What exactly did Christ accomplish when he died for our sins?

[Turner]

People who don't believe in christianity....

 

[Shadylookin]

Not to mention strong agnostics also shooting at this thread.

what is a strong agnostic? agnostics that work out? you're more than welcome to present your argument for what you believe jesus accomplished.

 

[Narz]

Interesting. So why is this concept so laughable to you?

Do you find the fact that people once believed in Zues and Posaidan and the other Greeks gods laughable? Well that's how I feel about people taking the God of the Old Testament seriously.

It's not meant as disrespect, more like I'm just baffled how otherwise intelligent people can believe.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's not meant as disrespect, more like I'm just baffled how otherwise intelligent people can believe.

The willingness and ability to believe is not a character flaw. It merely identifies those who do not accept rational thought as the highest and best use of our minds.

 

[Quasar1011]

If you lok at what god (of the bible ) actually does and not what people do or don't do, you get insight into his preferences. Since the world began:

1. He kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden ending his fellowhip with them
2. He drowned everyone except Noah and his family (millions?)
3. He tormented Job to win a bet
4. He Sends his son to encourage better behavior among people
5. In conjunction with Jesus he condemns billions of souls to eternal damnation at the second coming.

There are times when god does show an interest in fellowhip with a few individuals, lets just use a round number of 100. God's choice of behavior does not show any preference for fellowhship. It shows the exact opposite.

No it doesn't. First of all, his fellowship with Adam and Eve didn't end when they disobeyed Him. In fact, God taught them how to sacrifice, in order to get back into fellowship with Him. This very sacrifice- the killing of an innocent- was a precursor of a greater sacrifice to come.

2. Only Noah was in fellowship with God at the point. If it weren't for Noah's faith in God, you and I wouldn't be discussing this point right now. This act- the removal of His people before judgment falls- was a precursor of a greater rescue to come.

3. God didn't torment Job, Satan did. And still Job remained faithful to God. The purpose of this episode was not "to win a bet", but to show we humans how to endure suffering when (not if) it comes.

4. That's not why Jesus came, exactly. Jesus came to conquer sin and death. He did both, conquering sin on the cross, and conquering death at His resurrection. Better behaviour doesn't come by heeding the words of Jesus. It comes by having the Holy Spirit fill you and control you.

5. God doesn't condemn anybody to Hell. People of a choice of where they want to spend eternity. If they don't want to spend it with God in Heaven, He will give them their choice. And there is only one other choice.

Jesus coming and dying at the hands of the world He created, shows His desire for fellowship. What other greater act of love has ever been seen on this planet? The problem is not that God has expressed his desire for intimacy with humans, intimacy on the level that we can call Him Father. Rather, the problem is that most use their free will to reject a relationship with God.

 

[Dida]

How do you know there is such a creature with the characteristics matching the entity referred to as 'god' described in the book known as the 'bible'?

 

[Quasar1011]

Dida, stop trying to lead this thread astray! We have covered that topic in another thread.

 

[Dida]

well, i saw you talking all about god's grand plan for the world, and his reasoning for performing the genocide he supposedly carried out, I was just wondering how do you know that what you know is real.

 

[FredLC]

The willingness and ability to believe is not a character flaw. It merely identifies those who do not accept rational thought as the highest and best use of our minds.

I think it's a bit stereotyped response.

It pretty much assume that a person who doesn't believe is not capable of any emotion, but just cold rationality. Only that skepts love as well.

You don't need to regard the rationality as the only worth trait in order to consider some things too far-fetched to be taken seriously, just as much believing does not mean that you have abandoned rationality altogether.

Regards .

 

[Taliesin]

Double post.

 

[Taliesin]

Proof of historic Jesus or just clever forgery?

TOM HARPUR

Edward Gibbon, author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was not an admirer of Christianity as far as its account of its earliest origins are concerned. Known for his "meticulous accuracy," he refused to take seriously any Church history until about 250 C.E. because he found such a mass of forgeries and deceit.

He wrote: "The scanty and suspicious materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church." Elsewhere he comments: "The most extravagant legends, as they conduced to the honour of the Church, were apprehended by the credulous multitude, countenanced by the power of the clergy, and attested by the suspicious evidence of ecclesiastical history."

