Where exactly is the sacrifice in the death of Jesus?

[blueman]

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.

you are so off base historically as when Christianity evolved, even with a number of skeptics to Christianity. There was an oral tradition of the doctrine that was prevalent prior to the writers putting pen to papyrus. To say that Jesus did not meet any of the messianic prophecies is flat out dum and in denial.

 

[blueman]

you are so off base historically as when Christianity evolved, even with a number of skeptics to Christianity. There was an oral tradition of the doctrine that was prevalent prior to the writers putting pen to papyrus. To say that Jesus did not meet any of the messianic prophecies is flat out dum and in denial.

Listen to what you're saying about testing history? Legend and myth can evolve in 20 years? Historians who do this for a living would disagree with you because over that short period of time, people who witness said events, including those who opposed Christianity would have been able to dispute it and render it a fraud. That didn't happen, did it? The oral an written doctrine circulated in the first century well within the generation who witnessed said events. Get your facts straight.

 

[fallingblood]

you are so off base historically as when Christianity evolved, even with a number of skeptics to Christianity. There was an oral tradition of the doctrine that was prevalent prior to the writers putting pen to papyrus. To say that Jesus did not meet any of the messianic prophecies is flat out dum and in denial.

Show me one messianic prophecy he supposedly fulfilled. I'm not talking about Christian messianic prophecies, as they are irrelevant. Show me the Jewish messianic prophecies he fulfilled. I've already asked for this once, and you've failed to show me that I'm wrong. Maybe now you can back up your words and show me why I'm in denial.

Also, how am I off base? Should I cite my sources? L. Michael White, who is a Christian as far as I know, has a great source on this. It's called from Jesus to Christianity. Much of what he says is agreed upon by scholars in the field. There are some debates, but the majority do agree with how he has Christianity evolve. Please though, if you think I'm wrong, prove it. Don't just call me off base and not support it.

 

[fallingblood]

Listen to what you're saying about testing history? Legend and myth can evolve in 20 years? Historians who do this for a living would disagree with you because over that short period of time, people who witness said events, including those who opposed Christianity would have been able to dispute it and render it a fraud. That didn't happen, did it? The oral an written doctrine circulated in the first century well within the generation who witnessed said events. Get your facts straight.

First, none of the Gospel writers, or Paul witnessed the events. None of them were even connected to Jesus. Much of this was far distanced from the community Jesus was in, or would have been known in. Also, it was not impossible for myth to grow in a short time. Especially when that myth was so ingrained into a particular group of people. Just look at what Paul is saying about the resurrection. Paul states that you can't have the resurrection of Jesus without the general resurrection. Paul is already predisposed to the idea of the resurrection. He believed that the end was near, and the Kingdom of God would quickly be set up. There were not a whole lot of people who were going to disagree with him. Especially since he was preaching in an area distanced from those who may have seen Jesus. He purposely did so as to not be bothered by other ministers of the Jesus movement.

Also, just looking at the culture, it doesn't take a myth long to grow. For those who really thought Jesus was the messiah, it was inconceivable that he would just die. That in itself made him a failed Messiah. However, during that time it also was much more common to supposedly see the dead supposedly alive. It was actually part of the grieving process. So it would not be a stretch to say that even some of the disciples probably believed that they say Jesus after he died. The only logical conclusion for them was the he was resurrected. This is actually a well documented phenomenon. Even today people claim to hear or see the dearly departed. It's all part of the grieving process.

In an oral tradition, this story would basically become fact. By the time it reaches the Gospel writers, the eye witnesses are dead. There is no one left to debate whether or not it happened. It became accepted fact. So you are quite wrong about how fast something can turn from myth to fact.

 

[blueman]

There is no historical basis for your argument regarding the NT Gospel writers not being the actual author, nor Paul being the author of the majority of the 13 NT books he wrote. Your explanation regarding the impact of the resurrection is weak, at best. Christianity would have never taken off in Jeruselum, Rome and other parts of the world if people realized that Christ's body was either stolen, ravaged by dogs or buried in another tomb. It's just not plausible in light of the history I've already communicated. The whole theory of hallucination is an old argument that has already been disputed by psychologists who have studied this issue. Over 500 people were documented to encounter Jesus over a period of a number of days (I Corinthians 15). The likelihood that all of these folks were hallucinating due to grief is ridiculous. As I've stated before, even skeptics are running out of arguments and beginning to accept the authenticity and historical basis for the New Testament. You're on the wrong side of history in your assessment.

 

[Tristesse]

There is no historical basis for your argument regarding the NT Gospel writers not being the actual author, nor Paul being the author of the majority of the 13 NT books he wrote. Your explanation regarding the impact of the resurrection is weak, at best. Christianity would have never taken off in Jeruselum, Rome and other parts of the world if people realized that Christ's body was either stolen, ravaged by dogs or buried in another tomb. It's just not plausible in light of the history I've already communicated. The whole theory of hallucination is an old argument that has already been disputed by psychologists who have studied this issue. Over 500 people were documented to encounter Jesus over a period of a number of days (I Corinthians 15). The likelihood that all of these folks were hallucinating due to grief is ridiculous. As I've stated before, even skeptics are running out of arguments and beginning to accept the authenticity and historical basis for the New Testament. You're on the wrong side of history in your assessment.

