of stupid things about playing with snakes and drinking poison.

 

[Flankerl]

Devarim 12:29-31
29 When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest in to dispossess them, and thou dispossessest them, and dwellest in their land;

30 take heed to thyself that thou be not ensnared to follow them, after that they are destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying: 'How used these nations to serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.'

31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God; for every abomination to the LORD, which He hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods.


He seems not so keen on the whole human sacrifice idea.
But its probably different if he goes the Zeus route of shagging Human women and then kill himself/his son.

That's probably okay...