Do you really believe that Jesus died for our sins?

[Bennettresearch]

Hi Bennettresearch,

Can you tell me the process of the path of enlightenment which Jesus left to follow? Is it written anywhere in the Bible as a distinct path? Can you explain how and why it works?

It certainly isn't easy to pick the historical Jesus out of the scriptures. Biblical scholars point out that they are mostly stories with propaganda written into them. As I cannot claim to know everything about the distinct path of following Jesus, I can disciminate against what a trained pharisee, former persecutor of christians, and a self proclaimed apostle might inject into christianity. Having studied Revelation for many many years, I have come to know the issues of contention that this prophecy is pointing out.

People are so gushy about Paul that they overlook what a Jesus person might have felt about him in the first century. I have read where some authors try to say that the apostle John and Paul were like buddies. Revelation is saying that this isn't true. Where does Paul ever quote Jesus in his letters? Paul went too far in creating his own version of christianity and there were a lot of people who objected to it. You don't hear much about that.

I can say this. When i hear people quoting scriptures in the traditional mumbo jumbo, I don't consider this to be enlightened. Have Jesus in your heart and seek the holy spirit.

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

The point is, that the great lie that was introduced by the deceivers who refused to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, born of human parents as verified by scripture, blinds those who are seeking to enter into the coming kingdowm of God, to the truth, that Like the man Jesus, who even Paul says that we once knew as a man, we too can inherit the glorious body of light that Jesus appeared to Saul in, on the road to Damascus.

The man Jesus was the first fruits to be raised from the dead past Of the "Son of Man," who is the spirit that is currently developing within the body of mankind, and who is born in our distant future into the spiritual dimension that co-exists within this physical world, with the death of the sinful physical body in which he developed. Psalms 51:5; I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother body conceive me.

And it he who is equal to God, who gained all his great wisdom, experience and insight, from the suffering and pain of the body in which he developed, which suffering and pain that he experienced was due to the sins and mistakes of we, the body in which he is developing and for which sinful body, he who was born perfect as the Son of God, comes down to give his immortal body that we, like our brother Jesus, might inherit a share in that immortal body that was torn asunder and poured out as fire on the heads of all who believed the words of the spirit that filled the body of the man Jesus as he rose from the baptismal waters.

For Jesus The obedient servant to his indwelling spirit, spoke not one word on his own authority, but only that which he was commanded to say by "The Son Of Man" in order that he might reveal himself and the great sacrifice that he makes for the sinful body in which he developed. There is a physical body says Paul so there must be a spiritual body, but it is the physical body that comes first. As we have borne the image of the first Adam, so shall we bear the image of the second Adam, who appeared to Saul on the Road to Damascus in his new glorious and blinding body of light and identified himself as Jesus of Nazareth.

For I tell you a sacred secret says Paul, we shall not all fall asleep in death, but we shall be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, from bodies of corruptibe matter, into glorious bodies of incorruptible and brilliant light. As Enoch the first and the least in the gathering of the spirits of man to the eternal Logos, was reborn on earth in his chosen heir and host body, Jesus of Nazareth, so too, all those who received a share of the hidden manna, a small tongue of fire from the immortal body of The Son of Man, which was torn asunder and poured out as fire on all those who received his words as spoken through his obedient servant, the Man Jesus.

They who received their share of immortality, although they have been judged in the flesh as all are judged, now in their immortal spiritual existence, they live as God lives, gathering to themselves all the spirits of their descendants who are obedient to their ancestral spirit, who fall asleep in righteousness after paying the blood price for the mistakes that they have made in their lives on earth.

When they have gathered to themselves, the required number of good spirits whose righteous blood will be the ransom for one man, like Enoch before them, each of the immortals will then choose a host body who is true to who he is and enter their chosen heirs in order to be reborn on earth, who then, like our brother Jesus the first to be harvested from the dead past of our Lord and saviour, death shall have no power over those host bodies, who will take the thrones that have been prepared for them and rule the Sabbath, the Day Of the Lord; the seventh period of one thousand years from the day in which Adam ate of the forbidden tree and died in that day at the age of 930.

You must know who you are, and be true to who you are, before you will be known "Who I Am."

Well, you started out pretty good but fell into the traditional mumbo jumbo and I must say that I don't think you have it.
Let me point out some discrepancies in your sermon.

1. Son of man means prophet. Jesus claimed to be a prophet and rightly so. That's all it means. To create an imaginary scenarion from there is pure folly.

2. Revelation doesn't accept Paul as an apostle.

I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: Revelation 2:2

3. Death of the sinful body? How Gnostic of you. I don't see Jesus representing this in the Gopsels.

4. Jesus said to follow Him and the Holy Spirit. All this commentary about the sinful body and dying for sins is the work of Paul's imagination.

