If Jesus's death was necessary to cleanse mankind's sin, wouldn't it be negated upon his resurrection? (traditions, Gospel)

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Mikelee81

Another question that can easily be answered by opening a Bible. In this case to 1 Corinthians 15.

But I doubt Cupper you have any intent on actually wanting to know what it says do you?

Corinthians was written by Paul, and is not a Gospel. But let's not forget most biblical scholars view that the Gospel writers based their writings off what Paul wrote; in other words, it was a game of telegraph that was promulgated be one of person who was the promoter of one of the many Middle East messiah sects.

P.S. I suspect I have a bit more education in biblical history than you do. So, don't try and snow the snowman.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Matthew 4:4

There were No remains found of Jesus' physical body. God resurrected Jesus back to his pre-human spirit body.
- 1st Peter 3:18 B - Jesus was made alive in his spirit body. As with Moses, God disposed of the physical remains.

Gee, and here we were under that impression that there was a physical resurrection of your Jesus who then wandered around for what, about 40 days or so?

[Lyndarn]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Gee, and here we were under that impression that there was a physical resurrection of your Jesus who then wandered around for what, about 40 days or so?

I am truly trying to understand your pointc upper?? Since there are no Youtube evidentiary proof of whatever has been transcribed into the Bible ( Old and New Testament) ..

Most actually view things as "parables"..or past experience lessons... So for Athiest..they doubt ( welcome to Doubting Thomas types)..then there are those who have EVOLVED and have chosen to use all teachings and apply to today's circumstances!!

Jesus, rising from the dead..and his spirit/soul/or miracle human presentations actually, given that time over 2010 years ago..who knows just what their understanding was ??

What truly shocks me..with so much ability to forensically document/understand DNA and existence of the "Soul" or "Energy" depending on particular view...

The actually teachings of Jesus never varied...He never said he was the "Son of God"..many assigned that because of his final words.." Father..Why have your forsaken me" while dying on the Cross....Jesus never asserted he was SON of God..That's presumptuous actually.. But at least..Jesus did suggest continually about Cleansing of sins and ability to do so..No human being is NOW expected to be perfect/God's law abiding..as has been shown over and over again...Many Pastors/Priest/Ministers/Leaders who preach righteousness >Many< FAIL..SO their has to be some way /path to forgiveness??

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Lyndarn

I am truly trying to understand your pointc upper?? Since there are no Youtube evidentiary proof of whatever has been transcribed into the Bible ( Old and New Testament) ..

Most actually view things as "parables"..or past experience lessons... So for Athiest..they doubt ( welcome to Doubting Thomas types)..then there are those who have EVOLVED and have chosen to use all teachings and apply to today's circumstances!!

Jesus, rising from the dead..and his spirit/soul/or miracle human presentations actually, given that time over 2010 years ago..who knows just what their understanding was ??

What truly shocks me..with so much ability to forensically document/understand DNA and existence of the "Soul" or "Energy" depending on particular view...

The actually teachings of Jesus never varied...He never said he was the "Son of God"..many assigned that because of his final words.." Father..Why have your forsaken me" while dying on the Cross....Jesus never asserted he was SON of God..That's presumptuous actually.. But at least..Jesus did suggest continually about Cleansing of sins and ability to do so..No human being is NOW expected to be perfect/God's law abiding..as has been shown over and over again...Many Pastors/Priest/Ministers/Leaders who preach righteousness >Many< FAIL..SO their has to be some way /path to forgiveness??

I have no idea what you are trying to get across other. The only thing that made sense hear is you saying he never said he was the son of God.

My point I thought was rather clear. The OT prophesies a sacrifice as the Jews understood it.

That didn't happen; as such the prophesies were not fulfilled.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Mike555

Obviously there are those who don't believe that the prophecy refers to Jesus. But I have already explained why it does.

The prophecy does not refer to the High priest Onias. The prophecy states that the Messiah would be cut off after the 62 weeks (of years). That places the death of the Messiah long after the time that Onias lived. While there have been differences of opinion among scholars on exactly how the prophecy should be calculated, the prophecy fits the time of Jesus much better than it does for either Onias or anyone else. And again, the same prophecy, in the very same verse, which speaks of the Messiah being cut off, also speaks of the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem which as we know, occurred in A.D. 70, a mere 37-40 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.

