Where exactly is the sacrifice in the death of Jesus?

[blueman]

Okay, I can do that too. Marcus Borg, L. Michael White, John D. Crossan, Bart D Ehrman, and J.P Meier would all disagree with you. So I guess we are tied here. Five against five.

I primarily did that because of your initial name dropping.

 

[Tristesse]

I would say your mainstream liberal scholars are actually in the minority. Dr. William Lane Craig, Roberth H. Stein, Gary Habermas, Daniel B. Wallace and Ben Witherington III would probably disagree with your consensus.

Biblical historians of all colors and stripes disagree with your position.

 

[Tristesse]

If those scholars who arbitrarilly discount the historical accuracy of the NT because of the reference to the supernatural, they are no more credible than the folks from the Jesus Seminar. Those who have seriously vetted the issue tend to fall on the side of it's authenticity, than it being a fairy tale or legend. You don't even have to believe it to be the authoratative word of God to see that compared to any other work of antiquity, the NT is second to none in it's historical accuracy, attestation and the short period of time between the copies (manuscripts) being circulated and the original text.

No one is proposing that it's a fairy tale. There aren't two options, either all of it is right or none of it. There are more options, But by definition historians cannot make claims or appeals to the supernatural. Because first you have to demonstrate that the supernatural actually exists. And good luck, there could be a nobel prize in it for you.

 

[blueman]

Have you read any work on the subject? I will refer you to L. Michael White on the issue of the Pauline Epistles. Even wikipedia has an accurate article on it. There is no doubt that some of the Epistles were written after Paul died. There is no doubt some of them were not written by Paul, and this can be seen by how they were written. Here is some preliminary reading that will help you Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As for the Gospels, they never suggest who they were written by. The Titles were added at a later date, which we know because the earliest references we have to them do not have the titles. We have the records showing just how the titles came about. We even have debates on who the authors truly are, such as in the case of the Gospel of John. History shows that we do not know who wrote the Gospels.
Actually it is very plausible. They were in a very different time period. They did not have communication such as we do today. Plus, Jesus really wasn't that important during that time. He was just one more failed messiah. So it was not a stretch to assume that a myth sprouted up about Jesus (one that a population was already predisposed to believe) and that no one could really check.

Jesus was dead, so they had to create an explanation for that. The Messiah was never suppose to be resurrected. As soon as he died he was a failure. So his followers made an explanation of why he didn't fail.

Can you say exaggeration? And I'm not talking about hallucinations. I'm talking about a phenomenon that is highly attested to. One that people still see occur today.

The fact is, the majority of scholars accept that the New Testament is not historically accurate. I have no idea who you've been reading, but you are not familiar with the majority of the scholarship going on.

Your arguments are weak and fail to acknowledge the historical accuracy of the NT narratives around dcotrine. The Jewish people had a rich, oral tradition and the doctrine of Christianity and Jesus's resurrection was communicated throughout the region in a very short period of time. You never addressed previous posts where I referenced the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, the renewed spirit and courage amongst the disciples shortly after Jesus's death. They were in hiding and then began to boadly preach the gospel to the point of he majority of them being martyred (with the exception of John). The growth of Christianity throughout Jeruselum, Rome, Samaria and the world within two decades subsequent to His cruxifiction. Te fact that Jesus's own family thought He was crazy during His ministry and were subsequently being converted shortly after His death. One of the converts was James, His own brother who became a Bishop in the early church. This does not evolve and still resonate power today because of a failed Jesus as you referred to Him as. Why has no other historical figure not only from antiquity, but in history period had more impact in academia, literature, music, art and humanitarian efforts than Jesus Christ? That is not an impact that a failed figure in history would be able to make or sustain over the course of 2000 years, does it?

 

[dogsgod]

That is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of ignorance. The majority of scholars agree that the NT is not historically accurate or authentic. You might as well start providing some evidence right now.

How do you know what the majority of scholars agree on?