Try and make your posts shorter as I get impatient dealing with someone who just throws a bunch of mumbo jumbo at you expecting you to take the time to wade through it. Get to the point. Do you believe Paul over Jesus?

Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

And I would agree it was murder.
There is notation in Scripture, the pharisees sought to kill Him.
They sought opportunity.

The Carpenter persisted, and He could see the look in their eyes.
When you deliberately persist, knowing the pending consequence...
it is a self sacrifice.

Coincidence?

OK. I think we need to qualify the difference in what is represented about Jesus. It is my perspective that Jesus felt protected by the masses from the Pharisees but didn't anticipate being killed by the Romans. So you are right in so far as saying that he was acting out in spite of the potential consequences, but didn't create the scenario to be a martyr for His cause.

This is my contention here. We hear it represented as a sacrifice sanctioned by God and even created by God as a final cleansing of our sins. The issue of a sacrifice to God to appease sins is a pagan concept and the only argument in the OT is that the Jews sacrifices were more righteous than those of the Canaanites, etc. Even Yohanon preached against the act a sacrifice in the Synagogues after the diaspora. Were does Paul get off sanctioning the cricifixion as a human sacrifice to cleanse our sins?

Craig

 

[footprints]

It certainly isn't easy to pick the historical Jesus out of the scriptures. Biblical scholars point out that they are mostly stories with propaganda written into them. As I cannot claim to know everything about the distinct path of following Jesus, I can disciminate against what a trained pharisee, former persecutor of christians, and a self proclaimed apostle might inject into christianity. Having studied Revelation for many many years, I have come to know the issues of contention that this prophecy is pointing out.

People are so gushy about Paul that they overlook what a Jesus person might have felt about him in the first century. I have read where some authors try to say that the apostle John and Paul were like buddies. Revelation is saying that this isn't true. Where does Paul ever quote Jesus in his letters? Paul went too far in creating his own version of christianity and there were a lot of people who objected to it. You don't hear much about that.

I can say this. When i hear people quoting scriptures in the traditional mumbo jumbo, I don't consider this to be enlightened. Have Jesus in your heart and seek the holy spirit.

Craig

On a personal level, I really do not care if Jesus was a real person or not. Deny the person, but don't deny the teachings. Or another way of saying the same thing, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Still on a personal level, I had all but dismissed the bible as an alignment with other cultures on earth, simply because it didn't contain a path of enlightenment or something similar to help people achieve what the alledged Jesus asked people to achieve. It seemed at surface review, Jesus was saying, this is what I want you to achieve, now go away and figure it out for yourself, of how you are going to achieve it. A sort of, do as I tell you attitude, but I am not going to give you any help to overcome normal, environmental, human perception, and just accept what I say. The environment alone says humans would never be able to acheive this standard.

I now know this was just my blindness, my own intelligence was blocking it out. I was too stupid to see it, but at the time didn't even know I was stupid.

I must admit, it was the paths of enlightenment left by Buddha, Krishna and an Australian aboriginal teacher called Biami, that showed me what a path of enlightenment was. Armed with this knowledge, the path of enlightenment left by Jesus (or the person who designed the story), stuck out as a glowing light. I couldn't believe my own stupidity at first, for not seeing it in the beginning, it was right there in front of me all the time. My problem was I was reading the words and trying to gain some value from them, the path of enlightenment left in the teachings of Jesus, needs to be looked at another way, and from another perspective.

I am not surprised that you couldn't tell me about it, the process, how and why it works, and why it is the quickest path of enlightenment I have found on earth to date.

Thank you for your time.

 

[S-word]

Well, you started out pretty good but fell into the traditional mumbo jumbo and I must say that I don't think you have it.
Let me point out some discrepancies in your sermon.

1. Son of man means prophet. Jesus claimed to be a prophet and rightly so. That's all it means. To create an imaginary scenarion from there is pure folly.

2. Revelation doesn't accept Paul as an apostle.

I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: Revelation 2:2

3. Death of the sinful body? How Gnostic of you. I don't see Jesus representing this in the Gopsels.

4. Jesus said to follow Him and the Holy Spirit. All this commentary about the sinful body and dying for sins is the work of Paul's imagination.

Try and make your posts shorter as I get impatient dealing with someone who just throws a bunch of mumbo jumbo at you expecting you to take the time to wade through it. Get to the point. Do you believe Paul over Jesus?

Craig

And if you receive comfort from your belief then good for you. The fact that you have a short attention span is something that you are going to have to deal with yourself. If my posts upset you and you get so impatient because of your short attention span, then perhaps you might be advised not to bother reading them, it's that simple old matey, it's that simple. Goodbye then, I hope that one day you might find a cure to your problem.

