who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

[sojourner]

I am not saying you are wrong, but most Christians today would think of the Crucifixion as the very shedding of blood the verse refers to. It is almost a mantra among Christians to say: 'Jesus died for your sins'.

Well, of course. But the passage doesn't have to be rightly interpreted that way. Either way is perfectly valid.

If you can demonstrate how 'blood...which shall be shed' is not associated with '...for the remission of sins' , then you may have a case. But I still see them as inextricably tied in an airtight container.

The entire Jesus Event expiates sin. The shedding of blood was part of that whole Event. One's life is also partly defined by one's death (provided one has died). Jesus died. His death is part of his life-event. Remember, too, that blood is symbolic of life, so the shedding of blood is symbolic of Jesus pouring out his life for humanity. Therefore, it can be said that Jesus' life (represented by the blood) was given for the expiation of sin.

 

[sojourner]

No, it is tying the sacrifice of the second perfect human, to pay for what the first perfect human did against God.

Sorry. I don't buy the whole substitutionary atonement thing. God doesn't ask a life for a life.

 

[McBell]

No, it is tying the sacrifice of the second perfect human, to pay for what the first perfect human did against God.

I sure as hell hope God doesn't think I am perfect...

It would be as bad as wearing a red shirt in Star Trek....

 

[godnotgod]

No, it is tying the sacrifice of the second perfect human, to pay for what the first perfect human did against God.

Regardless; the point is that it is a BLOOD sacrifice, which is PAGAN.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, of course. But the passage doesn't have to be rightly interpreted that way. Either way is perfectly valid.

The entire Jesus Event expiates sin. The shedding of blood was part of that whole Event. One's life is also partly defined by one's death (provided one has died). Jesus died. His death is part of his life-event. Remember, too, that blood is symbolic of life, so the shedding of blood is symbolic of Jesus pouring out his life for humanity. Therefore, it can be said that Jesus' life (represented by the blood) was given for the expiation of sin.

So all you're saying is that it is his blood that has the power to expunge sin. This is blood sacrifice, whose roots are pagan.

Many spiritual beings devote/sacrifice their lives to the end of man's sufferings, but do not undergo blood sacrifice to do so. I see Yeshua's life this way as well, but the doctrine of blood sacrifice was written into Yeshua's teachings and launched as modern Christianity. Blood sacrifice not only doesn't make any sense whatsoever to spiritually enlightened beings, it is seen as a disgusting ritual. But there are very good reasons why it was added onto Yeshua's teachings, which can be discussed later. Spiritually, it has no significance at all. It is purely unenlightened man's concoction.

Yeshua was crucified, not for anything having to do with sin redemption, but for sedition by the Romans and blasphemy by the Jewish high priests.

 

[godnotgod]

Definition of SHED

a : to cause (blood) to flow by cutting or wounding

— shed blood
to cause death by violence

Shed - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[truthofscripture]

Regardless; the point is that it is a BLOOD sacrifice, which is PAGAN.

Most certainly not. There is nothing pagan with regards Jesus, his Father, or the scriptures or Christianity.

 

[sojourner]

Regardless; the point is that it is a BLOOD sacrifice, which is PAGAN.

It can be interpreted that way; it doesn't have to be interpreted that way. And blood sacrifice is also highly associated with Temple Judaism.

 

[sojourner]

So all you're saying is that it is his blood that has the power to expunge sin.

No, I'm saying the opposite. It's the life that expunges sin -- not the blood. The blood is merely emblematic of Jesus' life.

but do not undergo blood sacrifice to do so.

It wasn't a blood sacrifice. It was a crucifixion. Blood sacrifices involve altars, ritual knives, prayers, etc. Jesus was hung on a cross.

Yeshua was crucified, not for anything having to do with sin redemption, but for sedition by the Romans and blasphemy by the Jewish high priests.

Almost correct. Jesus was crucified for sedition by the Romans. The Jews didn't crucify.

 

[sojourner]

Most certainly not. There is nothing pagan with regards Jesus, his Father, or the scriptures or Christianity.

Blinders much?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm not discounting who believes it. I'm arguing for the facts. And the facts are that Paul didn't write the majority of the NT. He wrote 1/4 of the NT. So, it's untrue to say that, if Paul were taken out of the NT, it would collapse.

Fair enough

The earliest instance of this formula is found in 1 Corinthians, about the year 50, followed by Mark about the year 70.

While this is not in response to me, I want to use to highlight my point or to ask a question in case I'm completely mistaken.

From what I know, 50ish CE is about as early as we get for dating anything from the NT.
1 Corinthians was written by whom? If it's Paul, and Paul's writing, as you've stated, predates even Mark, which is the earliest of the gospels, then isn't it fair to conclude that Paul's theology had an impact on the writing on the gospels, and thus an impact on the entire story-telling process of the New Testament?

That's the point I was trying to make earlier, albeit in a round-a-bout way. If you removed Paul's theology/writing/influence from the Net Testament, then Christianity looks entirely different, does it not?

 

[sojourner]

While this is not in response to me, I want to use to highlight my point or to ask a question in case I'm completely mistaken.

From what I know, 50ish CE is about as early as we get for dating anything from the NT.
1 Corinthians was written by whom? If it's Paul, and Paul's writing, as you've stated, predates even Mark, which is the earliest of the gospels, then isn't it fair to conclude that Paul's theology had an impact on the writing on the gospels, and thus an impact on the entire story-telling process of the New Testament?

That's the point I was trying to make earlier, albeit in a round-a-bout way. If you removed Paul's theology/writing/influence from the Net Testament, then Christianity looks entirely different, does it not?

I'm not sure that Paul influences the gospels that much. Paul is very much concerned with the Gentiles, while Mark is quite Galilean and, therefore, isolated from a lot of Gentile contact. 1 Thessalonians is the earliest -- about 48, so, yeah, Paul's stuff all predates the extant gospels. But sure, Paul's theology does heavily influence early theology of the church, and without Paul, Xy would look different.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm not sure that Paul influences the gospels that much. Paul is very much concerned with the Gentiles, while Mark is quite Galilean and, therefore, isolated from a lot of Gentile contact. 1 Thessalonians is the earliest -- about 48, so, yeah, Paul's stuff all predates the extant gospels. But sure, Paul's theology does heavily influence early theology of the church, and without Paul, Xy would look different.

That was the premise I was trying to establish.

 

[sojourner]

That was the premise I was trying to establish.

Your conclusion was right, but you took a wrong turn at Albuquerque to get there...

 

[jonathan180iq]

Your conclusion was right, but you took a wrong turn at Albuquerque to get there...

Eh, all roads lead to Rome.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If Mary Magdelene had not kicked the buts of the Apostles after Jesus appeared to her not very much at all would have happened at all.
They were in a funk of disbelief, fear and apathy.

 

[sojourner]

Eh, all roads lead to Rome.

 

[godnotgod]

Most certainly not. There is nothing pagan with regards Jesus, his Father, or the scriptures or Christianity.

Other than the fact that the scriptures have been tampered with and added to in such a manner as to have created a new religion called Christianity a la St. Paul. Yeshua did not teach nor believe in blood sacrifice, the virgin birth, nor bodily resurrection.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Most certainly not. There is nothing pagan with regards Jesus, his Father, or the scriptures or Christianity.

Yeah.... That's simply not true.

Hilaria - Hilaria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ides of March - Ides of March - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mamuralia - Mamuralia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pharmakos - Pharmakos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attis - Attis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cybele - Cybele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

et cetera, et ceterea

 

[outhouse]

Mark is quite Galilean

Whoa.

Provides sources please.

The community is obviously Hellenistic with Diaspora origins.