Where exactly is the sacrifice in the death of Jesus?

[blueman]

Jesus did not meet hundreds of messianic prophecies. As you are so found of saying, go do your research. Starting with the Jewish understanding of the Messiah. The fact is, if you study the Jewish scripture, you will see that the so call prophecies Jesus fulfilled had nothing to do with him. They did not relate to him in the slightest way. More so, those prophecies had already been fulfilled before Jesus was even born. Your research is severely lacking in this case.

Absolutely false.

 

[blueman]

What does dying on a cross have to do with being resurrected? The only requirement for resurrection is death, he could have been stoned to death. It doesn't matter. And during jesus' life thousands of people were crucified, crucifixion is not unique to jesus.

Your reading what you want to out of what I said. I never said cruxifiction was unique. Try reading it again.

 

[blueman]

Really?
And yet you still spew ignorance like a fire hydrant?
Amazing.


Your posts seem to suggest that you have not done any research.
In fact, I will even go so far as to say that your posts strongly suggest that you much prefer ratification over research.


you realy need to get out more.
You have spent far to much time cooped up with your choir.

Tremendous amount of smoke, but very little substance.

 

[fallingblood]

Trust me, I've done plenty of research and as I have stated before, any diversion in the Gospels does not dispel the material doctrine as stated earlier. Show me one example? The foundation for the authenticity of the Gospels and Paul's Epistles are as solid as the rock it rests on in Jesus Christ.

I showed you one example. Please reread my post and you will clearly see that I did in fact show one example.

And no, the foundation is shaky. We know many of the Pauline Epistles weren't even written by Paul. Paul himself clearly delineated from what Jesus was teaching. This is clear even in his writings when he talks about getting into debates with Peter (a head disciple of Jesus), and James (the brother of Jesus).

And the Gospels have been shown to be inaccurate many times. First, they disagree with each other. How was Jesus before he was going to be crucified? Was he miserable as Mark shows, or was he calm and serene as Luke shows (both showing very different messages)? Did he die on Passover as the synoptic Gospels tell us, or on the day of preparation (the Day before Passover) as John states (again, giving a very different message)? The inaccuracies, and contradictions in the Gospels make it shaky.

 

[fallingblood]

Absolutely false.

Can you support this? Name one prophecy Jesus supposedly fulfilled, and I will show you why it was either fulfilled before time, or that it had nothing to do with Jesus. All you have to do is study the Jewish scriptures, as well as understand what the Jews were looking for in the Messiah. Jesus failed in all accounts.

 

[dogsgod]

Can you support this? Name one prophecy Jesus supposedly fulfilled, and I will show you why it was either fulfilled before time, or that it had nothing to do with Jesus. All you have to do is study the Jewish scriptures, as well as understand what the Jews were looking for in the Messiah. Jesus failed in all accounts.

What scene from a Gospel really happened and how do you know that it happened?

 

[fallingblood]

What scene from a Gospel really happened and how do you know that it happened?

Why do you keep asking this? I've already explained this in other threads. If you want to prove that the Gospels are wrong, why not just create a thread doing so.

 

[blueman]

I showed you one example. Please reread my post and you will clearly see that I did in fact show one example.

And no, the foundation is shaky. We know many of the Pauline Epistles weren't even written by Paul. Paul himself clearly delineated from what Jesus was teaching. This is clear even in his writings when he talks about getting into debates with Peter (a head disciple of Jesus), and James (the brother of Jesus).

And the Gospels have been shown to be inaccurate many times. First, they disagree with each other. How was Jesus before he was going to be crucified? Was he miserable as Mark shows, or was he calm and serene as Luke shows (both showing very different messages)? Did he die on Passover as the synoptic Gospels tell us, or on the day of preparation (the Day before Passover) as John states (again, giving a very different message)? The inaccuracies, and contradictions in the Gospels make it shaky.

No, what you showed me an example of divergence amongst the gospel writers, but not one example have you shown that reflects a material difference in the central doctrine.

 

[blueman]

Can you support this? Name one prophecy Jesus supposedly fulfilled, and I will show you why it was either fulfilled before time, or that it had nothing to do with Jesus. All you have to do is study the Jewish scriptures, as well as understand what the Jews were looking for in the Messiah. Jesus failed in all accounts.

You are really stretching it with your interpretation. That's not what Paul meant at all. Think about it. Paul, formally Saul, a Hebrew's Hebrew and stauch persecutor of the Christian church is converted within a short period of time subsequent to Jesus's cruxifiction and becomes one of Christianity's greatest pioneers and preachers. The disciples, in hiding for much of Jesus's trial, death and burial, begin to preach fervently about Christ within a short period of time after His death, which eventually led to 10 of 11 disciples being martyred. Within about a twenty year period after Jesus's death, the Christian church grew exponentially in Jeruselem and Rome, with many converts from Judaism. Paul explicity references the initial witnesses to Jesus's resurrection in I Corinthians, Chapter 15. This was not some made up rationalization. It would have been exposed for what it was if it were not true and would have had no lasting power, let alone it would not have survived the religious leaders who were vehemently opposed to it for exposing it as a fraud. But they didn't. And
regarding your statement that Jesus failed to fulfill the messianic prophecy, He fulfilled many (Isaiah 9, 11, 53, Psalm 22, Genesis 3:15, to name a few) With more to come (Daniel Chapter 7, in addition to many more). You're way too premature in your assessment.

 

[fallingblood]

No, what you showed me an example of divergence amongst the gospel writers, but not one example have you shown that reflects a material difference in the central doctrine.

