What did Jesus Sacrifice?

[Kenny]

That the bones are not available (or at least no one is going to sit there and go, Yup, there's Jesus' bones) does not make Jesus divine or was resurrected or anything.

Absolutely. However, it isn't just about the bones. Thank of it... if the Romans or the Jews wanted to squash this rumor, all they had to do is show the bones. There wasn't any.

You don't have any mementos of lost loved ones?

I don't have any of my father and certainly don't have any of his clothes. My wife has some.

But think about it... Jesus was itinerate for 3 years with no luggage. Wasn't in his place of birth when they were "suddenly" with a group of soldiers taking him captive. His clothes were taken by the soldiers and divided by lot.

Nothing to hold on to.

Let's say we found a body of the right type, with the right genetic material, to give us a more than passing conclusion that it could very well be Jesus. Would Christianity accept it or just call it fake because the dogma of the resurrection is already done?

To be honest, I would view it with suspect.

1) With all the evidence that IS available, nothing convinces you. (I think we are no different)
2) The Jews could have debunked during their time
2) Chemical analysis may prove a relation but doesn't prove it was Jesus as he had many half brothers
3) http://ingermanson.com/mad_science/james_ossuary - James, son of Joseph and brother of Jesus commands a strong evidence of supportive evidence

 

[Kenny]

Would stabbing himself worked just as well?

No

 

[NWL]

Complete BS and not biblical.

This is what seperates me from you. You make a whole bunch of claims with nothing to support your claims apart from your repeated credentials and obscene language.

Stop telling me that I'm wrong, prove it! Let me quote Hitchens, 'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.

There is nothing for me to learn from a JW, the WT or the NWT.

Arrogance.

Original sin is BS. It is a human concoction.

More claims without evidence. Here is original sin as shown in the Bible.

(Romans 5:12) "...That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned..."

(1 Corinthians 15:21) "...For since death came through a man, resurrection of the dead also comes through a man..."

At least my debating points are actually biblical and logical.

What debating tactics!? Ha! You really need to stop kidding yourself, all you've done so far is disagree with me on points and stated why, you've shown next to no evidence to support your original points.

YHWH is not a Hebrew term. It is a transliteration of a Hebrew term. Besides, the Bible is a man made holy book, complete with all the primitive, male chauvinistic attitudes that still dominate that part of the world. Anyone with half a brain and an ounce of common sense can plainly see that, once they get past their blinding religious biases.

God did not author anything. God did not come down from the cosmos, sit at a desk, grab a quill/ink, and write anything. Oh wait...God "spoke" to people's minds and divinely inspired the Bible, even though there is ZERO proof of it.

I have to ask one question: are you fluent with Hebrew or Koine Greek? My guess is no, as most Christians aren't.

Where have I stated YHWH is a Hebrew term? Only the tetragrammaton in its original form is the name for God. However since the vast majority of Christians do not speak ancient Hebrew we have translations of the name into our respective languages. The NWT is one of the only bibles that have Gods name in its rightful place.

No I am not fluent in either language.

 

[NWL]

I repeat the question: what archaeological evidence supports Jesus? The Bible is not said evidence.

I'll answer the question and save you the time and effort of writing some long winded, spin job of a reply...

There's not any.

Its not my issue if you fail to see the archaeological evidence provided. As is cleary shown again, the archaeological finds along with the scriptural reference are listed below. If you this isn't archaeological evidence can you explain to me why it is not archaeological evidence, again, just because you claim something doesn't make it true.

Many doubted the existence of Roman ruler Pontius Pilate as there was no historical record of him. In 1961 the name of Pontius Pilate was found in an inscription in the ruins of a Roman theater at Caesarea.

In Luke’s Gospel, we read that John the Baptizer began his ministry “when . . . Lysanias was district ruler of Abilene.” (Luke 3:1) Some doubted that statement because Josephus mentioned a Lysanias who ruled Abilene and who died in 34 B.C.E., long before the birth of John. However, archaeologists have uncovered an inscription in Abilene mentioning another Lysanias who was tetrarch (district ruler) during the reign of Tiberius, who was ruling as Caesar in Rome when John began his ministry.This could easily have been the Lysanias to whom Luke was referring.