WOW! Ok, ummm...first off, I hope you realize that the writers of the gospels, mathew, mark, luke and john were not the gospel writers names. We don't know who the actual authors are. Mathew, mark, luke and john were names that later church fathers put on the gospels. I mean, this isn't even a secret, this is stuff you learn in seminary.

Second, the impact of christianity has nothing to do with the truth value of whether or not jesus was resurrected. People come to believe things for all kinds of reasons. Plus you have to take into account that the early days of christianity were rife with killing anyone who wasn't a christian, and that means converting people at the threat of death.

 

[blueman]

WOW! Ok, ummm...first off, I hope you realize that the writers of the gospels, mathew, mark, luke and john were not the gospel writers names. We don't know who the actual authors are. Mathew, mark, luke and john were names that later church fathers put on the gospels. I mean, this isn't even a secret, this is stuff you learn in seminary.

Second, the impact of christianity has nothing to do with the truth value of whether or not jesus was resurrected. People come to believe things for all kinds of reasons. Plus you have to take into account that the early days of christianity were rife with killing anyone who wasn't a christian, and that means converting people at the threat of death.

There is no historical basis for your claims, unlike the Gospels and Paul's writings in which no other work of antiquity match up with these as legitimate, historical documents. Most NT scholars agree more than disagree that the writings were those of men who walked with Jesus or had direct access to those who did, in the case of Luke, Paul and John Mark. Your claims are flat out not true.

 

[McBell]

There is no historical basis for your claims, unlike the Gospels and Paul's writings in which no other work of antiquity match up with these as legitimate, historical documents. Most NT scholars agree more than disagree that the writings were those of men who walked with Jesus or had direct access to those who did, in the case of Luke, Paul and John Mark. Your claims are flat out not true.

You sound like some one who has been brain washed by Peter S Ruckman's "school".

Or perhaps Texxe Marres?

Does Jack Chick have a school now?

 

[blueman]

WOW! Ok, ummm...first off, I hope you realize that the writers of the gospels, mathew, mark, luke and john were not the gospel writers names. We don't know who the actual authors are. Mathew, mark, luke and john were names that later church fathers put on the gospels. I mean, this isn't even a secret, this is stuff you learn in seminary.

Second, the impact of christianity has nothing to do with the truth value of whether or not jesus was resurrected. People come to believe things for all kinds of reasons. Plus you have to take into account that the early days of christianity were rife with killing anyone who wasn't a christian, and that means converting people at the threat of death.

You cannot make the same claims regarding the NT writings that apply to the GNOSTIC writings that evolved in the 2nd century and later and were not authored by the individual whose book it was named after.

 

[dogsgod]

There is no historical basis for your claims, unlike the Gospels and Paul's writings in which no other work of antiquity match up with these as legitimate, historical documents. Most NT scholars agree more than disagree that the writings were those of men who walked with Jesus or had direct access to those who did, in the case of Luke, Paul and John Mark. Your claims are flat out not true.

Yes, apparently most scholars believe, that much is true, perhaps.

 

[blueman]

Another claim that has been promulgated by skeptics, is a claim that the Jesus narrative was taken from ancient mythology, which was debunked years ago:

This theory connecting Jesus to Horus was popularized by a few writers from the early 1900s and late 1800s (Gerald Massey is perhaps the most well-known), and a few modern writers have picked up their ideas, but aside from that, its pretty sparse from my understanding.

From what I read (4 internet sources, the Routledge Companion of Egyptian Mythology, and two other Egyptology books–all non-Christian sources, plus one atheistic site–infidels.org, and two specifically Christian sites), here’s what I found:

Horus did NOT have 12 disciples–in some accounts, he has 4 semi-divine devotees, in some he has 16 followers, in others the number is an unlimited number of blacksmiths that he went into battle with.

He was NOT resurrected: After being stung by a scorpion, his mother’s grief and some prayers/magic spells brought him back to life, but that’s about it. In other accounts, he merges with Re, the sun god, and is “reborn” each morning. This is light years away from a Christian concept of resurrection.

As far as Osiris, Horus’s father, is concerned, Seth killed him and tore his body into 14 pieces. Isis recovered 13 of those pieces (minus his penis), and put him back together. He then became ruler of the underworld. This is a sort of “mumified” god. Both Horus’ revivification and Osiris’ re-fashioned-body-mumification are a HUGE differences from a full, bodily, eternal, resurrection from a tomb, to the land of the living.

He was NOT crucified: Seth suffocated/drowned his father, Osiris, though, in a box. Horus was stung by a scorpion (in some accounts).

He was NOT born of a virgin: Isis isn’t even fully human! She conceived him with Osiris…in fact, some pictures show her, in falcon form, hovering over a dead Osiris and an erect phallus/penis-like object….most “miracle” births in pagan religions, in fact, are VERY sexually charged!!!

Horus was to avenge his father’s death…but this is a million miles away from what Christ was all about!

