Jesus sacrifice is completely pointless

[outhouse]

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"

Thank you, I did make a mistake. I worded it wrong.

Mark does mention resurrection. But without the 3 different endings we have, it is almost silent on the matter. 4 counting freer

It certainly is not central to their belief, as its barely mentioned.

but it was important to some (they were quite a diverse group as you know).

I'm sure it was. Its not like it started after Mark, even Paul mentions it.


But for all of them it was not a big shock or amazing that holy crap! that man came back from the dead your not going to believe this! The lack of amazement is telling, and I see a spiritual resurrection as the core of this that was evolving into physical but not accepted by all in marks time..

its debated whether Paul even though in context he see's a spiritual jesus, whether his context is physical is still debated.

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.

WE think it was meant to clarify the original ending placing it into context of Matthew and Lukes new version.

Most place this just after the first century 110 CE ish

 

[outhouse]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Bart D. Ehrman says:

Jesus does rise from the dead in Mark's Gospel. The women go to the tomb, the tomb is empty and there is a man there who tells them that Jesus has been raised from the dead and that they are to go tell the disciples that this has happened. But then the Gospel ends in Codex Sinaiticus and other manuscripts by saying the women fled from the tomb and didn't say anything to anyone because they were afraid, period. That's where the Gospel ends. So nobody finds out about it, the disciples don't learn about it, the disciples never see Jesus after the resurrection, that's the end of the story. But later scribes couldn't handle this abrupt ending and they added the 12 verses people find in the King James Bible or other Bibles in which Jesus does appear to his disciples.[39]

 

[fantome profane]

It certainly is not central to their belief, as its barely mentioned.

I think you are over generalizing "their belief". As I said "they" had many different and diverse beliefs.

And to say it is "barely mention" is true, but misleading. It is the climax to the story, of course it only happens once, and then the gospel ends. Because it is only said once does not mean it is unimportant (how may times did the ship sink in "Titanic"?)

 

[outhouse]

I think you are over generalizing "their belief". As I said "they" had many different and diverse beliefs.

Agreed, but in context we are only dealing with the community that wrote Mark, correct?

And to say it is "barely mention" is true, but misleading.

That could depend on if t was a spiritual resurrection.

It is the climax

That's my point it is pretty anti climatic. May be why it was changed by many different communities. 4 different versions 1 short 2 long and another

I'm not saying 16;6 was interpolated, but it could be possible. For our discussion I'm assuming its not.

 

[outhouse]

Something weird about the two women being afraid that their savior had risen. So scared they would not tell anyone.

 

[fantome profane]

Agreed, but in context we are only dealing with the community that wrote Mark, correct?




That could depend on if t was a spiritual resurrection.



That's my point it is pretty anti climatic. May be why it was changed by many different communities. 4 different versions 1 short 2 long and another

I'm not saying 16;6 was interpolated, but it could be possible. For our discussion I'm assuming its not.

I would not describe it as anti-climatic, I would describe it as a cliff hanger. I think it is very dramatic

Mark did the Soprano's ending 2000 years before the Soprano's did.

 

[outhouse]

I would not describe it as anti-climatic, I would describe it as a cliff hanger. I think it is very dramatic

.

Either way, many different people found error enough to change the ending. Why is heavily debated.

To be clear, I'm not discounting what you state, as much as pointing out the uncertainty of knowledge on this topic in detail.

I wish the hypothesis were more clear cut instead of all over the board.

 

[Neo Deist]

Something weird about the two women being afraid that their savior had risen. So scared they would not tell anyone.

Even more strange is that when "Jesus" appeared to the disciples after the resurrection, they did not recognize him. Hello...different dude!

 

[Estro Felino]

Do we really need a man to suffer, to be tortured, be humiliated and ultimately be crucified and killed ( temporarily ) in order to follow him?
Of course we dont. We just need a just man that talks sense possibly with a bit of charisma. We follow all sort of people for all sorts of reasons all the time why would be different for him.

Do we really need a man to suffer, to be tortured, be humiliated and ultimately be crucified and killed to recognize him as the son of god?
People may say nobody would have followed him without that sacrifice, well Muhammad didn't sacrifice himself and more than one and a half billions people follow him. And apparently he worked for the same god too.

Do we really need a man to suffer, to be tortured, be humiliated and ultimately be crucified and killed to see he is the son of god?
I say we dont. That guy according to the gospels already did all sort of miracles, walked on water, multiplied food, exorcised people, gave back the sight to blind people even freakin raised a dead person. What s the point of one more act of magic after all of that, especially of such gory nature?

Do we really need a man to suffer, to be tortured, be humiliated and ultimately be crucified and killed to recognize him as the son of god?
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? Simply tell he would be able to fly for example and than have him fly over the temple. I guarantee it would be more than enough. No need to torture and kill him.