In Acts 13:7 we read that Paul and Barnabas were sent to do missionary work in Cyprus and there met up with a proconsul named Sergius Paulus, “an intelligent man.” In the middle of the 19th century, excavations in Cyprus uncovered an inscription dating from 55 C.E. that mentions this very man. Of this, archaeologist G. Ernest Wright says: “It is the one reference we have to this proconsul outside the Bible and it is interesting that Luke gives us correctly his name and title."

When he was in Athens, Paul said he had observed an altar that was dedicated “To an Unknown God.” (Acts 17:23) Altars dedicated in Latin to anonymous gods have been discovered in parts of the territory of the Roman Empire. One was found in Pergamum with the inscription written in Greek, as would have been the case in Athens.

Later, while in Ephesus, Paul was violently opposed by silversmiths, whose income was derived from making shrines and images of the goddess Artemis. Ephesus was referred to as “the temple keeper of the great Artemis.” (Acts 19:35) In harmony with this, a number of terra-cotta and marble figurines of Artemis have been discovered at the site of ancient Ephesus. During the last century, the remains of the huge temple itself were excavated.

 

[NWL]

I can produce my own list with a quick Google search. I only need one name: Bruce M. Metzger, PhD. He was a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, textual critic, member of the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies, and specialized in the study of the Greek NT. He was the general editor of the Reader's Digest Bible, chaired the committee for the NRSV, and often used historical criticism in his writings. Here's what this powerhouse of a biblical scholar had to say about the NWT:

Besides refusing to take into account the evidence set forth above, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have incorporated in their translation of the New Testament several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek.

1. In the New World Translation the opening verse of the Gospel according to John is mistranslated as follows: “Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” A footnote which is added to the first word, “Originally,” reads, “Literally, In (At) a beginning.” By using here the indefinite article “a” the translators have overlooked the well-known fact that in Greek grammar nouns may be definite for various reasons, whether or not the Greek definite article is present. A prepositional phrase, for example, where the definite article is not expressed, can be quite definite in Greek, 18 as in fact it is in John 1:1. The customary translation, “In the beginning was the Word,” is therefore to be preferred to either alternative suggested by the New World translators.

Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, “… and the Word was a god,” with the following footnote: “‘A god.’ In contrast with ‘the God.’” It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall.

As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, “… and the Word was God.” Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. … The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before θεος] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20:28, ‘My Lord and my God’].” 19

In a lengthy Appendix in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation, which was added to support the mistranslation of John 1:1, there are quoted thirty-five other passages in John where the predicate noun has the definite article in Greek. 20 These are intended to prove that the absence of the article in John 1:1 requires that θεος must be translated “a god.” None of the thirty-five instances is parallel, however, for in every case the predicate noun stands after the verb, and so, according to Colwell’s rule, properly has the article. So far, therefore, from being evidence against the usual translation of John 1:1, these instances add confirmation to the full enunciation of the rule of the Greek definite article.

Furthermore, the additional references quoted in the New World Translation from the Greek of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, 21 in order to give further support to the erroneous rendering in the opening verse of John, are exactly in conformity with Colwell’s rule, and therefore are added proof of the accuracy of the rule. The other passages adduced in the Appendix are, for one reason or another, not applicable to the question at issue. One must conclude, therefore, that no sound reason has been advanced for altering the traditional rendering of the opening verse of John’s Gospel, “… and the Word was God.”

Source: http://www.bible-researcher.com/metzger.jw.html

In other words, the NWT is the result of a committee that did not have a clue about the Hebrew or Greek and just rewrote the KJV to suit their needs. Then you have people like Dr. Metzger, who are specialized in the Greek NT, that called them out on it. Guess who has the credibility?

LOOL. You obviously know next to nothing about about this matter. In the scholarly community it is widely recognized that "the word was a god" is a grammatically correct rendering, just not widely accepted. I could demonstrate how using the original languages and also provide scholar comments, who claim that John 1:1 should read "the Word was God" but also state that "the word was a god" is also grammatically acceptable.

Again where are your debating skills? I provide quotations of skilled linguistics who clearly state that the NWT is a good and unbiased translation, you provide me with Bruce M. Metzger comments on John 1:1 and how the NWT has it incorrect. Where in anywhere what you quoted does it state the NWT is a bad translation overall? It doesn't, as its talking about a single verse John 1:1, as I've stated many times no translation is perfect, no scholar would make a claim that a single version is. Therefore for you to quote his works, in regards to a single passage, in order to try and prove how an entire translation is incorrect is plain stupid.