 

[Thief]

OK. I think we need to qualify the difference in what is represented about Jesus. It is my perspective that Jesus felt protected by the masses from the Pharisees but didn't anticipate being killed by the Romans. So you are right in so far as saying that he was acting out in spite of the potential consequences, but didn't create the scenario to be a martyr for His cause.

This is my contention here. We hear it represented as a sacrifice sanctioned by God and even created by God as a final cleansing of our sins. The issue of a sacrifice to God to appease sins is a pagan concept and the only argument in the OT is that the Jews sacrifices were more righteous than those of the Canaanites, etc. Even Yohanon preached against the act a sacrifice in the Synagogues after the diaspora. Were does Paul get off sanctioning the cricifixion as a human sacrifice to cleanse our sins? Craig

You're just drawing the line in a different position, and in doing so taking the sacrifice out.

The Carpenter knew what He was doing and spoke repeatedly of the consequence. He knew how His ministry would end.

But I too, draw the line in a different position.
That the Son of Man would persist in His teachings, completely to the fatal rejection under authority...is a sacrifice.

But that we are 'saved' by the crucifixion...is not true.
We are saved by the teachings...we are saved as we take the word unto our shoulders....and that could bring us to the same fateful end.

'Take up your cross and follow Me'....so He did say.

 

[Muffled]

The mantra goes like this; God gave His only begotten Son to die for our sins so that we may have life.
A human sacrifice as a scapegoat for our sins? Jesus has die so that we can have life? We can’t have life without Jesus around? This all sounds rather sinister when you look at it.
There is scriptural evidence that sacrifice and burnt offerings weren’t really to God’s liking. Jesus is also quoted in the Gospels as saying this.

“But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.
Matthew (12:7)

“But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.
John (8:37-40)

Sacrifice and meal offering Thou hast not desired; My ears Thou hast opened; Burnt offering and sin offering Thou hast not required.
Psalms (40:6)


In spite of the repetition of this rationalization of the crucifixion dreamed up by Paul in the first seven verses of chapter 1 in Revelation, we later have this statement by John.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Revelation (13:8)

John is representing the crucifixion as an act of murder committed by man, not God. What are we to think of this contradiction? We were warned that there would be scribes writing their own propaganda into Revelation, Revelation (22:18-19). Do you believe Jesus or Paul?
Craig

I doubt what the Hindus have to say is relevant but what John said is:

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; 15 that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Paul did say this: 1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Your statement here is a bit confused but it is a sure thing that Paul did not dream up anything but was led by the spirit.
However he did not say that he devised the theology but that he received it and that it was foretold in the scriptures (Isa 53).

Of course God doesn't like it because He doesn't like sin. He hates divorce also but He legalized it.


On the contrary as shown before John is well aware of the significance of the cross and the aprt that God plays in it. And there is no doubt that the crucifixion is seen as an execution of an innocent man. The two ae not at cross purposes. God is quite capable of taking the acts of men, co-opting them and even can maneuver men to act according to His will.

People were warned not to change the book of Revelation but that is not the same thing as predicting that someone actually would.

I believe both Jesus and Paul and find no discrepancy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People are so gushy about Paul that they overlook what a Jesus person might have felt about him in the first century. I have read where some authors try to say that the apostle John and Paul were like buddies. Revelation is saying that this isn't true.

Is the John of Revelation the same person as the apostle John?

Where does Paul ever quote Jesus in his letters?

1 Corinthians 11:23-26.

Coincidentally to the topic of this thread, it's quoted in the Catholic liturgy of the Eucharist, which, in their theology, is very interwoven with the idea of Jesus dying for the sins of humanity.

Paul went too far in creating his own version of christianity and there were a lot of people who objected to it. You don't hear much about that.

I think if you read the epistles carefully, you see offhand and oblique references to disagreements with other Christian leaders of the time. However, in general, I agree with the way you've put it; these disagreements tend to get glossed over.

 

[fallingblood]

Rather than flying around like a seagull crapping on other people posts, why don't you put forward your belief and let us see it. Do you believe that it was the death of the man Jesus that pays the penalty for the sins of the body of mankind?
If so, explain how the death of one man can redeem the whole human race. Or Perhaps you believe that Jesus was an immortal god who came down and entered the womb of some virgin where his co-creator of the universe created a human like temporary body for his immortal son who helped him create the comos.

I haven't a clue as to what you believe, you've been too busy crapping on every thing I say. So away you go, and we'll just sit back while you show us what the great christian, atheist, and agnostic teachers, who you follow, have taught you. Away you go young fellow.

If you took time to actually read what I've said, you would know the basics of my belief. However, you clearly haven't. As to your questions, I believe Jesus was a human who preached a message of Godly justice and a covenantal Kingdom (as described in the Old Testament). I have said this quite a few times before, I believe Jesus had a birth that was normal in every way. It was a natural birth, and he was the child of Mary and Joseph. There was nothing spectacular about it.