His views are relevant because while the Jesus Christ of the mythos will live forever, the "Jesus of history" is the focus of intense debate. Gibbon boldly calls the lone piece of non-Christian evidence for a historical Jesus from the 1st century "an example of no vulgar forgery," i.e., the forgery was deliberately and astutely concocted by one who knew fully what he was doing.

He was referring to probably the most keenly contested passages in all antiquity, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum by the historian Josephus. Several modern New Testament scholars — for example, John P. Meier, who in A Marginal Jew, said its importance is "monumental" — have gone so far as to admit that without the authenticity of Josephus' testimony, there is no "proof" of the existence of Jesus at all. Not a line of the Gospels can be confirmed without it.

Flavius Josephus, (37-100 C.E.) was a Jewish writer, a Pharisee, and ultimately a friend of Rome. Here is the disputed passage with the boldly "Christian" parts in italics: "At this time there appeared Jesus a wise man if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up to this present day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

The italicized words were recognized as suspect years before Gibbon, but today, Meier along with many conservative scholars, offers a shortened version which deletes the openly Christian phrases and so attempts to make Josephus an acceptable witness for critics.

Thus his reply to Gibbon is that he is only partly right. There is still a solid substratum of evidence upon which to base the case for the historic Jesus. The "revised" version then reads: "At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. He was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously, did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

Ideally, one would check the accuracy of this account by directly consulting the copies of Josephus' histories in the possession of the contemporary Jewish authorities. But, by a mysterious quirk, matching the fate of other (usually Pagan) writings inimical to the Christian cause, these are among many documents written by Jews in the period between 200 B.C.E. and 200 C.E. that went wholly missing. They were only transmitted to the Jews later by the Christians.

There are two compelling reasons for dismissing this shorter version also as wholly bogus. Josephus' writings are marked throughout by his extreme hostility to any and every Messianic Jew executed by the Romans. To call Jesus (by the way, in the Loeb edition of Josephus' works, 21 individuals are listed by that name, and not one is "Jesus of Nazareth") a "wise man" and a "teacher of the truth," is totally out of character. It would also mean he is accusing Pilate of having executed such an exemplary man. This jars completely with his open aim of always ingratiating himself with his superiors. He was a Roman citizen and a pensioned client of the Flavians.

However, the clincher is the fact that despite its obvious usefulness in Christian polemics — say, for Origen contra Celsus, or for Justin Martyr or Irenaeus in their debates with critics, Jewish and Pagan — no Church authority quotes this passage until the 4th century. Eusebius (died 359) quotes it first, and the evidence points to him as the forger.

There is also the question of why not a single document of Jesus' sayings written in Aramaic, his native tongue, is to be found.

I hold that we cannot know for certain if Jesus existed, but that he probably did not, and that the question in this thread is therefore moot. If he did exist, his nature and doings were almost undoubtedly embellished and selectively represented after his death. Our question should not be what Jesus accomplished on the cross, but what God's sacrifice means for those who reject material rewards as nothing compared to spiritual fulfillment; or, in Christian terms, who are willing to hate their family and render unto Caesar; or, in Hindu terms, who see maya for what it is; or, in Platonic terms, who reject apparent beauty for real beauty; or, in Buddhist terms, who choose enlightenment. This is the good news of the Gospel: like Mary, we open ourselves to God, to his love poured out upon the world, so that the divinity within each may return to its home. The awareness of who we really are gives us hope for escape from the carnal, the embodied-- in short, from the world of suffering. And God, or Odin, or Mithra, or Prometheus, suffers crucifixion so that we may truly live, just as we "suffer" death, both constantly and finally, in order to live ethically and, as atman (Christ-within) awakes, to go home from our exile. This divine crucifixion is entirely mythical-- that is, it is eternal, and more deeply true and meaningful than any historical event could possibly be.

"The face of truth remains hidden behind a circle of gold. Unveil it, O God of light, that I who love the true may see! ... May life go to immortal life, and the body go to ashes."

