Where exactly is the sacrifice in the death of Jesus?

[blueman]

Yes, I do. But if you told me that alexander the great was resurrected, I would not believe that claim to be historically accurate. Do you believe that osiris was raised from the dead? If not, why not?

Alexander The Great's biography was written more than 400 years after his death. But you, without hesitation believe that to be factually accurate? The real issue is your unbelief that a supernatural God could intervene in a natural world.

 

[blueman]

Yes, I do. But if you told me that alexander the great was resurrected, I would not believe that claim to be historically accurate. Do you believe that osiris was raised from the dead? If not, why not?

There is no shred of proof that Osiris was even a historical figure and no more than part of Egyptian mythology, unlike Jesus Christ, in which there is no dispute.

 

[blueman]

When did I say hundreds of years? I said decades. I agree with you that it's within the parameters for eyewitness accounts. You're not listening to what I'm saying, if anybody in history, even if it was written by eyewitnesses, reported that so and so was raised from the dead, that cannot be a historically valid claim. Because there are people you can visit today who claim to have been abducted by aliens. Do you consider there testimony reliable? I don't. There is a guy in brazil I believe, who is claiming to be jesus reincarnated, he has 100's of thousands of followers. Things of a miraculous nature, are least probable.

You're a naturalist, I get it! You dispute anything supernatural. Okay.

 

[Tristesse]

Alexander The Great's biography was written more than 400 years after his death. But you, without hesitation believe that to be factually accurate? The real issue is your unbelief that a supernatural God could intervene in a natural world.

I hope you're joking. Because, if you think the statement that alexander the great lived and the statement that jesus was resurrected are even close to similar, ummm...I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. And about his historicity, well, he was a king! which means he had coins with his face on them during his reign. He had huge influence on rome in those days. He has writing from actual contemporaries of him and people who served with alexander. So, the amount of evidence is pretty good to establish that he actually existed. But what you're claiming is completely different. You're not only saying this man existed, but also saying that he was dead and resurrected. If people were saying similar things about Alexander, I would not accept that as sufficient to think he was actually resurrected.

 

[Tristesse]

You're a naturalist, I get it! You dispute anything supernatural. Okay.

No, I don't dispute it, but it has to be demonstrated as being real, before I'll accept it.

 

[McBell]

There is no shred of proof that Osiris was even a historical figure and no more than part of Egyptian mythology, unlike Jesus Christ, in which there is no dispute.

no dispute?
Are you living in a cave?
Perhaps in a bubble?

Did you perhaps get hit really hard in the head?

not in dispute.
wow.
talk about living in a box.

 

[Tristesse]

There is no shred of proof that Osiris was even a historical figure and no more than part of Egyptian mythology, unlike Jesus Christ, in which there is no dispute.

So what? What you have is a claim from a guy claiming to be a god and gaining followers, much like this guy from brazil claiming to be the 2nd coming of jesus. Should I believe that guy from brazil too? I mean I can actually go and talk to him if I wanted too. What we need is a standard of which to judge claims. Not all claims are created equal.

 

[blueman]

So what? What you have is a claim from a guy claiming to be a god and gaining followers, much like this guy from brazil claiming to be the 2nd coming of jesus. Should I believe that guy from brazil too? I mean I can actually go and talk to him if I wanted too. What we need is a standard of which to judge claims. Not all claims are created equal.

It's not even close. There is historicity associated with the life of Jesus. You choose not to believe because it does not fit into your naturalistic box. That's fine. We agree to disagree.

 

[Tristesse]

It's not even close. There is historicity associated with the life of Jesus. You choose not to believe because it does not fit into your naturalistic box. That's fine. We agree to disagree.

I happen to believe and have no problem saying that a man named jesus lived. Thats not the issue, you're taking on "faith" that he was resurrected, thats not history and thats not the way study of history works.

 

[blueman]

no dispute?
Are you living in a cave?
Perhaps in a bubble?

Did you perhaps get hit really hard in the head?

not in dispute.
wow.
talk about living in a box.

What I'm referring to are those who have seriously studied and research the issue, even skeptics. I'm not referring to knee jerk skepticism without doing any shred of research. The latter are in a serious minority about the validity of the existence of Jesus.

 

[blueman]

Mestemia,

The people that you mentioned earlier, other than Jesus, who were raised from the dead, did not die on a cross for the redemption of sins, claim to be God in the flesh, nor meet hundreds of the messianic prophecies written hundreds of years prior to His birth. There is no apples to apples comparison on your end.

 

[Tristesse]

Mestemia,

The people that you mentioned earlier, other than Jesus, who were raised from the dead, did not die on a cross for the redemption of sins, claim to be God in the flesh, nor meet hundreds of the messianic prophecies written hundreds of years prior to His birth. There is no apples to apples comparison on your end.

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.

 

[blueman]

I hope you're joking. Because, if you think the statement that alexander the great lived and the statement that jesus was resurrected are even close to similar, ummm...I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. And about his historicity, well, he was a king! which means he had coins with his face on them during his reign. He had huge influence on rome in those days. He has writing from actual contemporaries of him and people who served with alexander. So, the amount of evidence is pretty good to establish that he actually existed. But what you're claiming is completely different. You're not only saying this man existed, but also saying that he was dead and resurrected. If people were saying similar things about Alexander, I would not accept that as sufficient to think he was actually resurrected.

That's not what I'm comparing. I'm comparing the length of time between said events and the actual written record of those events. When you are investigating the accuracy and authenticity of history, especially ancient, this is very important so that legend could no evolve if there was a widespread gap over many generations before anyone penned the account of those events.

