Jesus' death... standard Roman execution or sacrifice for sins?

reply to post by Lexx790


The two earliest records of Alexander the Great weren't written until at least 400 years after he died. Do you deny he existed? Historians have 4 written accounts of eyewitnesses written within 70 years after Jesus died, if I'm being generous. Even skeptical historians grudgingly agree that the 4 gospels were written in the first century.

reply to post by charles1952

i am not saying that someone who we call Jesus did not exits... but Your evidence is from many years after his death, those people never see him face to face... here is one theory why:

JESUS was BORN in the Spring with the Lambs!
He was a REBEL - Against the Pharisees of His Day and
Unfortunately PAID The PRICE ! - This CAN NOT be DENIED !
Sadly, this False ROMAN Structured RELIGION (Built around Him)
Follows the Roman Senators OFFICIAL LITANY To Obey a "LORD" !
Extreme Oath of the Jewsuits ~ www.reformation.org...
~ Loving Spiritual People can See this Perspective as a Challenge
to a Belief Structure, NOT Particularly Based on any Scientific Reality.
~ I Apologize to any Christian who may be Offended.
But I Truly Respect what Jesus STOOD for,
NOT the Excess False Litany built up around his COURAGEOUS Life.
ROMANS realized 300 Yrs. of MARTYRS were ONLY making them LOOK BAD,
so they Co-opted JESUS to Further their EVIL DOMAIN,
Until Martin LUTHER Changed "The GAME".
The EVIL ROMANS have been WREAKING Havock
Ever Since, Using the Jewsuits as THEIR AGENTS.
All Religions are CORRUPTABLE ~ But Some are More Corruptable than Others!

peace

reply to post by ZakOlongapo

but Your evidence is from many years after his death, those people never see him face to face.

The 4 gospels are eye-witness accounts.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Gospel according to Matthew ... writen about 100–140 AD
Gospel according to Mark ... writen 70 AD
Gospel according to Luke ... writen 50-60 AD
Gospel according to John ... writen 90 AD

that is only evidence we have on paper... how do we know that they just not make it UP?
we will trust them? how do we know we can trust them? cos they are part of Bible?
comon ... only evidence we have are those four guys ... no one is eye witness....

peace

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Look, buddy, you're just being thick at this point. Jesus often spoke that he would suffer for the forgiveness of sins and that it is the Father's will. The OT talks about sin sacrifice. If you still cannot see the evidence in front of you, you just don't want to believe.

reply to post by 547000

Look, buddy, you're just being thick at this point. Jesus often spoke that he would suffer for the forgiveness of sins and that it is the Father's will. The OT talks about sin sacrifice. If you still cannot see the evidence in front of you, you just don't want to believe.

Thick? For pointing out that the christian doctrine regarding the crucifixion does not resemble the biblical account?
As for the "evidence", its a christian construct using verses to arrive at a conclusion... i.e- seeing what you want to see in the events of the Roman crucifixion.... that it was actually a "sin sacrifice".

Also, what was the general reaction among the people when they saw the risen Jesus? Did any of them ever speak of Jesus having died for peoples sins?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by ZakOlongapo

 

but Your evidence is from many years after his death, those people never see him face to face.

The 4 gospels are eye-witness accounts.

i believe only 3 gospels are actually witness accounts

Originally posted by ZakOlongapo
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Gospel according to Matthew ... writen about 100–140 AD
Gospel according to Mark ... writen 70 AD
Gospel according to Luke ... writen 50-60 AD
Gospel according to John ... writen 90 AD

that is only evidence we have on paper... how do we know that they just not make it UP?
we will trust them? how do we know we can trust them? cos they are part of Bible?
comon

... only evidence we have are those four guys ... no one is eye witness....

peace

Read the synoptics....

And try deny truth....
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by 547000

 

Look, buddy, you're just being thick at this point. Jesus often spoke that he would suffer for the forgiveness of sins and that it is the Father's will. The OT talks about sin sacrifice. If you still cannot see the evidence in front of you, you just don't want to believe.

Thick? For pointing out that the christian doctrine regarding the crucifixion does not resemble the biblical account?
As for the "evidence", its a christian construct using verses to arrive at a conclusion... i.e- seeing what you want to see in the events of the Roman crucifixion.... that it was actually a "sin sacrifice".

Make up your mind. Are the scriptures lies or not? I quoted Jesus in my last post but you won't accept what He said about dying willingly for it is the Father's will. You won't accept what He said about dying, rising, and being preached in all nations for the forgiveness of sins.

Why did Jesus die? It was the Father's will. For what? The forgiveness of sins. I don't see how anyone can read both testaments together without seeing this.

reply to post by 547000

Why did Jesus die? It was the Father's will. For what? The forgiveness of sins. I don't see how anyone can read both testaments together without seeing this.

I know you were addressing someone else with this, but I have a comment on it.
You have told me your age, 54700, and your story and reasons for your current faith. When I was your age, I, too discovered books that made sense to me.

On re-reading them 20 years or so later, the meanings change; the symbols take on more weight, the bigger, more complex picture becomes more clear. This is due to life experience, knowledge of the world around you, and the development of the mature brain.

I would only suggest that you go forward with an open mind to consider others' points of view. You can always toss them out, but I'd wager a nickel that your own point of view will change as you get older. You'll just know more stuff; and hopefully realize how much stuff you don't know, and you'll have some adult mileage behind you on which you can reflect.

That's the mark of wisdom.

reply to post by wildtimes


Yes, things have changed. When I first read the bible, none of the parables made sense. Now they make perfect sense. The key to the bible is to have faith in Jesus and what the church's teach. Until you have that faith you can read the bible a thousand times and not be able to understand it. You can subscribe to conspiracy theories or gnosticism. The truth can be read right in front of you, but it is difficult to understand if you can't have faith like a child. Everyone wants to be wise and come to their own secret understanding, but the truth is preached plainly and it doesn't appeal to the intellect.

reply to post by borntowatch

Jesus was murdered by his own people. NOT THE ROMANS. The Jews demanded his death.
Funny how you pose a question based on ignorance.