 

[Birdjaguar]

No it doesn't. First of all, his fellowship with Adam and Eve didn't end when they disobeyed Him. In fact, God taught them how to sacrifice, in order to get back into fellowship with Him. This very sacrifice- the killing of an innocent- was a precursor of a greater sacrifice to come.

Clearly they were out of fellowship if god had to teach them how to get it back. And since befoe the end of genesis, god wipes out all humankind except Noah et al, there was no fellowship with god and humans.

2. Only Noah was in fellowship with God at the point. If it weren't for Noah's faith in God, you and I wouldn't be discussing this point right now. This act- the removal of His people before judgment falls- was a precursor of a greater rescue to come.

God sets the rules on who is acceptable for fellowship and if only Noah of all the people living at that time met the standards, either god is very selective or making a point was more important than fellowship. If god really wanted fellowship with people he would have made the rules such that more than one out of millions could measure up.

3. God didn't torment Job, Satan did. And still Job remained faithful to God. The purpose of this episode was not "to win a bet", but to show we humans how to endure suffering when (not if) it comes.

Who is in charge? And again, god would rather make a point and illustrate how to endure suffering by inflicitng it (letting satan inflict it if you choose) rather than just enjoy the fellowship with job. And it is a bet between god and satan. Satan says, you're protecting Job and if he suffered, he would curse you. God takes up the challenge and says do what ever you want just don't kill him. There was no formal prize, but clearly the bet was that satan could make Job curse god.

4. That's not why Jesus came, exactly. Jesus came to conquer sin and death. He did both, conquering sin on the cross, and conquering death at His resurrection. Better behaviour doesn't come by heeding the words of Jesus. It comes by having the Holy Spirit fill you and control you.

Well, I'm not sure other christians would agree. But if good behavbior comes from being filled with and controled the holy spirit, then free choice isn't really involved once you are under the controling power of the HS. But does that produce immediate fellowship with god?

5. God doesn't condemn anybody to Hell. People of a choice of where they want to spend eternity. If they don't want to spend it with God in Heaven, He will give them their choice. And there is only one other choice.

Not everyone has a choice and all those automatically get condemed to hell by god. Such people would include: naturally and medically aborted babies; all those who were killed in the flood; all those who died without ever hearing about jesus; and those who died too young to be able to make a decision. How many people would fall into those groups? A billion? More?

Now for the rest who reasonably can be said to have a choice, god has set the rules: if you fail my test, I will send you to hell. Because not everyone will pass (and god knows this) he has condemed them to hell. You cannot hide behind free will when discussing those going to hell.

Jesus coming and dying at the hands of the world He created, shows His desire for fellowship. What other greater act of love has ever been seen on this planet? The problem is not that God has expressed his desire for intimacy with humans, intimacy on the level that we can call Him Father. Rather, the problem is that most use their free will to reject a relationship with God.

If god has truly expressed his desire for fellowship and left it fully up to us to decide, then it is no different than if you told a gf that you wanted a closer relationship with her, but for that to happen she had to let you control her completely, and that would make her happy forever. But if she chooses not to submit you will throw gasoline on her and set her on fire. The problem is compounded by the fact that god did not express his desire for fellowship in a way that is easily understood by most normal people. So it is like if your gf above was american and you told her about the situation she was in, in japanese and handed her a dictionary after the fact and then said you better figure this out and soon. No, god prefers smiting the wicked to having fellowship.

 

[blackheart]

5. God doesn't condemn anybody to Hell. People of a choice of where they want to spend eternity. If they don't want to spend it with God in Heaven, He will give them their choice. And there is only one other choice.

That is rather narrow and harsh isn't it? Only 2 choices? Where is the free will if you cannot choose your own way?

 

[Birdjaguar]

The willingness and ability to believe is not a character flaw. It merely identifies those who do not accept rational thought as the highest and best use of our minds.

I think it's a bit stereotyped response.

It pretty much assume that a person who doesn't believe is not capable of any emotion, but just cold rationality. Only that skepts love as well.

The belief in question is specifically the christian belief in god and more generally any belief in god. My remarks were about believers and not about non believers. It assumes nothing about non believers. It just says that those willing and able to believe in god necessarily set aside reason in order to hold to their belief. I never mentioned emotion or love. You inferred a great deal that wasn't there.