There is a lot of discussion about the 'weeks of years' which could be looked at, but Onias does fit into the framework of how the prophecy fits the events.

You may suggest whatever you wish. However, fact remains that each Gospel writer composed his Gospel account in accordance with his purpose for writing the Gospel account. The fact that only Luke recorded Jesus' reading of the prophecy of Isaiah 61 (post #30), does not make it an invention of Luke. Luke specifically stated that he compiled his Gospel account on the basis of careful investigation of eyewitnesses, and he expected what he wrote to be taken as fact. And again, he, as did the other Gospel writers, wrote within the lifetime of eyewitnesses who could verify that what he wrote was true. It would have made no sense to 'invent' any details which were known not to be true.

That only works if you disregard that Matthew and Mark both mention the event but leave Luke's extras out. It is just too significant to be ignored, if they knew of it, despite your remark elsewhere that I am not entitled to say what they ought to have written.

Luke can make a lot of claims about how reliable his gospel is, but that doesn't make it so. You also assume that other writers could check his work. There is evidence that none of the others could ever have seen the other gospels. If they had, they surely would have not written such contradictions. They invented stuff because they thought nobody knew any better.

And I am still bothered that we are getting away from the significance of the resurrection as acrifice and making it a general 'are the gospels true?' discussion.

Originally Posted by Mikelee81

Another question that can easily be answered by opening a Bible. In this case to 1 Corinthians 15.

But I doubt Cupper you have any intent on actually wanting to know what it says do you?

I'm not sure I get the argument. Paul says that without the resurrection, nobody could be raised from the dead. We might depart from the idea of sacrifice and just consider why God could not simply raise people from the dead if he had repented of what he done to Adam, just as he repented of the flood. Why this elaborate charade of crucifixion to enable him to undo something he had done, when he could do whatever he liked, so far as I understand it?

I know the answer myself, of course, but I wonder how you read it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Matthew 4:4

There were No remains found of Jesus' physical body. God resurrected Jesus back to his pre-human spirit body.
- 1st Peter 3:18 B - Jesus was made alive in his spirit body. As with Moses, God disposed of the physical remains.

That says that Jesus, in the spirit, went to preach to the spirits in 'prison'. That does not mean that, when he done that job, he could not return to his body (OOB's are a current cornerstone of theist argument) and the body (with identifying wounds) could not then get up and walk as in Luke and John. Those two take pains to prove it was a solid body, not a spirit. If you argue for a purely spiritual resurrection with the body disposed of, somehow then you have dismissed the gospel accounts as unreliable. Which I don't mind, but maybe you do.

Originally Posted by cupper3

I have no idea what you are trying to get across other. The only thing that made sense hear is you saying he never said he was the son of God.

My point I thought was rather clear. The OT prophesies a sacrifice as the Jews understood it.

That didn't happen; as such the prophesies were not fulfilled.

Maybe we should "Ask a Jew" - is it a valid sacrifice if God restores a lamb to life? Would not that imply that God had rejected the offering?

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

That says that Jesus, in the spirit, went to preach to the spirits in 'prison'. That does not mean that, when he done that job, he could not return to his body (OOB's are a current cornerstone of theist argument) and the body (with identifying wounds) could not then get up and walk as in Luke and John. Those two take pains to prove it was a solid body, not a spirit. If you argue for a purely spiritual resurrection with the body disposed of, somehow then you have dismissed the gospel accounts as unreliable. Which I don't mind, but maybe you do.



Maybe we should "Ask a Jew" - is it a valid sacrifice if God restores a lamb to life? Would not that imply that God had rejected the offering?

We are getting a lot of dancing around on this point are we not?

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

Oh, snap!...You go girl....

Girl??

Originally Posted by Mike555

You know Rafius, the cure for ignorance is knowledge.

Oh yes. I agree entirely. Such knowledge has led me away from believing in superstition and mythology. You should try it.

But there is no cure for stupidity. And to reject the testimony of the church fathers because they were believers is just plain stupid.

No, not stupid at all. It is simply rejecting confirmation bias.

I made a point of showing that the apostolic church fathers were contemporaries of the apostles, and that some of them personally knew the apostles. And so no, their testimony about the apostles is not from the Bible, but from personal knowledge of the apostles.

So they may say but they were Christian theologians....and therefore biased. It is for you to show that what they said was the truth. We have seen throughout history that 'truth' does not come high on the Christian agenda.