 

[NWL]

Give their full impressions, not your cherry picked version. You can find them here: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars and NWT.htm

Jason Beduhn also said, "the introduction of the name "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times was "not accurate translation by the most basic principle of accuracy", and that it "violate accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God"

The NWT explains the exact reason as to the insertion of the name of God into the NT for reasons that doesn't change the meaning of the texts whatsoever, one of the main reasons for the insertion of the name is where the NT is borrowing quotes of the OT.

Benjamin Kedar

(who did not major in Hebrew) wrote, "A translation is bound to be a compromise, and as such it's details are open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too. In the portion corresponding to the Hebrew Bible, however, I have never come upon an obviously erroneous rendition which would find it's explanation in a dogmatic bias."

And? This is a later letter confirming what he wrote was in regards to the OT of the NWT?

In a rebuttle to Kedar, H.H.Rowley wrote, "The translation [NWT - NT] is marked by a wooden literalism which will only exasperate any intelligent reader - if such it finds - and instead of showing reverence for the Bible which the translators profess, it is an insult to the Word of God."

And? As already stated there are many scholars who do not like the NWT, just as there are many who like it. The same way there are scholars who like the KJV and other who dislike it.

This is the reason why I asked YOUR opoionion on the matter, I asked for the verses you do not agree with, in the NWT, so that we can discuss them. You have failed many many times to do so.

Could you do that for me now, since you've obviously studied the subject could you show me the verse in the NWT that you don't agree with, or are you borrowing someone else's thoughts on the matter?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Absolutely. However, it isn't just about the bones. Thank of it... if the Romans or the Jews wanted to squash this rumor, all they had to do is show the bones. There wasn't any.

But my point is that once resurrection has taken hold in his followers' imagination, they COULD have shown bones and people would've denied it. In the US there are still people who think a certain war wasn't about a certain concept even though you can SHOW them the words directly from their heroes' mouths which claim it was obviously about that certain concept. Same thing.

But think about it... Jesus was itinerate for 3 years with no luggage. Wasn't in his place of birth when they were "suddenly" with a group of soldiers taking him captive. His clothes were taken by the soldiers and divided by lot.

I have a hard time thinking his mom didn't have anything, but then again, his family thought he'd gone insane, so ...

I mean, there are four sets of baby teeth in my house: mine, my brother's, and our dogs'. I have vacuum sealed bags with old quilts, clothes, my Girl Scout's vest, etc. I can accept that not every family does that, but it's just weird for me.

Either that or my mother is a hoarder, LOL.

2) The Jews could have debunked during their time

I was under the impression that Jews WERE against the apostles. However, instead of saying, "you know, they might have a point", the stories just claim they were children of the Devil.

(Romans 5:12) "...That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned..."

(1 Corinthians 15:21) "...For since death came through a man, resurrection of the dead also comes through a man..."

Now show that it is in Genesis, "In the beginning". Otherwise, Paul is pulling it out of his behind.

Many doubted the existence of Roman ruler Pontius Pilate as there was no historical record of him. In 1961 the name of Pontius Pilate was found in an inscription in the ruins of a Roman theater at Caesarea.

Proving someone existed does not prove a particular story happened, or else you'd think all historical fiction is real.

 

[Neo Deist]

The NWT explains the exact reason as to the insertion of the name of God into the NT for reasons that doesn't change the meaning of the texts whatsoever, one of the main reasons for the insertion of the name is where the NT is borrowing quotes of the OT. And? This is a later letter confirming what he wrote was in regards to the OT of the NWT?
And? As already stated there are many scholars who do not like the NWT, just as there are many who like it. The same way there are scholars who like the KJV and other who dislike it.

This is the reason why I asked YOUR opoionion on the matter, I asked for the verses you do not agree with, in the NWT, so that we can discuss them. You have failed many many times to do so.

Could you do that for me now, since you've obviously studied the subject could you show me the verse in the NWT that you don't agree with, or are you borrowing someone else's thoughts on the matter?

Do you ever wonder why so many people (theologians or otherwise) consider the JW to be a cult? It's not because they are envious of you, or think you have the answers. The JW-WT took Christianity and rewrote it to suit your needs. You guys have spent decades trying to defending your obscurities. It shows in your replies.

You may think that you are doing something in a debate with me, but let me explain something to you...the people that are on this forum have already made up their minds about their beliefs concerning the JWs. If they do not like the JWs, they are most likely reading your posts and just rolling their eyes as if to say "same old BS." When they read mine, they just nod their heads and say "yup" because they agree with me.