I also believe that Jesus died because he was a threat to Rome. The area was a tinderbox, and any spark could have set off another revolt. Taken his actions at the Temple on the Passover, it was clear that he needed to be killed. His death was that of a criminal in the eyes of Rome. I attach nothing special to it.

My beliefs have been formed by a rational and logical look at both the Bible, what scholars have to say (those who have the experience, the research, the credibility, and the knowledge), as well as an anthropological and historical look at the time in which Jesus lived. Now you can use logical fallacies in order to try to discredit that information, but it doesn't matter as your whole theory revolves around the idea that has no evidence accept that you follow your indwelling ancestral spirit, or whatever term you used. Basically, as I have said, it makes any logical argument with you completely pointless because the facts do not matter to you.

 

[S-word]

If you took time to actually read what I've said, you would know the basics of my belief. However, you clearly haven't.

Basically, as I have said, it makes any logical argument with you completely pointless because the facts do not matter to you. If you took time to actually read what I've said, you would know the basics of my belief. However, you clearly haven't.[/quote]

So, what facts are we looking at here, and by the way, I did actually read what you had said, unlike you as I have already revealed.

And yes, I have studied the writings of John Dominic Crossan and many of his conclusions are quite controversial with other Biblical scholars, have you read some of the credible scholars who have issues with many of the conclusions presented by J. D. Crossan, one of many that you might wish to read is, “SIMPLE CHOICES? A RESPONSE TO JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN.” By William (Bill) Loader, Professor of New Testament, Murdoch University. There are of course many other respected scholars who disagree with much of what J.D. Crossan has to say, funny thing about those scholars of yours, no two can agree on everything, and that is how it should be.

I find Crossan to be one of those men who choose that which suites him from scripture and rejects much of the biblical facts, such as ‘the miracles that were performed through Jesus by the spirit of our saviour’, ‘the raising of Lazarus from a seemingly state of death, as Jesus himself said in John 11: 11, “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth: but I go, that I may wake him out of sleep.” Others may have thought he had died, but Jesus knew otherwise, and I’m sure that even you must agree with me, that the body of Lazarus has long since returned to the universal elements from which it was formed.

quote=fallingblood; As to your questions, I believe Jesus was a human who preached a message of Godly justice and a covenantal Kingdom (as described in the Old Testament). I have said this quite a few times before,

Not to me you haven’t buddy boy. I believe that the only time that you have referred to your belief while corresponding with me, previous to the post to which I am now responding, was in Post 24; when you said this: “That is illogical. I believe that Jesus is a human being, but not in anyway because of what your theory states.” See, I did read your posts.

quote=fallingblood; I believe Jesus had a birth that was normal in every way. It was a natural birth, and he was the child of Mary and Joseph. There was nothing spectacular about it.

As every one who has read your posts in this thread, knows that you believe that the Joseph recorded in the genealogy of Matthew, and the Joseph as recorded in the genealogy of Luke, refer to the same man, (Which of course they don’t) you believe that the same Joseph who did not have sex with Mary until after she had given birth to her firstborn son, was the biological father of Jesus.
So where did you receive your information from, that Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, did have sex with Mary before they were married and before the angel told him not to be afraid to take the unmarried pregnant Mary as his wife?

quote=fallingblood; I also believe that Jesus died because he was a threat to Rome. The area was a tinderbox, and any spark could have set off another revolt.

If it was up to Pilate who was the Roman governor of Judaea between 26 and 36 AD, Jesus would have been a free man by morning. It was because of the insistence and the accusations brought against Jesus by the Jewish authorities that Pilate reluctantly agreed to his death, after washing his hands of the innocent blood.

quote=fallingblood; Taken his actions at the Temple on the Passover,

The Passover Lamb of God is always slaughtered on the day of preparation to the Passover. Jesus was dead on the day of Passover. At midnight when Jesus was being interrogated by Pilate, the Jewish authorities could not enter the Gentiles Palace otherwise they would have become ritually unclean, and thereby unable to eat the Passover next evening as Jesus was being laid in the tomb.

 

[S-word]

Continued from post 50.
quote=fallingblood; it was clear that he needed to be killed. His death was that of a criminal in the eyes of Rome. I attach nothing special to it.

I bet you believe it was clear that he needed to be killed, I bet if you were there when Pilate washed his hands of the innocent blood of Jesus, you would have been among those Jews who were screaming out, “Let his blood be on our heads and the heads of our children."

quote=fallingblood; My beliefs have been formed by a rational and logical look at both the Bible, What a load of cods wallop.

quote=fallingblood; And what scholars have to say (those who have the experience, the research, the credibility, and the knowledge), as well as an anthropological and historical look at the time in which Jesus lived. Now you can use logical fallacies in order to try to discredit that information, but it doesn't matter as your whole theory revolves around the idea that has no evidence accept that you follow your indwelling ancestral spirit, or whatever term you used.

