Jesus' sacrifice - what was the point?

[Storm]

:yes: All in good fun

Cool then. Sometimes hard to tell in text-only.

Whoa! I think I may like your religion even less than the Abrahamic ones. But I dont know enough about it to go that far. That doesn't sound very nice, though. The faithful might have gotten hell?! How does that work? Did they deserve it?

No, not at all! But you asked what the worst case scenario for a tainted working might be. It's not impossible. Luckily, it wouldn't be permanent, either. Eventually, the "souls" would shed their mortal seemings and reincarnate like everyone else.

 

[839311]

Luckily, it wouldn't be permanent, either.

Ok, then I defintely like the Abrahamic ones less.

'Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!' - Koran 18:29

 

[Storm]

Ok, then I defintely like the Abrahamic ones less.

Anything else?

 

[waitasec]

YAY!

OK, I have two explanations:
1) What I actually believe: Jesus was an Avatar*, come to break the Jews out of their legalism. Had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual God of the Jews, hereafter called El for the sake of clarity.

2) Assuming 1 is incorrect (because thought experiments are fun! :drool, and Jesus was actually sent by El, why did He need to sacrifice Himself to Himself to change the rules He made in the first place?

Because El is not God. El is a sidhe-deity*, and bound by the rules of such beings. To rewrite the rules of His covenant would be a Herculean feat of magic, requiring an unimaginably strong power source. One of the strongest generators of magical power is blood/ death. However, it's also one of the most unstable and easily tainted. An immense blood sacrifice was required, but an unwilling one would taint the "juice" and warp the shaping. So, what's a deity to do? Create the perfect sacrificial lamb. El incarnated a piece of Himself to be said perfect sacrifice.

Weird eough for ya? LOL

* Explanations can be found here.

interesting...
i wonder though, why did jesus have a navel...
meaning why not create a second adam..version 1.1
who didn't sin and would be the ultimate sacrifice...?

 

[839311]

Anything else?

Im not going to a temporary hell, am I?

 

[Storm]

Im not going to a temporary hell, am I?

Only if you believe you're going to Hell/ have made a pact with a deity who would send you to one.

The afterlife is kinda complicated!

 

[*Deleted*]

Paul was through and through a Hellenistic Jew---never was not a Hellenistic Jew. Died a Hellenistic Jew who was a follower of Jesus. As were the writers who wrote in his name. Plagiarism wasn't then what it is today. In any of the non-Pauline epistles, it's difficult to know who exactly wrote them. When Paul writes of certain people, quite often it's written, "born a Jew like me." Whoever wrote some of the non-Pauline epistles wrote, though, as if they were Paul (the Hellenistic Jew who followed Jesus, who was born a Jew and died a Jew.) Did Paul think followers of Jesus could be Gentiles? Obviously.
Did Jesus think that? Um...he came for the lost sheep of Israel, the writer writes in one part. Then there is that strange story about the Syro-Phoenician woman. (In same piece as "I came for the lost sheep of Israel)---and she talks about taking the crumbs. Please help my child. She pesters Jesus, basically and he seemed to be teachable Still was pretty dismissive and nasty to her initially.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Well, I disagree. But my previous post still stands. You've created a straw man. Especially if here you assert that it didn't mean anything.

No, I didn't create a strawman. My assertion is that Jesus' death didn't have any special meaning. It had no value as a sacrifice.

The question is "what was the point?" The short answer is "there was no point".

Then I described what I believe to be the purpose that some sort of meaning was written into the narrative.

 

[sojourner]

No, I didn't create a strawman. My assertion is that Jesus' death didn't have any special meaning. It had no value as a sacrifice.

The question is "what was the point?" The short answer is "there was no point".

Then I described what I believe to be the purpose that some sort of meaning was written into the narrative.

Your assertion is your opinion -- which counts for very little in the Xian world, because, for us, the sacrifice does have meaning. Therefore, it is a straw man. You've created a false adversary that you then knock down.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Your assertion is your opinion -- which counts for very little in the Xian world, because, for us, the sacrifice does have meaning. Therefore, it is a straw man. You've created a false adversary that you then knock down.