And I made a point of saying that it is the historical Jesus that most scholars recognize as having existed. It is that same historical Jesus which you deny existed, and so you do indeed 'have a problem' with that Jesus.

I don't have a problem with the possible existence of an itinerant rebel rabbi called Yeshua...but he is irrelevant. The Jesus I have a problem with is Jesus The Christ. Are you not able to differentiate between the two?

You have denied the historical existence of both Jesus....

I deny the existence of Jesus The Christ.

...and the apostles

Of course! If I deny the existence of JtC then I have to deny the existence of the apostles of JtC.

And you speak of bias. Everyone has bias to an extent. You have your bias as an atheist. People who believe in God have bias as well. The issue then is examining the evidence.

There is no verifiable evidence For JtC.

You reject the existence of even an historical Jesus,...

No I don't. Read what I have said. If such a person existed he is irrelevant. I accept the possibility that there were hundreds of rabbi preachers wandering around with a gripe against the then establishment. They are all irrelevant.

You claim they weren't historical persons. But you've been shown by way of the apostolic church fathers that the apostles did exist.

It is not enough to show that theologians say they existed. What do you have OUTSIDE of Christian sources?

And you won't accept their testimony because they were believers. You operate from the standpoint of suspicious.

Of course. We know that Christianity is not above suspicion. For two thousand years it has scoured the Earth for evidence of it's man-god and, having found none, have invented it. Why wouldn't we treat them with suspicion.

You think that because the apostolic church fathers were believers their testimony can't be trusted, you think that they're lying, that there is some conspiracy on their part. Or that they were just plain stupid. But though you reject their testimony you have no valid reason for doing so.

I have every reason; Church history for one thing.

Before the issue of whether Jesus was who He claimed to be can be examined it must first be established that an historical Jesus even existed. The historical evidence says that He did exist. The historical evidence also says that the apostles existed. And they were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus and believed that they saw the risen Jesus,

There is no verifiable evidence outside of Christianity. We can also look at things like this....

There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All sources are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

So the the letters of the apostles are considered by scholars top be 'suspect'. All you can hang your hat on is Josephus and Tacitus...both of which are as good as worthless.

...and were willing to suffer and even die for their belief.

Millions have died for their belifs but it doesn't make the beliefs true. The followers of Koresh died for their belief that Koresh was JtC. Was that belief true?

Some people won't believe because they simply don't want to believe, and will therefore reject any amount of evidence.

No verifiable evidence for belief has been supplied...other than confirmation bias.

As I said, there is no cure for stupidity.

I agree.

[Rafius]

So where were we?

Does the alleged resurrection of JtC negate any 'sacrifice'. Yes, of course it does. There is no sacrifice when one knows that one will be alive and well in three days. A sacrifice is when one gives one's life knowing that there will be no tomorrow. The Jesus character didn't do that.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

There is a lot of discussion about the 'weeks of years' which could be looked at, but Onias does fit into the framework of how the prophecy fits the events.

No, he does not. Aside from the fact that Onias III was of no great significance in terms of God's eternal purpose for Israel, he died, I think in 175 B.C. That is well before the timeframe indicated by the prophecy.

Even the medieval Jewish commentator Rashi understood that Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy was 70 weeks of years and that the events prophesied in Daniel 9:26 occurred in the first century A.D. While Rashi was wrong concerning who the Messiah in Daniel 9:26 referred to, he got the general time frame right (during the 1st century A.D). Rashi thought that the reference to the Messiah or anointed one pointed to king Agrippa II who was ruling during the time of the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. which was 37-40 years after the death of the actual Messiah Jesus.

Here is some of Rashi's commentary.

With reference to Daniel 9:24 and the seventy weeks;

''Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed: on Jerusalem from the day of the first destruction in the days of Zedekiah until it will be [destroyed] the second time.''

Daniel - Chapter 9 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

With regard to Daniel 9:26 and the cutting off of the Messiah or anointed one;

''the anointed one will be cut off: Agrippa, the king of Judea, who was ruling at the time of the destruction, will be slain.''