Yea mate, I don’t worry about what I eat, I dont listen to all them so-called credible health experts that try to tell me what I should and should not eat. I eat everything that people prepare for me, the spirit that forms this body and maintains it, keeps it healthy for me. And in its continued growth, the spirit takes what it needs and uses it in the continued growth of this body, while rejecting the rubbish.
And so it is with the evolving mind/spirit that is “I”. I eat any spiritual food. There is no poison out there in the books of atheists, agnostic and those scholars who rubbish the Holy words of my God. The spirit that is forming "me/I," takes what it needs and places each component in the enclosures to which they are associated, while rejecting the rubbish. When missing pieces are gathered and fall into their appropriate position, a revelation explodes into light, I have nothing to do with it other than to continue taking in information.

quote=fallingblood; Basically, as I have said, it makes any logical argument with you completely pointless because the facts do not matter to you.
So, what facts are we looking at here? And like I have said I have studied the writings of John Dominic Crossan who denies the virgin birth, which any student who is not under the control of those deceivers who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, must come to the same logical conclusion, so you see we do agree on some issues.

But Crossan suggests that Jesus was illiterate. Jesus who, as a child of about 12 years old is recorded as having sat in the temple for three days astounding the Jewish teachers with his knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. For someone to say that Jesus, who, when he was about to begin his mission, opened the scroll at the words of Isaiah and read the prophecy concerning the messenger of the Lord that was prophesied to come, was illiterate, without any evidence other than what is recorded in the Bible, is talking through his hat as far as I am concerned.

And where does Crossan get off, by saying that Jesus was initially a follower of his second cousin, John the Baptist. Unless Crossan has some other record of the first known meeting of Jesus and his cousin John, then he is stuck with the only known account which is in the Bible, and this is what we read in John 1: 31-34; I did not know who he would be-------But God who sent me to baptise with water, had said to me, “You will see the spirit come down and stay on a man; he is the one who baptises with the Holy spirit.” I have seen it, said John, and I tell you he is the Son of God..... Of course John was to later doubt if he had been correct, for when in prison he sent his disciples to ask Jesus if he really was the promised Messiah or if they had to wait for another? But this passage shows clearly, that John did not know who had been chosen from among the Israelites to speak in the name of the Lord, until he saw the spirit come down in the form of a dove and stay on the man, which was AFTER Jesus was baptised.

But when Jesus first came to his cousin to be baptised , John, who at that point in time did not know who the chosen one would be, said to Jesus when he came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptised by his cousin, “I have need to be baptised by thee, and thou comest to me.” Does this sound like Jesus was a follower of John? I think not. The Biblical Facts do not seem to matter to J. D. Crossan and yourself, which makes any logical debate with you absolutely pointless. Good night.

 

[fallingblood]

As every one who has read your posts in this thread, knows that you believe that the Joseph recorded in the genealogy of Matthew, and the Joseph as recorded in the genealogy of Luke, refer to the same man, ([/FONT][/COLOR]Which of course they don’t) you believe that the same Joseph who did not have sex with Mary until after she had given birth to her firstborn son, was the biological father of Jesus.

That is what I am talking about when I say that you do not read my posts. It also shows why there is little reason to debate with you. Here, I will make it very clear. Joseph, the husband of Mary, had unprotected sexual intercourse with Mary. Joseph sperm then fertilized Mary's egg, and Jesus was conceived. Nine months later, Jesus was born. A natural birth done by natural means without anything special or out of the ordinary occurring. Now seriously, did I have to go through that much trouble to explain this? I thought it was quite clear what I was saying before. And yes, the to genealogies are referring to the same person. There is no credible debate against that.

So where did you receive your information from, that Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, did have sex with Mary before they were married and before the angel told him not to be afraid to take the unmarried pregnant Mary as his wife?

The birth story is not literal. It was a simply creation of the writers. Why else would Luke and Matthew differ so greatly on the subject? Matthew claims that Herod kills all of the male children 2 years or younger, and Luke simply ignores that and places Jesus in a place, if Matthew was correct, would have seen Jesus die. That is just one example of the discrepancies in the birth stories. It is no wonder that the genealogies are different because the two birth stories are highly different.

If it was up to Pilate who was the Roman governor of Judaea between 26 and 36 AD, Jesus would have been a free man by morning. It was because of the insistence and the accusations brought against Jesus by the Jewish authorities that Pilate reluctantly agreed to his death, after washing his hands of the innocent blood.