The thread was opened up in the Religious Debates section, not in a Christian DIR. By a non-Christian. I'm entitled to my opinion, especially since it was asked for.


So no, it's not a strawman. I created no adversary of any kind, nor was I engaged in knocking down an adversary of any kind. I expressed my opinion. You don't like it. I get that. But you going on about it being a straw man is silly, ignorant, and contributes nothing to the discussion.

 

[fallingblood]

Paul was through and through a Hellenistic Jew---never was not a Hellenistic Jew. Died a Hellenistic Jew who was a follower of Jesus. As were the writers who wrote in his name. Plagiarism wasn't then what it is today. In any of the non-Pauline epistles, it's difficult to know who exactly wrote them. When Paul writes of certain people, quite often it's written, "born a Jew like me." Whoever wrote some of the non-Pauline epistles wrote, though, as if they were Paul (the Hellenistic Jew who followed Jesus, who was born a Jew and died a Jew.) Did Paul think followers of Jesus could be Gentiles? Obviously.
Did Jesus think that? Um...he came for the lost sheep of Israel, the writer writes in one part. Then there is that strange story about the Syro-Phoenician woman. (In same piece as "I came for the lost sheep of Israel)---and she talks about taking the crumbs. Please help my child. She pesters Jesus, basically and he seemed to be teachable Still was pretty dismissive and nasty to her initially.

Actually, plagiarism was very much similar. And we aren't really talking about plagiarism, but forgery. It was done in order to deceive others. It was lying. And looking at the ancient sources on the subject, we can see that it was not an accepted thing to do. I don't know if one could actually find any authentic writings that condoned the actual practice.

As for Jesus. He had no interest in Gentiles. He states that quite clearly by telling his follower not to go to the Gentiles, or even the Samaritans.

 

[*Deleted*]

fallingblood,

As I understand it, (especially) if a person was working closely with another or had known that person, to write in his name wasn't plagiarism as we think of it today. What ancient sources on the subject are you referring to above when you say "we can see that it was not an accepted thing to do"? What are those ancient sources on the subject? Thanks.

 

[fallingblood]

fallingblood,

As I understand it, (especially) if a person was working closely with another or had known that person, to write in his name wasn't plagiarism as we think of it today. What ancient sources on the subject are you referring to above when you say "we can see that it was not an accepted thing to do"? What are those ancient sources on the subject? Thanks.

The first thing I want to say is that we are not definitely sure if the people who wrote in the name of Paul were working closely with him. In fact, there were many people who said they were writing in the name of Paul but we know definitely that they weren't working closely with Paul at all.

A great example of this is with the author of the Acts of Paul. This was a work created in Asia Minor during the second century. The author was tried, and removed, unceremoniously, from his leadership position (according to Tertullian.

Even in the Bible, we are warned against forgeries. II Thessalonians chapter 2, the author warns of writings that are written in the name of Paul, yet were not. The funny thing is, II Thessalonians, as many scholars agree, probably was a forgery itself.

Origen, Jerome, and Augustine also all wrote heated complaints about forgeries. Augustine actually devoted two treatises just on the subject of lying, which in his opinion, it was never okay to lie (thus, writing in the name of someone else, and claiming to be them, was a lie).

Even just looking at the words in which such works were described can tell us a lot. The first is pseudos, which means falsehood or a lie. The second is nothos, which means an illegitimate child. I am relying on Bart D. Ehrman for the translations here.

One would have a hard time actually finding any ancient source that promoted the idea of forgery. As far as I know, there simply are no cases in which it was thought to be okay to write in the name of someone else. I can't even think of any cases that this actually happened and was condoned.

 

[*Deleted*]

We have different understandings about this then. (I understand clearly re: the later church fathers and their comments) but not about the writings during the time of Paul. It's not as I've understood in my studies---I've understood as I wrote earlier. (not to confuse this with warnings about false teachers, etc. That's a different thing, as I understand it.) BTW, I checked out the Isaiah 53 issue.

Thanks!