 

[dogsgod]

and were subsequently being converted shortly after His death. One of the converts was James, His own brother who became a Bishop in the early church.

Where did you come up with that little gem?

 

[blueman]

Where did you come up with that little gem?

Mark, Chapter 6.

 

[fallingblood]

If those scholars who arbitrarilly discount the historical accuracy of the NT because of the reference to the supernatural, they are no more credible than the folks from the Jesus Seminar. Those who have seriously vetted the issue tend to fall on the side of it's authenticity, than it being a fairy tale or legend. You don't even have to believe it to be the authoratative word of God to see that compared to any other work of antiquity, the NT is second to none in it's historical accuracy, attestation and the short period of time between the copies (manuscripts) being circulated and the original text.

So basically you are admitting you don't know what the mainstream scholarship is about? The mainstream does not state that the NT is a fairy tale or legend. They acknowledge that it is an ancient history, and thus, like most ancient histories, is subject to myth and facts. What they do is discern between the myths and the facts.

We know that the NT is not 100% historically accurate as there is no logical way it can be when it contradicts itself. More so, we know that certain events that it claims to have happened never did, such as the supposed massacre of the innocents by Herod the Great.

The fact that copies were being circulated means absolutely nothing besides that it gain a following.

 

[fallingblood]

I primarily did that because of your initial name dropping.

So since I cited my sources, you decided to name scholars? And then when I counter your scholars, you make a lame excuse? I don't really get it.

 

[fallingblood]

Your arguments are weak and fail to acknowledge the historical accuracy of the NT narratives around dcotrine.

I've already shown this to be inaccurate. The NT disagrees with itself on historical occurrences as well as doctrinal beliefs.

The Jewish people had a rich, oral tradition and the doctrine of Christianity and Jesus's resurrection was communicated throughout the region in a very short period of time.

Do you understand oral tradition? It is not 100% accurate. It is subject to errors. More so, looking at the time period that the Gospels were written, the culture of the time, it is not a far stretch to assume that myth would be added into it. We have myths about many historical figures.

During the time of Jesus, there is little evidence that he made a major impact. His story really didn't take off until after the fact. And that was with Paul propagating it in an area that it had not perviously been seen, to the gentile crowds in places far from where the disciples were. Paul makes this even clear. He did not want any competition so he went to the gentile crowds in areas that the message really hadn't been heard. In other words, no one would have debated whether or not Jesus was resurrected.

More so, bringing this to more modern times, we can look at Harry Houdini. This is in a much more modern culture, and yet even Houdini had myths that became facts after his death. Even today his life story is debated and myths are still be debunked. During his own time he had myths sprouting about him that were considered facts. We can see this to be true with individuals in ancient times as well. So the idea that myths could not sprout up in a relative short time really isn't very logical. Especially when one considers that we still see this occurring today.

You never addressed previous posts where I referenced the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, the renewed spirit and courage amongst the disciples shortly after Jesus's death. They were in hiding and then began to boadly preach the gospel to the point of he majority of them being martyred (with the exception of John).

I did address it by asking for some evidence that any of that ever happened.

The growth of Christianity throughout Jeruselum, Rome, Samaria and the world within two decades subsequent to His cruxifiction.

Incorrect. Christianity was a sect of Judaism still in two decades of his crucifixion. Christianity really didn't come of it's own until the second century. And are you aware how many different teachings of the Jesus movement were going on? What Paul was teaching, and what James and Peter were teaching were very different. And there is evidence that there were other sects of the Jesus movement sprouting up here and there.

Te fact that Jesus's own family thought He was crazy during His ministry and were subsequently being converted shortly after His death. One of the converts was James, His own brother who became a Bishop in the early church.

We are told by both Paul, and Acts that James and Paul disagreed on key points. James was a Jew, from all of the evidence, he died a Jew. He never converted to Christianity as it did not exist. There was a Jesus movement; however that was not Christianity. That was a sect of Judaism.