This shows your lack of actual scholarly research, or any research for that matter. Pilate, from everything we know about him, would not have cared to have one more meaningless Jewish leader, or troublemaker, crucified. It is also known that Pilate, and the Jewish authority, or the high-priest, were on close terms. Pilate would have had no trouble killing Jesus.

The Passover Lamb of God is always slaughtered on the day of preparation to the Passover. Jesus was dead on the day of Passover. At midnight when Jesus was being interrogated by Pilate, the Jewish authorities could not enter the Gentiles Palace otherwise they would have become ritually unclean, and thereby unable to eat the Passover next evening as Jesus was being laid in the tomb.

I will rephrase, during Passover week. It was around Passover that Jesus "cleansed" the Temple. Which he had no reason to do, as nothing horrible was happening there. Yet, it would have caused a horrible situation, which is why Jesus died.

Also, when Jesus was dead depends on what Gospel you look at as they do not agree on that fact.

 

[fallingblood]

I bet you believe it was clear that he needed to be killed, I bet if you were there when Pilate washed his hands of the innocent blood of Jesus, you would have been among those Jews who were screaming out, “Let his blood be on our heads and the heads of our children."

Once again, you add nothing credible. First, you attack me personally. Second you have a belief that flies in the face of a historic Pilate. Pilate would not have washed his hands of the blood of Jesus. There was no reason to. Jesus was a problem. In a time that was so close to revolt at all time, any major spark could have set that off.

Pilate would not have flinched at crucifying one more Jewish leader. It was not the first that he had, and would not be the last. The way the Bible portrays Pilate flies in the face of what we actually know about him. He had a credible reason to kill Jesus, and would have done it with out thinking as it was a needed thing to do.

As you see though, I'm simply not going to debate everything you have to say as it is useless. You lack any credible evidence for your positions. You claim that you know this stuff on an inner spirit or whatever you call it. Simply one can not argue against something like that as it is neither logical, provable, or even rational, which explains why your stance shows exactly that.

Once you want to actually provide credible facts instead of a hogwash interpretation of the Bible that has no evidence to support that interpretation, and that no credible, if any scholar at all would even consider serious, maybe I will be up to actually have a logical debate.

However, if you choose to just claim that your inner spirit or whatever told you so, so then it must be right, there is no need to debate as there can not be any logical debate.

 

[Ardipithecus]

The mantra goes like this; God gave His only begotten Son to die for our sins so that we may have life.

This makes no sense.
1 Man offends God by seeking knowledge (eating the fruit)
2 God demands retribution by Man with a blood sacrifice.
3. Retribution would demand human sacrifice not god sacrifice.
4. Killing the son of God, the supposed offended one, is illogical.

If Jack kills Henry's son, it makes no sense for Henry to punish John by killing Henry's own grandson.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A human sacrifice as a scapegoat for our sins?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human sacrifice is barbaric. It is intuitively wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus has die so that we can have life? We can’t have life without Jesus around? This all sounds rather sinister when you look at it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sinister but irrational and clearly rubbish. Jesus was going to die inevitably whether on the cross by the Romans or of old age surrounded by his 23 great grandchildren. The sinister part if the story that a Cosmic Creator would violate intuitive natural law morality. No matter what happened to Jesus...if Jesus really existed...the time was ripe to invent a new religion as Judaism and Paganism were losing credibility. If no Jesus, Paul could have invented him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is scriptural evidence that sacrifice and burnt offerings weren’t really to God’s liking. Jesus is also quoted in the Gospels as saying this

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no such thing as "scriptural evidence" there is only scriptural hearsay. The story of Abraham and Izhak was clearly amusing to God. The story of Japhtheh sacrificing his daughter in Judges indicates God wanted Japhtheh to keep his promise. A good God would have stopped him.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.
Matthew (12:7)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I desire compassion" is 180 degrees from the God who killed all life on the planet (men, women, children, babies, pregnant mothers and a billion billion species of non-human animals. A compassionate God would not send the plagues to innocent Egyptians because the Pharaoh refused to release the Jews. A compassionate God would not order Israelite troops without provocation, to attack Heshbon and Bashon, killing men, women, children and babies but keep the virgin girls for yourselves.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sacrifice and meal offering Thou hast not desired; My ears Thou hast opened; Burnt offering and sin offering Thou hast not required.
Psalms (40:6)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All barbaric tribes have their stories of sacrifice, eucharistic meals, burnt offerings. The Jews were not different from other Bronze Age savages. God was designed by War Lords deliberately designed as cruel, violent, capricious, and infinitely vindictive. This was to instill fear and obedience of the common people to the War Lord who invented that God. Moses invented God, a composite from earlier Semitic Gods consolidated into one gigantic cosmic monster. There never was anything lovable about God. People praise the "god fearing man.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In spite of the repetition of this rationalization of the crucifixion dreamed up by Paul in the first seven verses of chapter 1 in Revelation, we later have this statement by John.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Revelation (13:8)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More fear tactics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John is representing the crucifixion as an act of murder committed by man, not God. What are we to think of this contradiction? We were warned that there would be scribes writing their own propaganda into Revelation, Revelation (22:18-19). Do you believe Jesus or Paul?
Craig