That's because you simply do not understand what the divergence is actually talking about. John is stating that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of God, the one who came to take on all of our sins. John is the only one who has this.

Also, whether or not Jesus is divine depends on what Gospel you are reading. I would say that is a material difference in the central doctrine.

 

[fallingblood]

You are really stretching it with your interpretation. That's not what Paul meant at all. Think about it. Paul, formally Saul, a Hebrew's Hebrew and stauch persecutor of the Christian church is converted within a short period of time subsequent to Jesus's cruxifiction and becomes one of Christianity's greatest pioneers and preachers. The disciples, in hiding for much of Jesus's trial, death and burial, begin to preach fervently about Christ within a short period of time after His death, which eventually led to 10 of 11 disciples being martyred. Within about a twenty year period after Jesus's death, the Christian church grew exponentially in Jeruselem and Rome, with many converts from Judaism. Paul explicity references the initial witnesses to Jesus's resurrection in I Corinthians, Chapter 15. This was not some made up rationalization. It would have been exposed for what it was if it were not true and would have had no lasting power, let alone it would not have survived the religious leaders who were vehemently opposed to it for exposing it as a fraud. But they didn't. And regarding your statement that Jesus failed to fulfill the messianic prophecy, He

First, the Christian church did not exist when Paul converted. What existed was a sect of Judaism. Paul was simply leading one form of the Jesus movement. That form was actually different from what Peter, a disciple of Jesus, was teaching. More so, it was also different from what the brother of Jesus was teaching.

Also, I would like to see some evidence for all of the disciples being martyred.

Finally, if you look at the history of Christianity, you will see that you simply are wrong. Christianity didn't really take off until the second century. During the first century, and during the time of Paul, it was still a Jewish movement. Paul himself was a Jew throughout his life.

Also, one can see the evolution of the idea of Jesus being resurrected. Paul doesn't even mention it until 2 decades after Jesus died. That is more than enough time for a myth to be created, especially a myth that was already so prevalent. That being that the general resurrection would soon occur. Paul, a person never witnessing the crucifixion, not knowing Jesus, would not have had a hard time claiming that Jesus (basically a nobody), was resurrected. It was not out of the realm of possibility.

Finally, by all accounts, Jesus was a failed Messiah. There really is no debating that.

 

[blueman]

That's because you simply do not understand what the divergence is actually talking about. John is stating that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of God, the one who came to take on all of our sins. John is the only one who has this.

Also, whether or not Jesus is divine depends on what Gospel you are reading. I would say that is a material difference in the central doctrine.

That's not what I interpret when I read the four Gospels. The central doctrine is pretty clear to me.

 

[fallingblood]

That's not what I interpret when I read the four Gospels. The central doctrine is pretty clear to me.

Which means nothing in this debate. All it shows is that you have faith. Faith does not equal fact.

 

[blueman]

Which means nothing in this debate. All it shows is that you have faith. Faith does not equal fact.

No, it's not only faith, but fact. The four gospels reflect Jesus's ministry and teaching, miracles, prophecy, death and resurrection. There is no question each author wanted to emphasize a resident attribute of His nature and character, but the central doctrine of His deity, sacrifice and resurrection is intact. There's no denying that.

 

[Hawkins]

yes, and it is just as likely that invisible pink unicorns grant wishes to virgins.

Pink unicorns don't have like 1/3 humans believing into it, including the most intelligent such as Isaac Newton. Hoep that you see the difference.

 

[dogsgod]

Pink unicorns don't have like 1/3 humans believing into it, including the most intelligent such as Isaac Newton. Hoep that you see the difference.

Most people for most of civilization thought the world was flat and then thought the sun revolved about the earth. So, what's your point?

 

[Hawkins]

Most people for most of civilization thought the world was flat and then thought the sun revolved about the earth. So, what's your point?

Human minds are always limited in the past, present and future.

To answer your question, you must first define that in what paradigm are we talking about this?

In a nth dimensional time-space paradigm, then we can hardly know!

See?! Your assumption that modern men know all is moot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[fallingblood]

No, it's not only faith, but fact. The four gospels reflect Jesus's ministry and teaching, miracles, prophecy, death and resurrection. There is no question each author wanted to emphasize a resident attribute of His nature and character, but the central doctrine of His deity, sacrifice and resurrection is intact. There's no denying that.

Actually, most of which you are talking about is leaning more towards faith. The majority of it is not fact. The Four Gospels do not agree in many cases. Whether or not that effects the doctrine is irrelevant. The fact that they disagree shows that even trying to figure out what the original doctrine was is quite difficult. For one, which Gospel are you going to follow?

More so, his deity is not agreed upon in all of the Gospels. Using the Gospels, especially Mark, one can make a very sound argument that Jesus was fully human. Going to John, one can make an argument that Jesus is God. Using Matthew and Luke, one can make an argument that Jesus is the literal son of God, but still fully human.

 

[McBell]

Pink unicorns don't have like 1/3 humans believing into it, including the most intelligent such as Isaac Newton. Hoep that you see the difference.

It matters not how many people believe a false thing.
It is still a false thing.

Your appeal to numbers fallacy is most boring.
Care to try again?

 

[McBell]

Human minds are always limited in the past, present and future.

To answer your question, you must first define that in what paradigm are we talking about this?

In a nth dimensional time-space paradigm, then we can hardly know!

See?! Your assumption that modern men know all is moot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is nothing more than a big steaming pile of bull ****.
Your sad attempt at trying to sound uber intelligent is an epic fail.

Care to try again?