This does not evolve and still resonate power today because of a failed Jesus as you referred to Him as. Why has no other historical figure not only from antiquity, but in history period had more impact in academia, literature, music, art and humanitarian efforts than Jesus Christ? That is not an impact that a failed figure in history would be able to make or sustain over the course of 2000 years, does it?

Actually it does. The reason it does is because of people like you who accept on blind faith that the NT is accurate and that Jesus as portrayed in the Bible is how he really was.

The difference why Jesus ended up being remembered was simply because of his later followers. Paul being a main reason, and the funny thing is, Paul was not even teaching the same thing as Jesus. He failed during his life time, he failed as the messiah. He simply had good publicists.

Again, going back to Houdini, he is remembered as one of the greatest magicians of all time. He has inspired more magicians than can be counted. However, once one looks at his magical abilities, he simply was a horrible magician. He failed as a magician during his own time, yet people still see him as one of the greatest magicians of all time. The reason being that he had good publicists.

 

[blueman]

I've already shown this to be inaccurate. The NT disagrees with itself on historical occurrences as well as doctrinal beliefs.
Do you understand oral tradition? It is not 100% accurate. It is subject to errors. More so, looking at the time period that the Gospels were written, the culture of the time, it is not a far stretch to assume that myth would be added into it. We have myths about many historical figures.

During the time of Jesus, there is little evidence that he made a major impact. His story really didn't take off until after the fact. And that was with Paul propagating it in an area that it had not perviously been seen, to the gentile crowds in places far from where the disciples were. Paul makes this even clear. He did not want any competition so he went to the gentile crowds in areas that the message really hadn't been heard. In other words, no one would have debated whether or not Jesus was resurrected.

More so, bringing this to more modern times, we can look at Harry Houdini. This is in a much more modern culture, and yet even Houdini had myths that became facts after his death. Even today his life story is debated and myths are still be debunked. During his own time he had myths sprouting about him that were considered facts. We can see this to be true with individuals in ancient times as well. So the idea that myths could not sprout up in a relative short time really isn't very logical. Especially when one considers that we still see this occurring today.

I did address it by asking for some evidence that any of that ever happened.
Incorrect. Christianity was a sect of Judaism still in two decades of his crucifixion. Christianity really didn't come of it's own until the second century. And are you aware how many different teachings of the Jesus movement were going on? What Paul was teaching, and what James and Peter were teaching were very different. And there is evidence that there were other sects of the Jesus movement sprouting up here and there.

We are told by both Paul, and Acts that James and Paul disagreed on key points. James was a Jew, from all of the evidence, he died a Jew. He never converted to Christianity as it did not exist. There was a Jesus movement; however that was not Christianity. That was a sect of Judaism.

Actually it does. The reason it does is because of people like you who accept on blind faith that the NT is accurate and that Jesus as portrayed in the Bible is how he really was.

The difference why Jesus ended up being remembered was simply because of his later followers. Paul being a main reason, and the funny thing is, Paul was not even teaching the same thing as Jesus. He failed during his life time, he failed as the messiah. He simply had good publicists.

Again, going back to Houdini, he is remembered as one of the greatest magicians of all time. He has inspired more magicians than can be counted. However, once one looks at his magical abilities, he simply was a horrible magician. He failed as a magician during his own time, yet people still see him as one of the greatest magicians of all time. The reason being that he had good publicists.

James did convert to Christianity and penned one of the New Testament Books. The fact that he converted did not change the fact that he was a Jew and died a Jew. What did Paul teach different from Jesus. Did he acknowledge that Jesus was Lord, that though being equal with God The Father, He humbled Himself and became a servant and died on the cross and was resurrected? What dramatically from a doctrinal standpoint that he claimed about Jesus that others didn't? Your comparison to Houdini is quite ridiculous and your grasping for straws. Your explanations compared to the arguments I raised throughout this thread pale in comparison. They don't hold water and present a fair amount of anecdotal opinion rather than looking at the circumstances that underscored the impact of Jesus's death and resurrection. The other thing I never raised among the other arguments is the question of "What happened to the body? I'm sure you'll be reaching for straws as you have throughout this thread. The Jesus movement as you referred to it was not a sect of Judiasm. There were some things applicable to the Mosaic law that James and Peter were adhering to, but even they ultimately gave in to Paul as the gospel spread to the Gentiles. The differences that you sight in no way apply to their agreement that Jesus was the Only Begotten Son of God, He came to redeem mankind through His righteous sacrifice on the cross and that He rose from the dead. That is the central doctrine of Christianity and the legalism of the law that Peter and James practiced in regards to certain issues like circumcision was not material to that doctrine when it came to salvation.