You are not "educating" me. You are not winning in a debate against me. You are not pointing out any flaws in my logic. Everything you have stated, I have heard from other JWs over the years. You guys are coached on what to say, and have a bad habit of taking verses out of context and erroneously applying them to support a point or claim.

Furthermore, you have YET to name any archaeological evidence. Quoting some verses from the Bible is not said evidence. We need the tomb, his bones/DNA, his clothing, etc. You know, artifacts! Give us that, then we can talk about archaeology.

Lastly, I think I will stick with what highly educated PhD's in the field say, versus your original NWT committee that had ZERO PhD's or anyone even remotely fluent with Hebrew or Greek.

 

[Kenny]

But my point is that once resurrection has taken hold in his followers' imagination, they COULD have shown bones and people would've denied it. In the US there are still people who think a certain war wasn't about a certain concept even though you can SHOW them the words directly from their heroes' mouths which claim it was obviously about that certain concept. Same thing.

That's true... but that doesn't make what happened false. The position of "imagination" is within your position of belief. Thomas put his finger in His hand and his hand in His side... no imagination necessary.

3 thousand people believed on the first day of Pentecost. Hardly a "taken hold in followers' imagination".

And, can't this go both ways? There are people today don't believe we landed a man on the moon. They believe it was a fabricated Hollywood production. Likewise, Jesus was raised from the dead, but there are those who don't believe it ever happened. No matter what is presented, no matter what the historicity of that reality, one is going to believe it is manufactured.

I'm fine with that... we all have free will

I have a hard time thinking his mom didn't have anything, but then again, his family thought he'd gone insane, so ...

I mean, there are four sets of baby teeth in my house: mine, my brother's, and our dogs'. I have vacuum sealed bags with old quilts, clothes, my Girl Scout's vest, etc. I can accept that not every family does that, but it's just weird for me.

Either that or my mother is a hoarder, LOL.

I suppose it is possible... but how much of what you have mentioned is Western culture? How big were their houses in that era? Did she have a three bedroom, 2 bath house with a two car garage to hold everything? Did she have three closets, four memory chests? Did they have paper to write down memories? I personally don't think so.

They had to leave to Egypt on a moments notice. Joseph went to Bethlehem with just a donkey and what they could carry. With daily work, daily gathering of water, daily preparation of food from scratch... I'm not sure that there was a litany of "preserved" items.

More importantly, Jews would not give items personal "holy" status. It would be idolatry. Too many other factors IMV.

I was under the impression that Jews WERE against the apostles. However, instead of saying, "you know, they might have a point", the stories just claim they were children of the Devil.

The foundation of the church were laid by Jews. Gentiles didn't come in until later so, at the beginning, there were Jews for and those against. The divide grew after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Now show that it is in Genesis, "In the beginning". Otherwise, Paul is pulling it out of his behind.

In the beginning "If you eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, you will surely die". The word "die" is plural in the original and encompasses more than just physical death. After the spiritual separation with God (spirit), man's thought processes impoverished (soul), and their body dies. Pretty obvious.

No one teaches their children to do wrong, lie or cheat... it all comes natural. We all have to teach them to do right, tell the truth and be honest... all have sinned and death reigns.

Proving someone existed does not prove a particular story happened, or else you'd think all historical fiction is real.

Then again, just because someone says it didn't happen, doesn't invalidate what did happen.

 

[viole]

Sacrificed his blood for us - 1 John 1:7

He does not seem to have suffered the slightest inconvenience out of this. At least, according to the mythology.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Neo Deist]

Joseph went to Bethlehem with just a donkey and what they could carry.

This is a classic example of a traditional teaching versus a biblical one. Far too often people quote traditional versions of the story that are not actually biblical. The Gospels never say that Joseph had a donkey or that Mary rode on one. You will not find that detail anywhere in the Bible.

Having said that, common sense would dictate that a pregnant female near the due date, would most likely ride on some type of animal for the distance that they covered. There is even an anonymous writing called the Protoevangelium of James, that indicates that Mary rode a donkey. It was written around 145 CE, and includes several details that are not found in the Gospels. Modern scholars have dismissed it because it fails textual criticism.

In other words, if it is not in the Bible, it is not biblical.