Daniel - Chapter 9 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

As I pointed out, since the reference in Daniel 9:26 to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary after the sixty-two weeks obviously refers to, and can only historically refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D, then the reference to the cutting off of the Messiah, also after the sixty-two weeks has to refer to the death of an anointed one who lived in the first century A.D. The prophecy points to Jesus. Not to Onias or to anyone else living before the completion of the sixty-two weeks, which by the way came after the initial seven weeks of the prophecy for a total of sixty-nine weeks or 489 years.

That only works if you disregard that Matthew and Mark both mention the event but leave Luke's extras out. It is just too significant to be ignored, if they knew of it, despite your remark elsewhere that I am not entitled to say what they ought to have written. [/indent]No, the fact that Matthew 13:54-58 and Mark 6:1-5 which tell of Jesus teaching in the synagogue in His hometown, but don't go into the amount of detail that Luke does in Luke 4:14-30 does not mean that Luke made it up. Again, each of the Gospel writers chose what details to include or exclude, and how much detail they went into when speaking of an event. The simple fact of the matter is that there are a number of instances in which only one Gospel records an event which the other Gospels don't mention, or that in describing an event, one Gospel will go into more detail than another Gospel will. For instance, in describing the crucifixion of Jesus, only Matthew mentions the earthquake. Does that mean that Matthew made it up? No, of course not.
[indent]
Luke can make a lot of claims about how reliable his gospel is, but that doesn't make it so. You also assume that other writers could check his work. There is evidence that none of the others could ever have seen the other gospels. If they had, they surely would have not written such contradictions. They invented stuff because they thought nobody knew any better.

Considering that most scholars believe that Matthew copied Mark, your claim that there is evidence that the Gospel writers could not have seen each others work doesn't carry much weight. While I don't necessarily hold to it myself, most scholars hold to Markan priority. That is, they believe that Mark was the first Gospel written. And most of the scholars who believe that Mark was the first Gospel to have been written hold to the four source hypothesis which posits that Matthew and Luke used four sources to compile their Gospel accounts. Those four sources being 1.) The Gospel of Mark. 2.) ''Q,'' which is either a written source no longer in existence, or an oral source, or a combination of both. 3.) ''M,'' which is material unique to Matthew. And 4.) ''L,'' Material unique to Luke.


However, your claim that the Gospel writers ''invented stuff'' because they thought no one would know any better ignores the fact that the Gospel writers were writing to people of their own time when eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry were still alive and could and would have refuted anything which was false.

The traditions which the Gospel writers included in their Gospel accounts had all been passed down orally. Before the Gospels were written, the apostles and other eyewitnesses were going about proclaiming the Gospel. The stories about Jesus, and what He had said were repeated countless times both privately and in public by eyewitnesses. Since many of the eyewitnesses were still alive when the Gospels were written, they would have known if anything in the Gospel accounts was false. Luke interviewed eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry and therefore received accurate information.

And your suggestion that Luke may have invented some of his stories is nothing more than mistrust on your part regarding Luke's motives.

And I am still bothered that we are getting away from the significance of the resurrection as acrifice and making it a general 'are the gospels true?' discussion.

That does tend to happen.

I'm not sure I get the argument. Paul says that without the resurrection, nobody could be raised from the dead. We might depart from the idea of sacrifice and just consider why God could not simply raise people from the dead if he had repented of what he done to Adam, just as he repented of the flood. Why this elaborate charade of crucifixion to enable him to undo something he had done, when he could do whatever he liked, so far as I understand it?

I know the answer myself, of course, but I wonder how you read it.

I'm sure that you think that you know the answer.

However, God operates in accordance with His pre-determined plan which He will carry to its conclusion. In God's plan and purpose, the Second Person of the Trinity had to come into the world has a member of the human race, go to the cross in order to pay the penalty for our sins which we ourselves could never pay, then die physically, and then be resurrected in order (for one thing) to be the first fruits of those who were to be resurrected and who belong to Him.

The crucifixion was no charade. The righteousness of God demanded a penalty for sin that had to be paid, and God cannot compromise any facet of His character. That penalty ultimately meant eternal separation from God because once sin entered the human race man's imperfect righteousness could never meet God's perfect standard of perfect righteousness. However, God does not desire that anyone have to pay that penalty. Therefore, God sent His Son into the world as a member of the human race, but without sin. He was therefore able to pay the penalty for sin in full, as our substitute. Because Jesus is also God, His spiritual death as a man was of infinite worth which is why He was able to pay the penalty that God the Father demanded in the three hours from 12 noon until 3 P.M.