 

[McBell]

What I'm referring to are those who have seriously studied and research the issue, even skeptics.

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

I'm not referring to knee jerk skepticism without doing any shred of research.

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.

The latter are in a serious minority about the validity of the existence of Jesus.

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

 

[McBell]

Mestemia,

The people that you mentioned earlier, other than Jesus, who were raised from the dead, did not die on a cross for the redemption of sins, claim to be God in the flesh, nor meet hundreds of the messianic prophecies written hundreds of years prior to His birth. There is no apples to apples comparison on your end.

I see you are still hiding in your box.

 

[fallingblood]

First off, the miracle of the resurrection is the only rationale conclusion for the origin of the Christian church. Even renowned skeptics are beginning to acknowledge this issue. Secondly, the gospels and Pauline Epistles were written by the authors an witnesses or one who had access to witnesses (in John Mark And Luke's case) and were written within one generation after the cruxifiction of Jesus, unlike the Gnostic Gospels. Do your research and stop making the same tired arguments that have already been proven inaccurate years ago.

Actually it is not. Everything you said is basically false.

First off, if you look at the idea of the resurrection (even Paul goes into this) it was with the idea that Jesus's resurrection was the beginning of the general resurrection. Paul even goes as far as to claim that you can't have the resurrection of Jesus without the general resurrection.

If you look into the origin of the Christian church though, you would see that it started off as a Jewish sect, with Jewish beliefs. If you really want to understand the original Jesus movement, you must first understand the sect of Judaism that Jesus belonged to, what they taught about the resurrection, and equally important, what they believed about the Kingdom of God.

However, the idea of the resurrection was necessary to the Jesus movement. That does not mean it happened. The reason it was necessary is because Jesus was supposedly the Messiah. As soon as he died, he was disqualified from being the Messiah, meaning he failed. That meant that the followers of Jesus had to rationalize his death. They did so by claiming that he was resurrected, and thus was the beginning of the general resurrection.

A key point though is that the general resurrection never happened. The Kingdom of God never came. Everything Jesus said was going to happen within a generation never came to pass, and once again he was shown to be a failure. Because of that failure, once again his message was reinterpreted, and rationalized. If you look at the origin of Christianity, you will see this gradual change. And I'm not talking about the book of Acts.

Now the authentic Pauline epistles may have been written within one generation, but that was still around 2 decades after Jesus died. And it must be also stated that many of the Pauline epistles were not written by Paul.

As for the Gospels, Mark being the earliest, was written around 4 decades after Jesus died. The author of Mark, we now know, was not Mark. The Gospels were first circulated anonymously. It was not until later dates that they were accredited to people who supposedly knew Jesus or were somewhat closely associated with him in order to raise their credibility. Historically though, there is no credible evidence to suggest that the authors who are accredited with writing the Gospels had anything to do with them. Especially when you consider just how long after the fact they were written, as well as how far distanced some of the Gospels were.

 

[fallingblood]

Regarding the diversion in the Gospels around the story, you have to understand the writers did not sit around a table collaborating with each other. They wrote their narrative at different times and when you think about it, where are there any material inaccuracies regarding the doctrine of Jesus's life, death and resurrection? The diversion is not material to the key events. The fact that the Gospel writers referenced women finding the tomb empty as a witness should tell you something if you know how women were viewed and treated in the 1st century. Do your research.

You keep saying do your research, but it is clear you haven't. There are major discrepancies between the Gospels. One should suffice. The synoptic Gospels, Mark, Matthew, and Luke have Jesus dying on the Passover day. John has Jesus dying the day before, on the day of preparation of the Passover. Now the message behind this is very different. That is just one inaccuracy that does make a large difference.

Also, they may not have collaborated, but Matthew and Luke did use Mark as a source.

Finally, women may not have had the freedom that women in America do today, but you should do a little extra research yourself on their status. We have references of Women being rulers of different kingdoms. We have women being the head of different churches. The fact that the empty tomb was witnessed by women does not suggest that it was true.

 

[fallingblood]

Mestemia,

The people that you mentioned earlier, other than Jesus, who were raised from the dead, did not die on a cross for the redemption of sins, claim to be God in the flesh, nor meet hundreds of the messianic prophecies written hundreds of years prior to His birth. There is no apples to apples comparison on your end.

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.

 

[blueman]

You keep saying do your research, but it is clear you haven't. There are major discrepancies between the Gospels. One should suffice. The synoptic Gospels, Mark, Matthew, and Luke have Jesus dying on the Passover day. John has Jesus dying the day before, on the day of preparation of the Passover. Now the message behind this is very different. That is just one inaccuracy that does make a large difference.

Also, they may not have collaborated, but Matthew and Luke did use Mark as a source.

Finally, women may not have had the freedom that women in America do today, but you should do a little extra research yourself on their status. We have references of Women being rulers of different kingdoms. We have women being the head of different churches. The fact that the empty tomb was witnessed by women does not suggest that it was true.

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.

 

[fallingblood]

That's not what I'm comparing. I'm comparing the length of time between said events and the actual written record of those events. When you are investigating the accuracy and authenticity of history, especially ancient, this is very important so that legend could no evolve if there was a widespread gap over many generations before anyone penned the account of those events.

Incorrect. You should research oral tradition a little more. At the same time, research ancient history. Myth can evolve in little or no time. We see this with Jesus. We have to virgin birth myths created in about half a century.

Ancient history was filled with myths. It didn't take multiple generations for these myths to be created.