Does a man really need to suffer, to be tortured, be humiliated and ultimately be crucified and killed to be the son of god?
I ve always heard god is so great because he incarnated in order to experience first hand our human condition but that is pointless cause god by definition already knows everything. Its like me rolling naked in the snow to experience cold. I already know cold, dont need to do that.

Does a man really need to suffer, to be tortured, be humiliated and ultimately be crucified and killed to be the son of god?
That would simply align with the tradition of scapegoating that god himself set up in first place, which again makes no sense.

Again however I see it the idea of Jesus suffering on the cross seems completely unnecessary and pointless and absolutely doesn't look like the best plan the most wise and just being in the universe can come up with to send us a message.

Well, as I am a Pelagian Christian, I can't do but agree with all you have said here. I do respect the traditional Augustinian theology and all the claims made by Saint Paul in his epistles. I do respect this vision of crucifixion.

But I have a much more simplified vision of Christianity. Jesus -our Lord- came to teach us Love. It is obvious that whoever teaches love in a world made of selfishness and greed, they are doomed to be eliminated.
His sacrifice was not necessary. Suffering is not necessary: only Love is necessary to attain the eternal life, and I would never accept Jesus's sacrifice as something necessary.
I love Jesus so much that I would never accept the necessity of harming him in any way. So I don't accept crucifixion and never will.
For more information, I suggest you to take a look at what Pelagianism is.
Terrific thread, mister, I love it. Congratulations.

 

[atpollard]

Even more strange is that when "Jesus" appeared to the disciples after the resurrection, they did not recognize him. Hello...different dude!

Try being beaten until it is hard to recognize that you are a human being, then executed, buried, raised from the dead ... and see if you look any different.

 

[outhouse]

Try being beaten until it is hard to recognize that you are a human being, then executed, buried, raised from the dead ... and see if you look any different.

But historically, this did not take place. Were talking about what people wrote who never knew him and were far removed from his life and location he lived.

My context was why did they write about the two women being afraid. What is behind that context?

 

[outhouse]

Pelagianism

Later faith.

So I don't accept crucifixion

It is one of two things historians view as fact, the other baptism.


I can tell you with extreme certainty, without the crucifixion there never would have been a famous jesus.

John was the famous one, not only that mots of what you call Jesus teachings, probably originated with John anyway.

 

[Estro Felino]

It is one of two things historians view as fact, the other baptism.

Yes. I am not saying he was not crucified. I am just saying Christians don't attain salvation through it, because it was not something necessary. It just happened.

I can tell you with extreme certainty, without the crucifixion there never would have been a famous jesus.

obviously

 

[outhouse]

I am just saying Christians don't attain salvation through it, because it was not something necessary. It just happened.

I do not get involved with matters of personal faith. Please carry on.

Unless they cross historical lines.

 

[Neo Deist]

Try being beaten until it is hard to recognize that you are a human being, then executed, buried, raised from the dead ... and see if you look any different.

Hollywood does not equal historical or factual.

 

[cambridge79]

Try being beaten until it is hard to recognize that you are a human being, then executed, buried, raised from the dead ... and see if you look any different.

well when he raised he must have looked like a normal man, you know a "walking dead" kind of guy would attrac some attention on him. Fact is, he looked like "a different normal man". doesn't make much sense that too in fact.

 

[Shad]

Try being beaten until it is hard to recognize that you are a human being, then executed, buried, raised from the dead ... and see if you look any different.

Pure sophistry since we have no ability to conduct this experiment.... nor would it be ethical

 

[atpollard]

Pure sophistry since we have no ability to conduct this experiment.... nor would it be ethical

Not sophistry.
More simple tit-for-tat.

I was responding to the claim that the only logical reason that someone would not recognize the risen Jesus is because he was really someone else. Since the entire event is from the narrative, and not any external historical source, it is the original proposition ("it was someone else") that was "pure sophistry".

From the story (even if we take it as pure fiction), he was both beaten and transformed by the experience. If we add in other related stories (again, even assuming pure fiction, but related fiction) then his beard was plucked out. People look very different with a beard and clean shaven. My only point is that 'it was someone else' is hardly the only conclusion ... even as a work of fiction. I employed hyperbole in suggesting at least one other reasonable explanation (within the story narrative).

 

[outhouse]

because he was really someone else.

Juts so you know it is not a scholarly opinion, even by secular sourses

 

[atpollard]

Juts so you know it is not a scholarly opinion, even by secular sourses

Yeah.
I generally didn't respond to any of your points in the conversation because I had nothing substantive and on-topic to add. Sort of like that old quote "better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt."