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

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.

Do as I asked and you will see.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

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.

I agree with hydroman. This answer to him is a cop-out.
Do as he asked, or admit you don't know. I thought this was your hobby, NotUrTypical. You should have this answer canned already....

and I would also like to ask you what you make of the Synoptic Gospel scholars; specifically the theory that Matthew was the witness, and Mark and Luke used his gospel account as the source for theirs.
We know that Luke NEVER met Jesus. He only talked others...his gospel is hearsay in its full shining glory.

Why do you dismiss the more recently discovered Gospel of Thomas, for example? He was a disciple. He actually hung out with Jesus. You did not. So, who are you to say Thomas was not important?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.

Do as I asked and you will see.

One question first. Am I allowed to use the Bible version that doesn't come from the 4th century Alexandrian manuscripts that have the last 12 verses of the Gospel according to Mark expurgated from the text? If not we have to get rid of that book.

reply to post by wildtimes

Do as he asked, or admit you don't know.

Yeah, I suppose it was too difficult to understand it would be "faster and easier" the other way, but no biggie.

reply to post by wildtimes


You're putting on mystical and esoteric mysteries because the truth of the gospel is too childish to bare and too impalpable for the intellect. Perhaps the idea of there being an eternal hell for those who reject Christ disturbs you. It did me. These are the sorts of reasons people think the apostles and their immediate successors were corrupt or wrong.

But again things shouldn't be believed because they are preferred but because they are true.

Born-again means to take the baptism of repentance and begin a new life in Christ. Spirit usually means supernatural faith: that the intellect cannot grasp. You have to be born of Spirit and enter the kingdom as little children.

That is how I understand it and Catholic theologians understand it. Otherwise if born again meant reincarnation then it would mean that every man is appointed to live once and be judged is false.

reply to post by wildtimes

Why do you dismiss the more recently discovered Gospel of Thomas, for example?

Because it was written after the disciple Thomas died. It has pseudographical authorship. Over half the NT writings are paralleled, quoted, alluded to in Thomas. There are not even CHRISTIAN writings prior to 150 AD that reference that much NT material. It wasn't written by Thomas, it emerged from the Gnostics in Egypt in the late 2nd early 3rd century.

He was a disciple. He actually hung out with Jesus.

Yes, Thomas was, but he didn't write a gospel. Someone else did and called it "Thomas". And Mark, John Mark, wrote Peter's oral testimony, he was an amanuensis for Peter's account of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

You did not.

Ironically, neither did the author of the Gospel of Thomas.

So, who are you to say Thomas was not important?

It has historical use for understanding the doctrines and theology of the Gnostics from Alexandria, there wasn't much info until the Nag Hammadi library was discovered. Historians had a really foggy picture to view before that was found.

reply to post by 547000

You're putting on mystical and esoteric mysteries because the truth of the gospel is too childish to bare and too impalpable for the intellect.

The gospel is foolishness to them.

reply to post by 547000

Otherwise if born again meant reincarnation then it would mean that every man is appointed to live once and be judged is false.

Exactly. It is false.
Jesus knew he had been born of Spirit, just as we all are; and what the spiritual development to reunite with the Divine Source was....it is to return again and again until we have mastered all of the lessons like he did.

Reincarnation was in the Bible. Catholics decided to leave that part out, because it messed with their power to keep people under their thumbs.

Having looked in some detail at what reincarnation is, we are in a position to further investigate what the Bible has to say about it. A number of the key Biblical passages supporting reincarnation have already been quoted, during the discussion of the concept, but there is more of this evidence to consider. The most well known is a series of passages which establish that John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah:

"See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the LORD you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. (Malachi 3:1)
"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes." (Malachi 4:5)

But the angel said to him "do not be afraid, Zechariah; your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John…And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah…to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:13,17)

Then three times, that we know of, Jesus assured his disciples that John the Baptist really was Elijah returned:


"But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him."
(Mark 9:13)
"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come." (Matt 11:13-14)

"But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him…" Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.
(Matt 17:12-13)

And it's not as if Elijah just came down from heaven and appeared as a herald for Jesus: his spirit and power manifested in a little baby, born in the normal way - just how reincarnation says souls return.

Evidence for Reincarnation
in the Bible

From Ch. 16 of In Search of the Loving God
by Mark Mason

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Dear sk0rpi0n,

You know me, always confused. I assume you're being honest with this thread, so let me ask a few questions with that in mind.

It seems that you're saying that if the doctrine of Christ's death in relation to sin wasn't mentioned in the four Gospels, then that should show us that He didn't die for our sins. (Whatever that's taken to mean.)

If that's your position, should we, and do you, accept everything that is mentioned in one of the Gospels?

if our only source is to be the Gospels, what do you suggest we do with the rest of the New Testament?

I get confused when you say 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

How does one follow from the other? Isn't this one of those "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" situations?

But I get the feeling that there is something deeper in your questions. Do you really have all this passion for analysis of one particular doctrine? It seems a little odd to me, but I may be oversensitive.

Fell free to talk to me in whatever manner you like, there's something very valuable in your heart.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.

Do as I asked and you will see.

One question first. Am I allowed to use the Bible version that doesn't come from the 4th century Alexandrian manuscripts that have the last 12 verses of the Gospel according to Mark expurgated from the text? If not we have to get rid of that book.

You can use any bible you want. Just use the four gospels from whatever bible you wish, and make a coherent resurrection story using each part of the four gospels. The reason I don't do it the quick and easy way is because there isn't one. You have to put all of them together to see. I have tried to do this, and couldn't figure it out.

reply to post by wildtimes


Reincarnation in the Bible? If so, then I find it odd that Nicodemus brought the very subject up with Jesus, and having a perfect opportunity to expound on reincarnation, He did not. Explain.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

Reincarnation in the Bible? If so, then I find it odd that Nicodemus brought the very subject up with Jesus, and having a perfect opportunity to expound on reincarnation, He did not. Explain.

He did; he said over and over, "you must be born again, of water and spirit. " Water is the uterine environment. Indicating born of flesh; with a spirit born of spirit.

Reincarnation and the Bible

In many documented near-death experiences involving Jesus, the concept of reincarnation appears. In the NDE testimony of Jeanie Dicus, she was asked by Jesus if she would like to reincarnate or return. Sandra Rogers was asked the same question by Jesus during her NDE.

One of the reasons many Christians reject the validity of near-death testimony is because they sometimes appear to conflict with their interpretation of Christian doctrines. But Christians are usually very surprised to learn that reincarnation was a doctrine once held by many early Christians. Not only that, as you will soon see there is overwhelming evidence in the Bible of Jesus himself teaching it. More Biblical evidence can be found in Herbert Puryear's outstanding book entitled Why Jesus Taught Reincarnation and Dr. Quincy Howe, Jr.'s excellent book entitled Reincarnation for the Christian.

Many Christians have misconceptions about reincarnation. One particular misconception is that it means people don't inhabit heavenly realms between Earth lives. The misconception is that people reincarnate immediately after death. It ignorantly assumes people will never be permanent residents of heavenly realms. But near-death testimony reveals these misconceptions to be just that - misconceptions. People are free to spend an "eternity of eternities" in afterlife realms before reincarnating to Earth again. There is freedom of choice. This is because time, as we know it on Earth, does not exist in the afterlife realms as it does here. The ultimate purpose for reincarnation is for us to learn enough lessons and gain enough experience from Earth lives that reincarnation is no longer necessary. Like a graduation. Reincarnation is not the goal. Eternal life means never having to die anymore. That is the goal - overcoming death and rebirth. Reincarnation is the method and means to attain this goal. For more information on this visit my research conclusions on reincarnation.

Why Jesus Taught Reincarnation: A Better News Gospel
Publication Date: April 1993

Dr. Puryear makes a powerful and eloquent case for the evidence of reincarnation teachings throughout the bible, with special focus on the philosophy and teachings of Jesus. In particular, Dr. Puryear hoped to reach the 25 million Americans who profess a belief in the bible, believe in the teachings of Jesus and also have an interest in reincarnation teachings....

Now, here is the crux of the argument: Most Gospel readers assume that Nicodemus' question about going back into the womb is said in a mocking tone, simply because he is a Pharisee. But there is nothing in his words to support this. Personal skepticism is there, yes -- but he is not mocking. He addresses Jesus respectfully as "Rabbi," and he says he knows he is from God.

Why would he say that, if he were mocking? What if it was a sincere question, and Nicodemus was seeking to clarify if "rebirth" was literally rebirth in the womb, and, if so, how does it happen?

Then the next statements by Jesus -- about how one must be born of "water and the spirit," that "flesh begets flesh and spirit begets spirit," and that the wind (in Hebrew or Greek, the same word means "spirit") goes "where it wills," make sense as references to reincarnation. Jesus is not telling Nicodemus to get baptized, he is saying that a soul must be born over and over again to become a Zaddik (saint). Not into his mother's womb again in this life, but into another womb when the spirit goes "where it wills" in the next life.

Hope that helps! Have fun exploring!

reply to post by wildtimes

The most well known is a series of passages which establish that John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah:

Mark 8 has in interesting story where Jesus asks who people think he is.
Peter answers:
They said, “John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and still others, one of the prophets.”

So there seems to be another way, according to how these people thought, that someone can also be someone else, without reincarnation, since Jesus had already been around for a long time when John the Baptist died.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

It has historical use for understanding the doctrines and theology of the Gnostics from Alexandria

WHICH WERE THE ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS.

reply to post by 547000

You're putting on mystical and esoteric mysteries because the truth of the gospel is too childish to bare and too impalpable for the intellect. Perhaps the idea of there being an eternal hell for those who reject Christ disturbs you. It did me. These are the sorts of reasons people think the apostles and their immediate successors were corrupt or wrong.

Incorrect. And an arrogant assumption of 'why' I'm 'putting on' mystical and esoteric mysteries.

But again things shouldn't be believed because they are preferred but because they are true.

You are correct here, young man.^^^ The truth is to be believed because it is true for EVERYONE.

You keep slinging around "childish" and "intellect" as though you are somehow beyond all of that. Does the word "intuition" mean anything to you? It's an important part of spirituality. FAR more important than some 50th-hand book.
I'm not disturbed by the idea of an eternal hell; I'm quite confident in what I believe, because I've studied it and practiced it and examined it myself, in many ways and forms, for thousands of hours, since before you were born. Excuse me if I don't take a teenager's disparaging comments after a faith crisis that he suffered as "My Truth."

I have not rejected Christ.
You are not fully knowledgeable about this subject matter. Neither am I.
No One On This Forum Is!! NONE OF US WERE THERE.

The difference is there are some of us who admit it; and others who won't.

I never rejected Christ (in case your intention was to condemn me to your scary hell). Also, you might consider showing some respect for your 'elders'. They have some things to teach you that might ease your rocky road in the next few years.

reply to post by wildtimes


Just because no one was there does not mean some of us are not "knowledgeable" on the subject matter...

Just sayin

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Just because no one was there does not mean some of us are not "knowledgeable" on the subject matter...

Just sayin

That's why I qualified it with "fully". Those who have studied these things know what is available for study. Just this morning I went to the Synoptic Gospel site you linked, Akragon, and it was enlightening for me.

The fact remains, that ALL OF IT is speculation, and NOT personal, first-hand, experiential knowledge.
But thanks for reading.

reply to post by wildtimes

The fact remains, that ALL OF IT is speculation, and NOT personal, first-hand, experiential knowledge.

I would recommend for reading on Jesus, the book I recently got:
The Gospel of Mark: The New Christian Jewish Passover Haggadah (Studia Post Biblica - Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism), J. Bowman

This was published back in '65 and if you look at the Amazon page Christian Passover you see they list the publication date as '97, apparently there was enough demand for this book that it was reissued. It's an expensive book by Brill of the Netherlands, who specialize in high quality scholarly books, but there are used ones like the one I got in very good condition from the original printing.
This is the second book by Bowman I have bought, the earlier one on the Gospel of John. I had known about his book on Mark but was not convinced to buy it until I found it being quoted in the very newest work by one of the new bright lights of biblical scholarship. The most obvious advantage to reading Bowman is that he is an expert in the rabbinical writings of that time (of Jesus) and was in his day, the foremost expert on the ancient Samaritan writings and their religion from that time (of Jesus).
What made me think to add this comment in is the way Bowman writes concerning what he believes was real as far as what Jesus really said, verses what the writer of the Gospel just wrote into the story, or later editors added. Bowman is Australian and exhibits the characteristics common to the culture of that country of being real down to earth common sense thinkers, something they value and pride themselves in as a people.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

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.

I agree with hydroman. This answer to him is a cop-out.
Do as he asked, or admit you don't know. I thought this was your hobby, NotUrTypical. You should have this answer canned already....

and I would also like to ask you what you make of the Synoptic Gospel scholars; specifically the theory that Matthew was the witness, and Mark and Luke used his gospel account as the source for theirs.
We know that Luke NEVER met Jesus. He only talked others...his gospel is hearsay in its full shining glory.

Why do you dismiss the more recently discovered Gospel of Thomas, for example? He was a disciple. He actually hung out with Jesus. You did not. So, who are you to say Thomas was not important?

It is believed, from the evidence of existing documents, that the Gospel of Mark was written before the Gospel of Matthew.

The Gospel of Thomas is not likely to have been written by the Apostle Thomas. Please note the following quote:

"Let none read the gospel according to Thomas, for it is the work, not of one of the twelve apostles, but of one of Mani's three wicked disciples."

—Cyril of Jerusalem, Cathechesis V (4th century)

Since we have only recently rediscovered this gospel in the Nag Hammadi Library, it is unlikely that Cyril of Jerusalem was referring to any other work.