Jesus sacrifice is completely pointless

[Shad]

Not sophistry.
More simple tit-for-tat.

No it is since it is an impossible experiment to conduct. Also it can falsl to reducto ad absurdum counter.

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".

If one were to state the it was someone else was the only conclusion I agree. However it is a plausible.

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).

If we had an account of it within the NT, which we do not. It is only from the OT is a beard mentioned. The only way your argument works is if you get people to accept Isaiah 50:6 as a fact about Jesus later.

 

[Yoshua]

Mat 21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

Hi Wizanda,

This is why Jesus narrated using the parables. It seems that this is inheritance when we understand it literally, but the main point here is acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. Inheritance is already included from accepting or receiving Him because the eternal life is promised—to be given—if they will receive Him.

John doesn't know who Yeshua is, he completely contradicts his ideology in the synoptic gospels, there are no parables, doesn't speak the same as him, instead comes across as an egotistical law breaker.

Why should there be a parable to make John’s gospel as valid?

Paul's words don't count, he contradicts Yeshua; sends people to hell, therefore he has no power in his words...

No way that Paul served as the instrument from sending people to damnation. In the first place, Jesus should not call Paul during his blindness. God may do something about it if Paul is not truly called by God. That is logical. Paul is bold and powerful in his preaching because of his former background and training. His father is a Pharisee. Acts 22:3. "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, just as you all are today.

Rom. 1:1-8
1. Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
2. which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,
3. concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
4. who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,
5. through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for His name's sake,
6. among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;
7. to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.

By what Paul teaches you're condemned according to the Law, so you're hardly free of condemnation, instead the opposite.

This is because Jesus did not want people to lived and bound by the law. The emphasis is living in the law in Christ Jesus.

Rom. 8:1-4
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.
3. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4. in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Truly, Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or Prophets, but to fulfill it on how the law will be practice and applied properly in Christ’s righteousness rather than legalism.

Matt 5:17
17. "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Hello Yoshua.

Is that really all you got out of my post?

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

Sorry. Gnostic, it does not mean that you have nothing to show. Your message is quite informative but I think it is coming from a different source of doctrine. It is differed with the Orthodox Christianity.

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

It can be from pseudepigrapha from a Jewish Apocalyptic book I Enoch. I believed Jewish are familiar with the apocalyptic writings, therefore there is no doubt that they knew it.

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.

Some may say that though it is hard to assume anything.

Thanks

 

[wizanda]

Inheritance is already included from accepting or receiving Him because the eternal life is promised—to be given—if they will receive Him.

The idea of having to accept Yeshua to receive eternal life is based on John, Paul and Simon's testimony.... Since can show them as false, it isn't usable as positive evidence.

So the parable says you're claiming rights to something you're not entitled to... to rephrase the ideology Christianity puts forward:

If you went to a mans house, and said, "i murdered your son, can i sleep in his bedroom?"....
The man would be like, "you what? you murdered my son, and now you want to sleep in his bedroom, are you mad?"
"No, look I've washed, and drunk his blood, then eaten his flesh, so i can become like him... So can i come in your house, and sleep in his bedroom?"
"No, depart from me you workers of iniquity!!"...
Then he might send his guards to exterminate the men who killed his son.

No way that Paul served as the instrument from sending people to damnation. In the first place, Jesus should not call Paul during his blindness.

It is only Paul's word for it, on that he was ever visited by Yeshua, and it is clear even in what is stated in Acts, that isn't Yeshua saying, 'Ego I-mee Christos', as he warned people not to follow people claiming that after him.

Why should there be a parable to make John’s gospel as valid?

Because Yeshua spoke in Parables...Plus it isn't only the missing parables; yet all the other contradictions in theology, teachings, and testimony.