 

[Kenny]

This is a classic example of a traditional teaching versus a biblical one. Far too often people quote traditional versions of the story that are not actually biblical. The Gospels never say that Joseph had a donkey or that Mary rode on one. You will not find that detail anywhere in the Bible.

Having said that, common sense would dictate that a pregnant female near the due date, would most likely ride on some type of animal for the distance that they covered.

You are absolutely right... I stand corrected.

 

[Kenny]

He does not seem to have suffered the slightest inconvenience out of this. At least, according to the mythology.

Ciao

- viole

I disagree...

Adios

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> probably not many knows this
as it is written
:read:
Hebrews 2:14
Since then the children have shared in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same, that through death he might bring to nothing him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,
15 and might deliver all of them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

Jesus gave his flesh and blood for us, this is symbolized by bread and wine. Regarding Jesus it says “[he] gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Tim 2:6). When in the upper rooms Jesus broke a loaf and gave it to his disciples and said “This is my body, which shall be given for the sake of your persons” (Luke 22:19 ABPE) Furthermore in Hebrews 10:10 it reads“For God's will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time” (Heb 10:10 NIV). Jesus body was no doubt sacrificed.

The reason for the title and question "what did Jesus sacrifice?", was asked as vast majority of people who claim they're Christian technically don't believe Jesus actually sacrificed his body once for all time, the reason for this is because most believe Jesus was raised in the flesh and took back the flesh(body) he sacrificed. Most claim this even when presented with scriptures which make it clear Jesus was raised with a spirit body, the same composition that God (John 4:24) and the Angels (Hebrews 1:7) have.

(1 Cor 15:45 NIV) “..So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam [Jesus], a life-giving spirit…”

(1 Peter 3:18 NIV) “..For Christ also suffered once for sins... He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit..”

No member of Christendom makes the claim that Jesus still has his blood as Jesus sacrificed it, most even site Luke 24:39 as proof that Jesus no longer has it. If this is true then the same consistency must be applied to the sacrifice of Jesus flesh that was sacrificed in the same manner as his blood.

Thus my claim is that since Jesus gave his body of flesh for us then he couldn't and can never take back his body of flesh without nullifying the sacrifice he gave. Any claim that Jesus was raised in the flesh is to say Jesus took back the sacrifice he gave, therefore any person who holds such a thought please answer this, If Jesus was raised in a body of flesh then what did he sacrifice if he took back the body he sacrificed?

 

[Ingledsva]

The NWT explains the exact reason as to the insertion of the name of God into the NT for reasons that doesn't change the meaning of the texts whatsoever, one of the main reasons for the insertion of the name is where the NT is borrowing quotes of the OT.

The Problem with that - is that there is NO name - Jehovah - in Tanakh.

*

 

[Muffled]

Sacrificed his blood for us - 1 John 1:7

Of course but it is a meaningless sacrifice because He is able to create more blood. As the saying goes by Christians. We are wise enough to realize that it is worth it to give up that which we can't retain for something that will never perish.

 

[Muffled]

LOOL. You obviously know next to nothing about about this matter. In the scholarly community it is widely recognized that "the word was a god" is a grammatically correct rendering, just not widely accepted. I could demonstrate how using the original languages and also provide scholar comments, who claim that John 1:1 should read "the Word was God" but also state that "the word was a god" is also grammatically acceptable.

Again where are your debating skills? I provide quotations of skilled linguistics who clearly state that the NWT is a good and unbiased translation, you provide me with Bruce M. Metzger comments on John 1:1 and how the NWT has it incorrect. Where in anywhere what you quoted does it state the NWT is a bad translation overall? It doesn't, as its talking about a single verse John 1:1, as I've stated many times no translation is perfect, no scholar would make a claim that a single version is. Therefore for you to quote his works, in regards to a single passage, in order to try and prove how an entire translation is incorrect is plain stupid.

I believe it is a bad translation because it ignores the context of the rest of the Bible.

 

[Muffled]

He does not seem to have suffered the slightest inconvenience out of this. At least, according to the mythology.

Ciao

- viole

I believe you have erred on two counts: 1. Jesus did suffer from the loss of blood at least that would be the best medical reasoning ie a loss of blood weakens the body.
2: The Bible is not mythology because it comes from God not from some unknown or unreliable source.

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> the evil one
that is within the deepest darkness
in this reality before light was been created
is the one who made jesus loss so many blood coz there is a secret unto this thing
that so called the river of life


:ty:




godbless
unto all always