NONE of the secular sources I surveyed even MENTIONED the alleged parallels with Christ…and they were ALL reputable sources, a few of which included primary sources. If it was so obvious, these authorities would have caught it and at least mentioned it. Even the guys at infidels.org debunked this!

Like I asked above, how can someone make a parallel between Horus and Jesus?

Be careful, because some authors, in a rush to make a parallel, use Christian terms loosely when talking about these ancient myths. For example, some might say that Horus’ birth was a “virgin” birth, when it was anything but that. Others might say Osiris was “resurrected” when it was closer to a “revivification” than a Christian resurrection. Just because an author today uses the same *term* doesn’t mean that it carries the same meaning. S/he must extensively argue how the term has the same meaning; s/he must *show* it, not just merely apply the Christian term retroactively.

To establish that borrowing occurred, what you’d have to do is show that the *complex structures* of each “myth” parallel each other. A historical link would need to be established first (a plausible scenario about HOW such borrowing could have occured.). The alleged parallels must be striking and difficult to account for outside of the hypothesis of borrowing. The details must be used with the same meaning. Similar ideas in the parallels must be central to each story–not peripheral elements.

These are the secular standards used in any case of borrowing/copycatting. And even with all this, you will still find many scholars unsure of borrowing!

The MOST you can get with Osiris/Horus/Isis/Christ are very few completely superficial similarities, all of which can be explained by noting humanity’s natural religious urge, which Christians see as a gift from God. Noting that Osiris was a “god of gods,” that Christ was “Lord of Lords,” that Osiris/Horus died and came back to life as well as Christ, and that Horus’ conception was somewhat mysterious as was Christ’s–well, these are “parallels” in name only–they are waaaaay too general to show even a hint of borrowing. Source: The Pugnacious Irishman (non-Christian source)

 

[McBell]

The fact is that there is nothing new in the Bible except perhaps a few names.

 

[blueman]

The fact is that there is nothing new in the Bible except perhaps a few names.

Your entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.

 

[McBell]

Your entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.

Your hypocrisy is only out matched by your ignorance.

 

[Tristesse]

There is no historical basis for your claims, unlike the Gospels and Paul's writings in which no other work of antiquity match up with these as legitimate, historical documents. Most NT scholars agree more than disagree that the writings were those of men who walked with Jesus or had direct access to those who did, in the case of Luke, Paul and John Mark. Your claims are flat out not true.

Let me see if I'm understanding this correctly, are you suggesting that not only are the gospel writers named, Matthew, mark, luke and john, but that they perhaps actually walked with jesus? Because, if this is indeed what you're suggesting, it's laughably absurd and I suggest you do some research. Because, this is stuff that most clergy men no isn't true. For instance, they know that the names matthew, mark, luke and john were not the gospel writers names, no one knows who they were, we have no autograph copies. And the gospel writers never claim to be eyewitnesses, so we know thats not true. You really need to do some research on the bible canonization. I mean, this is elementary knowledge when it comes to biblical scholarly study.

 

[dogsgod]

Let me see if I'm understanding this correctly, are you suggesting that not only are the gospel writers named, Matthew, mark, luke and john, but that they perhaps actually walked with jesus? Because, if this is indeed what you're suggesting, it's laughably absurd and I suggest you do some research. Because, this is stuff that most clergy men no isn't true. For instance, they know that the names matthew, mark, luke and john were not the gospel writers names, no one knows who they were, we have no autograph copies. And the gospel writers never claim to be eyewitnesses, so we know thats not true. You really need to do some research on the bible canonization. I mean, this is elementary knowledge when it comes to biblical scholarly study.

I wouldn't doubt that some biblical scholars support blueman's claims. He might be doing the research for all we know. What exactly is the scholarly consensus?

 

[Tristesse]

I wouldn't doubt that some biblical scholars support blueman's claims. He might be doing the research for all we know. What exactly is the scholarly consensus?

Well, when you go to seminary, you study more in depth on how the bible was put together and things. But one thing that most scholars should know, unless they're trying to deceive, is that no one knows who the authors of the gospels were, we know that later church father in the 3rd or 4th century put the names matthew, mark, luke and john as the names for the gospel writers. And that is pretty much a consensus and well known fact amongst biblical scholars.

 

[dogsgod]

Well, when you go to seminary, you study more in depth on how the bible was put together and things. But one thing that most scholars should know, unless they're trying to deceive, is that no one knows who the authors of the gospels were, we know that later church father in the 3rd or 4th century put the names matthew, mark, luke and john as the names for the gospel writers. And that is pretty much a consensus and well known fact amongst biblical scholars.

No doubt, but do some biblical scholars claim that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses?

 

[blueman]

Your hypocrisy is only out matched by your ignorance.

Whatever

 

[blueman]

Well, when you go to seminary, you study more in depth on how the bible was put together and things. But one thing that most scholars should know, unless they're trying to deceive, is that no one knows who the authors of the gospels were, we know that later church father in the 3rd or 4th century put the names matthew, mark, luke and john as the names for the gospel writers. And that is pretty much a consensus and well known fact amongst biblical scholars.

absolutely false since many of the manuscripts (copies of the original) are dated back to the latter part of the 1st and early part of the 2nd century. Another falsehood on your part.