 

[fallingblood]

James did convert to Christianity and penned one of the New Testament Books.

There is no evidence that he wrote the book accredited to him. Actually, the book accredited to him was most likely written after his death. It is actually almost for certain James was dead by the time his supposed epistle was written.

The fact that he converted did not change the fact that he was a Jew and died a Jew. What did Paul teach different from Jesus. Did he acknowledge that Jesus was Lord, that though being equal with God The Father, He humbled Himself and became a servant and died on the cross and was resurrected? What dramatically from a doctrinal standpoint that he claimed about Jesus that others didn't?

Read acts and the accounts of Paul. They both of Paul in disagreement with Peter and James. More so, even the Gospels don't agree that Jesus was equal to God.

Your comparison to Houdini is quite ridiculous and your grasping for straws. Your explanations compared to the arguments I raised throughout this thread pale in comparison.

Actually it makes a very good point that you have yet to disprove. Since you were not able to understand what I was saying before, I used an analogy that I thought you would be able to understand, and that proved my point.

They don't hold water and present a fair amount of anecdotal opinion rather than looking at the circumstances that underscored the impact of Jesus's death and resurrection.

I looked at the circumstances during that time period and compared them to a modern day example, proving my point even further. You are showing a lack of understanding of the time period that the NT was written and that Jesus lived.

The other thing I never raised among the other arguments is the question of "What happened to the body? I'm sure you'll be reaching for straws as you have throughout this thread.

It was, as was the norm, most likely left hanging on the cross and was later devoured by wild dogs. If that is wrong, it doesn't mean that Jesus was resurrected. For all we know, he could have survived and is now buried in India, as some claim.

The Jesus movement as you referred to it was not a sect of Judiasm. There were some things applicable to the Mosaic law that James and Peter were adhering to, but even they ultimately gave in to Paul as the gospel spread to the Gentiles.

There is no evidence that James and Peter gave into Paul. According to what we have on James from Josephus, there is a very little chance that James actually did give into Paul. More so, Acts and Paul would suggest otherwise.

And yes, if you did your research on Christianity, you would see that the Jesus movement was in fact a sect of Judaism. That it did not separate really from Judaism until after the second revolt.

The differences that you sight in no way apply to their agreement that Jesus was the Only Begotten Son of God, He came to redeem mankind through His righteous sacrifice on the cross and that He rose from the dead. That is the central doctrine of Christianity and the legalism of the law that Peter and James practiced in regards to certain issues like circumcision was not material to that doctrine when it came to salvation.

So the fact that the Gospels do not all state that Jesus was the Son of God, or equal to God, makes no difference? Also, we know that the Kosher laws was a disagreement that was never hashed out. It was something Peter and James thought was important. Furthermore, just reading Paul, and reading what Jesus said, you can find many differences.

 

[blueman]

There is no evidence that he wrote the book accredited to him. Actually, the book accredited to him was most likely written after his death. It is actually almost for certain James was dead by the time his supposed epistle was written.