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

John would be right if there was a real Jesus and he was crucified by the Romans for the political crime of a claim to the throne of Israel. "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." That sign was placed on the cross. We have no verification that any of this actually happened. It could simply be a fictional story. The Romans who kept excellent records, failed to notice this event. If the Romans executed a usurper, rebel, or claiming king in its provinces, the Romans would have recorded it. They recorded such executions and spread the news to discourage future rebellions. If the story above was true, it is very unlikely the Romans would have erased or not recorded the events.

Revelation is a very psychotic book written by a man with a serious mental illness. It is not worth commenting upon anymore than a raving psychotic in Western Washington State Hospital.

Paul suffered from epilepsy. It was likely a seizure (Complex Partial secondarily generalizing) on the road to Damascus. The description of the event was very believable and fits well with the blinding light, visual and auditory hallucinations, falling down with motor movements.

Ardipithecus
"The Clergy hate me, because they KNOW, that I KNOW, that they do not KNOW. - Robert Ingersoll 1884

 

[Ardipithecus]

Pilate would not have flinched at crucifying one more Jewish leader. It was not the first that he had, and would not be the last. The way the Bible portrays Pilate flies in the face of what we actually know about him. He had a credible reason to kill Jesus, and would have done it with out thinking as it was a needed thing to do

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are correct. As the equivalent of provincial governor of a rebellious province, Pilate would not have been repentant. His job was to discourage rebel leaders or those who challenge authority of the Jewish Priest colonial (puppet) government.

Pilate would have made a big display of executing a man claiming to be "King of the Jews." He would brag about it. He would record it in official provincial legal records, along with others executed by Pilate and other provincial leaders. He certainly would not fail to record the execution of a usurping King of the Jews. Such news would spread all over the empire to further discourage other rebels or dissidents. Certainly the whole empire knew of Marcus Antonius, Pompeii, Vercingetorix, Zenobia, Boadica (Boadicea), and other trouble makers. However, people in distant Gaul, Mauritania, Britannia, Italy, and the Balkans only heard about Jesus from proselytizing preachers like Paul. And Paul is not credible.

But we can not find Pilate's record of such an event as the execution of Jesus. Why? Did it never happen? Did it happen but the Jews erased all records of Jesus and his execution? There is no good reason why they would do that. Would the Zealots break into the Roman Palestine Headquarters? That is doubtful since it was guarded by Roman troops. How would they erase the record of Jesus without it being detected by archaeologists.

I think Jesus never happened. He was not crucified. And he never resurrected. It all sounds like a fable influenced by Mithra or one of the other 16 executed saviours before the time of Jesus.

Ardipithecus

 

[Ardipithecus]

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Did Jesus exist?

"No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay."

Ardipithecus, I did not write this excellent article and thank the website for the information.

 

[Bennettresearch]

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Did Jesus exist?

"No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay."

Ardipithecus, I did not write this excellent article and thank the website for the information.

Josephus mentions Jesus and James in his book Antiquities of the Jews. This is not heresay according to your claim of nothing historical being written. You need to cite your quote of any article or web page.
Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

On a personal level, I really do not care if Jesus was a real person or not. Deny the person, but don't deny the teachings. Or another way of saying the same thing, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Still on a personal level, I had all but dismissed the bible as an alignment with other cultures on earth, simply because it didn't contain a path of enlightenment or something similar to help people achieve what the alledged Jesus asked people to achieve. It seemed at surface review, Jesus was saying, this is what I want you to achieve, now go away and figure it out for yourself, of how you are going to achieve it. A sort of, do as I tell you attitude, but I am not going to give you any help to overcome normal, environmental, human perception, and just accept what I say. The environment alone says humans would never be able to acheive this standard.

I now know this was just my blindness, my own intelligence was blocking it out. I was too stupid to see it, but at the time didn't even know I was stupid.

I must admit, it was the paths of enlightenment left by Buddha, Krishna and an Australian aboriginal teacher called Biami, that showed me what a path of enlightenment was. Armed with this knowledge, the path of enlightenment left by Jesus (or the person who designed the story), stuck out as a glowing light. I couldn't believe my own stupidity at first, for not seeing it in the beginning, it was right there in front of me all the time. My problem was I was reading the words and trying to gain some value from them, the path of enlightenment left in the teachings of Jesus, needs to be looked at another way, and from another perspective.