The OP acknowledges that he was "captured and handed over to the Romans to be crucified" in the very first sentence. Funny how you bring that up anyway.

The rest of the OP focuses on Jesus' death by crucifixion...whether or not it was a sin sacrifice.
You say Jesus was "murdered". You are 100% right. So why did the Jews "murder" him? and how does a "murder" become redemption from sin... saving those who believe that Jesus was "murdered" for their sins?

I know there exists several verses that are often quoted by christians to support the doctrine of Jesus sin sacrifice.
But what is conveniently ignored is the fact that the biblical accounts of the trial and the crucifixion does not suggest anything that resembles christian doctrine concerning sin sacrifice.... the crucifixion carried out by Romans had nothing to do with taking away the worlds sins... it had nothing to do with redeeming people from their sins if they believed Jesus died for their sins
Yet Christians ignore these blatant facts and have added their own meaning into the crucifixion to arrive at the conclusion that they want...thereby, transforming Jesus' execution(or like you say, murder) into a ritualistic sin-sacrifice.

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by 547000

 

Look, buddy, you're just being thick at this point. Jesus often spoke that he would suffer for the forgiveness of sins and that it is the Father's will. The OT talks about sin sacrifice. If you still cannot see the evidence in front of you, you just don't want to believe.

Thick? For pointing out that the christian doctrine regarding the crucifixion does not resemble the biblical account?
As for the "evidence", its a christian construct using verses to arrive at a conclusion... i.e- seeing what you want to see in the events of the Roman crucifixion.... that it was actually a "sin sacrifice".

Make up your mind. Are the scriptures lies or not? I quoted Jesus in my last post but you won't accept what He said about dying willingly for it is the Father's will. You won't accept what He said about dying, rising, and being preached in all nations for the forgiveness of sins.

Why did Jesus die? It was the Father's will. For what? The forgiveness of sins. I don't see how anyone can read both testaments together without seeing this.

Be glad, I'm still waiting for the first of my two questions to be answered from page 2.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The two earliest records of Alexander the Great weren't written until at least 400 years after he died. Do you deny he existed? Historians have 4 written accounts of eyewitnesses written within 70 years after Jesus died, if I'm being generous. Even skeptical historians grudgingly agree that the 4 gospels were written in the first century.

Which of the two would you be requesting more evidence for if people claimed they actually existed: Zeus, or Alexander the Great?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by ZakOlongapo

 

but Your evidence is from many years after his death, those people never see him face to face.

The 4 gospels are eye-witness accounts.

If they are eye-witness accounts, explain the resurrection stories in them. Using all four gospels, write out a single, coherent resurrection story.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The two earliest records of Alexander the Great weren't written until at least 400 years after he died. Do you deny he existed? Historians have 4 written accounts of eyewitnesses written within 70 years after Jesus died, if I'm being generous. Even skeptical historians grudgingly agree that the 4 gospels were written in the first century.

Which of the two would you be requesting more evidence for if people claimed they actually existed: Zeus, or Alexander the Great?

Hold on now, let me explain something. When historians examine the evidence they DO NOT consider the gospel accounts to be inspired, inerrant, or scripture of any kind shape or form. Hitsorians accept the gospel accounts for what no one can question them being, a set of ancient accounts that can be subjected to historical scrutiny like any other written work from antiquity. Historians apply the exact academic standards they use with any other historical accounts from antiquity.

That's why you have even Atheist and Agnostic historians who do not deny Christ lived, was crucified, or was dead.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by ZakOlongapo

 

but Your evidence is from many years after his death, those people never see him face to face.

The 4 gospels are eye-witness accounts.

If they are eye-witness accounts, explain the resurrection stories in them. Using all four gospels, write out a single, coherent resurrection story.

My initial thought is you're implying there to be contradictory accounts, it would be shorter and quicker for you to tell me what you think is contradictory and I'll address that.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Hold on now, let me explain something. When historians examine the evidence they DO NOT consider the gospel accounts to be inspired, inerrant, or scripture of any kind shape or form. Hitsorians accept the gospel accounts for what no one can question them being, a set of ancient accounts that can be subjected to historical scrutiny like any other written work from antiquity. Historians apply the exact academic standards they use with any other historical accounts from antiquity.

That's why you have even Atheist and Agnostic historians who do not deny Christ lived, was crucified, or was dead.

True, but they don't claim he was a god, as you do.

reply to post by 547000

..... gnosticism. The truth can be read right in front of you, but it is difficult to understand if you can't have faith like a child.

First of all, gnosticism represents the very earliest Christians. They taught reincarnation, and spiritual enlightenment based on meditation. Which is also what Christ taught.

The truth can be read right in front of you if you take away all the 'interpretative' nonsense.
For example:
You must be born again.
Literally. Born. Again.
Many Christians refuse to believe that Jesus studied mysticism with the Buddhists; and many believe he did, and so did John the Baptist, and when the 3 Magi came they were Buddhist priests who had been sent to find the child. They had received knowledge, mystically, that the next Dalai Lama had been born, and where. They really didn't meet him until he was a toddler, and told Mary and Joseph they were going to take him to study with them when he was old enough.

He went with his parents to the temple, and got separated from them. Mary being frantic, returned from home when she discovered he wasn't there, and found him in chambers with the elders, and much admired. After that was when he left....to study in the East.

That's where he went: to the Buddhist monasteries. There are written records of it, that have been corroborated by independent historians who were privileged to those documents (not many were). He was called St Issa.