Read acts and the accounts of Paul. They both of Paul in disagreement with Peter and James. More so, even the Gospels don't agree that Jesus was equal to God.
Actually it makes a very good point that you have yet to disprove. Since you were not able to understand what I was saying before, I used an analogy that I thought you would be able to understand, and that proved my point.
I looked at the circumstances during that time period and compared them to a modern day example, proving my point even further. You are showing a lack of understanding of the time period that the NT was written and that Jesus lived.
It was, as was the norm, most likely left hanging on the cross and was later devoured by wild dogs. If that is wrong, it doesn't mean that Jesus was resurrected. For all we know, he could have survived and is now buried in India, as some claim.
There is no evidence that James and Peter gave into Paul. According to what we have on James from Josephus, there is a very little chance that James actually did give into Paul. More so, Acts and Paul would suggest otherwise.

And yes, if you did your research on Christianity, you would see that the Jesus movement was in fact a sect of Judaism. That it did not separate really from Judaism until after the second revolt.
So the fact that the Gospels do not all state that Jesus was the Son of God, or equal to God, makes no difference? Also, we know that the Kosher laws was a disagreement that was never hashed out. It was something Peter and James thought was important. Furthermore, just reading Paul, and reading what Jesus said, you can find many differences.

Many scholars believe it was probably James, the brother of Jesus and that it may have been the first NT Book written, somewhere between AD 40 and 50. James was still living at the time. I'm not sure what text you are reading, but the NT Gospels are in sync that Jesus was the Son of God and attest to Jesus acknowledging Himself as God's Son. Paul did seek affirmation from James, Peter and possibly John regarding his preaching of the Gospel on two occasions with trips to Jeruselum. They affirmed what He was preaching to the Gentiles was accurate. They were in sync regarding the Christian doctrine, but did not always see eye to eye regarding the need to continue certain traditions, but that had nothing to do with the Gospel. Christianity evolved exponentially after Jesus's death and many Jews converted from Judiaism to Chrisitianity during that period. Your explanation regarding the claim that Jesus's body was eaten by wild dogs, is an old and tired argument that does not mesh with the historical record. His body was taken down from the cross, buried in the tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea. The Jewish Talmud I believe acknowledges that the heavily guarded tomb was empty shortly after Jesus was buried. The possbility of Him surviving cruxifiction is crazy and even if He did, a battered and shriveled up Jesus would not be able to rally His followers to such heights they attained for the growth of the Christian Church nor would it resonate victory on His behalf.

 

[fallingblood]

Many scholars believe it was probably James, the brother of Jesus and that it may have been the first NT Book written, somewhere between AD 40 and 50. James was still living at the time.

There may be some ultra-conservative scholars who believe that, but they are a small minority. The general consensus, and the evidence points to James not writing that epistle, and it dating to between 70-100 C.E., meaning after James died.

I'm not sure what text you are reading, but the NT Gospels are in sync that Jesus was the Son of God and attest to Jesus acknowledging Himself as God's Son.

Do so with Mark. And John is the only Gospel that really equates Jesus with God.

Paul did seek affirmation from James, Peter and possibly John regarding his preaching of the Gospel on two occasions with trips to Jeruselum. They affirmed what He was preaching to the Gentiles was accurate. They were in sync regarding the Christian doctrine, but did not always see eye to eye regarding the need to continue certain traditions, but that had nothing to do with the Gospel.

The Gospel was still forming. If you really look at it, what Jesus probably taught and what Paul did teach were not always the same. Also, they never affirmed that his preaching to the Gentiles was correct. They disagreed on certain points, one that they did reconcile, the other they did not. They never stated Paul was correct.

Christianity evolved exponentially after Jesus's death and many Jews converted from Judiaism to Chrisitianity during that period.

Incorrect. Christianity was not even fully formed at that time. They were still Jews. Paul never converted from Judaism, and he didn't convert other people to anything except a fringe sect of Judaism. If you look at the actual history, the Jesus movement continued to be a Jewish movement until the second century. And then, it was just in the starting phase of separating from Judaism.

Your explanation regarding the claim that Jesus's body was eaten by wild dogs, is an old and tired argument that does not mesh with the historical record.

What historical record? The fact is, that was the norm. It is what happened on the majority of crucifixion victims. It meshes perfectly with what we know about historical, Roman, crucifixions.