 

[sojourner]

The thread was opened up in the Religious Debates section, not in a Christian DIR. By a non-Christian. I'm entitled to my opinion, especially since it was asked for.


So no, it's not a strawman. I created no adversary of any kind, nor was I engaged in knocking down an adversary of any kind. I expressed my opinion. You don't like it. I get that. But you going on about it being a straw man is silly, ignorant, and contributes nothing to the discussion.

Here's what you opined at first:

The point of it is to fool people who don't know any better into believing Jesus was the fulfillment of all sorts of prophecies, most of which have nothing to do with each other, if they're prophecies to begin with.

Smoke and mirrors.

It's all for the sake of convenience.

Need Jesus to be the passover lamb? Kill him on passover.
Need to wipe away original sin (a concept that doesn't exist in Judaism... it had to be invented by Christians to give people a reason why they need to be "saved")... kill him.
Need him to be the suffering servant who was pierced? (Which is absolute nonsense, for reasons elaborated on in the "Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?" thread) Crucify him, and write the narrative to reflect the words of the prophets as closely as possible.

It's meant to impress people who don't know any better so that they are led to believe Jesus was all kinds of wonderful and that he's the key to your eternal bliss after you're dead.

What I've highlighted in red poses a straw man. The point isn't "to fool people who don't know better." that's a straw man you've constructed to knock down.

 

[sojourner]

The first thing I want to say is that we are not definitely sure if the people who wrote in the name of Paul were working closely with him. In fact, there were many people who said they were writing in the name of Paul but we know definitely that they weren't working closely with Paul at all.

A great example of this is with the author of the Acts of Paul. This was a work created in Asia Minor during the second century. The author was tried, and removed, unceremoniously, from his leadership position (according to Tertullian.

Even in the Bible, we are warned against forgeries. II Thessalonians chapter 2, the author warns of writings that are written in the name of Paul, yet were not. The funny thing is, II Thessalonians, as many scholars agree, probably was a forgery itself.

Origen, Jerome, and Augustine also all wrote heated complaints about forgeries. Augustine actually devoted two treatises just on the subject of lying, which in his opinion, it was never okay to lie (thus, writing in the name of someone else, and claiming to be them, was a lie).

Even just looking at the words in which such works were described can tell us a lot. The first is pseudos, which means falsehood or a lie. The second is nothos, which means an illegitimate child. I am relying on Bart D. Ehrman for the translations here.

One would have a hard time actually finding any ancient source that promoted the idea of forgery. As far as I know, there simply are no cases in which it was thought to be okay to write in the name of someone else. I can't even think of any cases that this actually happened and was condoned.

I agree with Clare here. Pseudopigraphy was common then.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Here's what you opined at first:

What I've highlighted in red poses a straw man. The point isn't "to fool people who don't know better." that's a straw man you've constructed to knock down.

You're wrong.

I believe that the people who wrote the gospels intended to fool people who didn't/don't know any better into believing that the death of this Jesus character had any sort of point or value.

You disagree with me... you have a different belief about the subject. And that's fine. But I have not constructed any straw man.

 

[waitasec]

You're wrong.

I believe that the people who wrote the gospels intended to fool people who didn't/don't know any better into believing that the death of this Jesus character had any sort of point or value.

You disagree with me... you have a different belief about the subject. And that's fine. But I have not constructed any straw man.

each of the gospels were written for different audiences.
i agree with you, the gospels were nothing but a form of propaganda as a means to add numbers to the jesus movement of that time

 

[sojourner]

You're wrong.

I believe that the people who wrote the gospels intended to fool people who didn't/don't know any better into believing that the death of this Jesus character had any sort of point or value.

You disagree with me... you have a different belief about the subject. And that's fine. But I have not constructed any straw man.

You're belief is wrong. Therefore what you knock down is false. That's a straw man.

 

[sojourner]

each of the gospels were written for different audiences.
i agree with you, the gospels were nothing but a form of propaganda as a means to add numbers to the jesus movement of that time

propaganda wasn't on the agenda. the gospels were written for those who already believed.