I am not surprised that you couldn't tell me about it, the process, how and why it works, and why it is the quickest path of enlightenment I have found on earth to date.

Thank you for your time.

Well excuse me. I could have sworn you were quoting Paul.
Jesus had the intention of teaching, not dictating. I will agree that one can find parallels in Confuscious, Budda, etc. In a way, great teachers were localized. You have missed my point in this thread, and that is that what Christians parrot as a mantra is a false teaching and not derived from Jesus.
You can't complain about no definitive or verifiable record of Jesus doctrine really exisiting, but an elightened person should know what Jesus didn't teach.
Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

And if you receive comfort from your belief then good for you. The fact that you have a short attention span is something that you are going to have to deal with yourself. If my posts upset you and you get so impatient because of your short attention span, then perhaps you might be advised not to bother reading them, it's that simple old matey, it's that simple. Goodbye then, I hope that one day you might find a cure to your problem.

You must be joking. It isn't a short attention span, it is mumbo jumbo on your part. Don't try a reversal, it doesn't work on me. I do get impatient with rambling long posts that don't seem to have a real point but are just parroting the traditional mumbo jumbo we have been fed for too long, matey!!!
Craig

 

[S-word]

That is what I am talking about when I say that you do not read my posts. It also shows why there is little reason to debate with you. Here, I will make it very clear. Joseph, the husband of Mary, had unprotected sexual intercourse with Mary. Joseph sperm then fertilized Mary's egg, and Jesus was conceived. Nine months later, Jesus was born.

And I will ask you again: if you are talking about Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah who is a direct descendant of Solomon the son of Bathsheba and David, as recorded in the gospel according to Matthew, which states that he wasn't even married to the pregnant unmarried Mary when the angel appeared to him in a dream, and that this Joseph did not have sexual intercourse with Mary until after she had given birth to her first son.

The fact that you personaly believe without any evidence whatsoever, that Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, had unprotected sex with Mary and that the sperm of Joseph then fertilized Mary's egg, and Jesus was conceived, and that nine months later, Jesus was born. Then this is all but a figment of your own imagination.

A natural birth done by natural means without anything special or out of the ordinary occurring.

It was a natural birth, but according to the only records that are in existence, and you can read it for yourself, in Luke 3: 23, Jesus is the son of Joseph the son of Heli Of the tribe of Levi, who is a direct descendant of Nathatn the elder half of Solomon, and is the son of Bathsheba and Uriah who married into the trbe of levi, as Bathsheba was the daughter of Ammiel the son of Obed-Edom, who is a descendant of Moses the Levite, through his second wife, who was the daughter of the second father-in-law of Moses, "Hobab the Kennite." Jethro the priest of Midian, being Moses's first father-in-law.

Now seriously, did I have to go through that much trouble to explain this?

No, you didn't have to at all matey, we all knew what you were saying, and we all knew that your rediculous unsupported supposition, that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, the son of Jacob, from the tribe of Judah, who was still only engaged to Mary when they went from Nazareth of Galilee, to Bethleham of Judaea, and that he did not consumate their union until after she had given birth to her firstborn son Jesus, was what it was, your own rediculous unsupported supposition.

I thought it was quite clear what I was saying before.

Of course it was clear what you were saying, and you may as well say that Jesus was born as a nine foot giant, I mean, when you wish to make up stories out of your own sick head, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, you can say what ever you want to. Mind you, no one is going to believe you, but you can say whatever you wish.

And yes, the to genealogies are referring to the same person. There is no credible debate against that.

Yea! RIGHTO. We begin with two genetic lines from Jacob the son of Isaac, Levi down through Moses to Nathan and Judah down through Perez one of the twins born of Judahs sexual relation with his daughter in law "Tamah,"and appear to merge in David, then divide again through Solomon and His half brother Nathan. One line coming down through Solomon the Son of David and Bathsheba from the tribe of Judah, and ends with Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, who married the pregnant and unmarried Mary, and the other coming down through Nathan the Priest of David, who was also Davids stepson and son-in-law, and finishes with Jesus the son of Joseph, the son of Heli from the tribe of Levi, and you believe that they are the same genealogies, yea, righto matey, Ha haa haaa.

The birth story is not literal. It was a simply creation of the writers.

And so say all the godless.

Why else would Luke and Matthew differ so greatly on the subject?

Because Matthew recorded the genealogy of Joseph, the son of Jacob, from the tribe of Judah, who married the already pregnant and unmarried Mary, while Luke records the genealogy of Jesus, I'll just repeat that, the genealogy of Jesus and his biological father and grand-fathers who are of the tribe of Levi. That's why old matey, that is why.
To finish answering all the questions in your latest post will be too long for one post, but don't you worry young fellow they will be answered, cos I'll be back.