His body was taken down from the cross, buried in the tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea. The Jewish Talmud I believe acknowledges that the heavily guarded tomb was empty shortly after Jesus was buried. The possbility of Him surviving cruxifiction is crazy and even if He did, a battered and shriveled up Jesus would not be able to rally His followers to such heights they attained for the growth of the Christian Church nor would it resonate victory on His behalf.

The fact he died shows he was a failure. Also an empty tomb may signify nothing more than what the Bible says was expected, that someone stole his body.

We know virtually nothing about Joseph of Arimathea. It is possible he never even existed. By the off chance that he did exist, which the Gospels can't even agree upon on him, the Gospels can even fully agree upon the tomb that he supposedly placed Jesus in. The discrepancies raise serious questions.

More so, there is no historical evidence that Jesus really resurrected from the dead. Yes, the Bible claims this, but even Paul says that the resurrection of Jesus is only possible if the general resurrection followed. The general resurrection never happened.

 

[blueman]

We will agree to disagree. The Christian church did evolve before the 2nd century. Paul did convert to Christianity, as well as other Jews in the 1st century. The dogs ravaging Jesus's body or someone stealing a heavily guarded tomb is a stretch at best. The historical record is the NT Gospels and Pauline Epistles and as mentioned before, no other books of antiquity matches it's authenticity as legitimate, historical documents. What we know about circumstances that occurred subsequent to Jesus's death speak more to the possibility that Jesus did resurrect from the dead, rather than not. I mentioned those in earlier posts and I'll just leave it at that. God bless you.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Well i guess Jesus was just a person that was killed some 2000 years ago. Thats it.
There is no more or less sacrifice in his death then in the death of any other person.
The only difference is that some billion people think that it was something special.

 

[blueman]

Well i guess Jesus was just a person that was killed some 2000 years ago. Thats it.
There is no more or less sacrifice in his death then in the death of any other person.
The only difference is that some billion people think that it was something special.

In light of what we know of the historical record and His impact 2000 years later, I don't see how one can come to such a simplistic conclusion.

 

[dogsgod]

The Jesus is history stiffs can't even come up with a single scene from the Gospels and say, this happened and this is how we know. And mythicists are crazy whack jobs for not believing a bunch believers that can't agree on a single thing that Jesus did or said. Well, the scenes are just exaggerated and if you take away the magic bits it could have happened, they say. Well whoop dee freaken doo.

 

[blueman]

The Jesus is history stiffs can't even come up with a single scene from the Gospels and say, this happened and this is how we know. And mythicists are crazy whack jobs for not believing a bunch believers that can't agree on a single thing that Jesus did or said. Well, the scenes are just exaggerated and if you take away the magic bits it could have happened, they say. Well whoop dee freaken doo.

Does not hold much weight when you research the divergence between the Gospel writers and you are not able to identify a material difference in the doctrine of Christianity. Salvation came through Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, He was crucified and rose from the dead. The fact that there was some divergence amongst the Gospel writers makes it more authentic than not. They did not sit around a table and collaborate. They wrote their books at different periods of time in the 1st century and well within a generation of those who witnessed said events. As much as some dispute that, there in the minority. The latter of which I refer to are those who researched the issue and not some internet scholar who does not believe just because....

 

[dogsgod]

Does not hold much weight when you research the divergence between the Gospel writers and you are not able to identify a material difference in the doctrine of Christianity. Salvation came through Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, He was crucified and rose from the dead. The fact that there was some divergence amongst the Gospel writers makes it more authentic than not. They did not sit around a table and collaborate. They wrote their books at different periods of time in the 1st century and well within a generation of those who witnessed said events. As much as some dispute that, there in the minority. The latter of which I refer to are those who researched the issue and not some internet scholar who does not believe just because....

You're a lot more honest than the pretenders on this board. You accept on theological grounds which is a little different than those here that pretend to be historians. I wasn't directing my rant at you.