You don't need to regard the rationality as the only worth trait in order to consider some things too far-fetched to be taken seriously, just as much believing does not mean that you have abandoned rationality altogether.

The atheists and agnostics who post here demand (and never get) scientific, rational proof for god as defined by CFCs christians. That has been and continues to be the standard for denying the existence of god. The literal bible may be too far fetched for most to believe in, but if those who believed could support it with science fact, many non believers would be swayed. What standand other than rigorous science would you accept? Common sense is only observed science genealized.

Of course, wanting proof of religion before believing (oxymoron?) does not mean a person does not have emotion or can't fall in love. It just means that when they are not lost in love or overcome with emotion, they tend to believe that rational thinking is the best methodology for living one's life and thinking about the world. I would guess most people don't really give it much thought to it and move easily between reason and irrationality without a care. They do not try to reconcile their actions with what they believe and its reasonableness.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Taliesin: Awesome post my man.

 

[shortguy]

5. God doesn't condemn anybody to Hell. People of a choice of where they want to spend eternity. If they don't want to spend it with God in Heaven, He will give them their choice. And there is only one other choice.

While people's actions dictate whether they go to heaven or hell, God is responsible for deciding 1) what the requirements are to get into heaven, and 2) what, specifically, happens in heaven and hell. I would suggest that God could have chosen a kinder, better, more "loving" condition for his enemies, even if, as Christians often claim, it is out of his hands as to whether to punish or not.

 

[FredLC]

The belief in question is specifically the christian belief in god and more generally any belief in god. My remarks were about believers and not about non believers. It assumes nothing about non believers. It just says that those willing and able to believe in god necessarily set aside reason in order to hold to their belief. I never mentioned emotion or love. You inferred a great deal that wasn't there.

Actually, I didn’t. I never really took it as if you were saying that non-believers are “imagination/emotion-impaired” in some way. I just wanted that you yourself stated clear that such was the case.

Other than that, I’m not sure I agree entirely on this. I know believers which do value their rationality a great deal… but, for one reason or another, decided not to apply it in that particular subject. Go figure, but who said that human beings have to be coherent?

The atheists and agnostics who post here demand (and never get) scientific, rational proof for god as defined by CFCs christians. That has been and continues to be the standard for denying the existence of god. The literal bible may be too far fetched for most to believe in, but if those who believed could support it with science fact, many non believers would be swayed. What standand other than rigorous science would you accept? Common sense is only observed science genealized.

Me? I accept things out of sheer rationality all the time. I, for instance, still consider my football team a great team, despite its pitiful campaigns in the course of the last decade. I think a person can be well-informed if he/she follows the media outlets, even knowing for a fact that information is distorted by those in charge. I have as a value that each and every single human life of this planet is a treasure too precious to be wasted, even it being a fact that the death of the vast majority of them won’t affect my life in any mean whatsoever. Above all, I believe humanity will some day improve to a marvelous civilization, where the serious social, political and economical issues of today will be solved… even with the ten thousand years long record that our mere survival is miraculous enough.

I don’t really need irrevocable irrefutable mathematically-precise evidence in order to consider God a viable possibility. All I need is a model that makes sense. Not that it would instantly make a believer out of me, but it certainly would make the viability of it ranks a lot higher, and than perhaps the anecdotal evidence of testimonies and the such could have some weight.

Never seen one model of the kind, though.

Of course, wanting proof of religion before believing (oxymoron?) does not mean a person does not have emotion or can't fall in love. It just means that when they are not lost in love or overcome with emotion, they tend to believe that rational thinking is the best methodology for living one's life and thinking about the world. I would guess most people don't really give it much thought to it and move easily between reason and irrationality without a care. They do not try to reconcile their actions with what they believe and its reasonableness.

There is where I disagree. There is a friend of mine who is highly emotional… and an atheist. He lives from music, having refused a job his parents have arranged for him… a good job… all out of passion for music, and barely makes a decent living, even though he is not good enough to be more than support band member and he have little chance of ever becoming a music star or something. Yet, he is an atheist.

There are also those who are atheists out of emotion. People who are revolted against parents or society, and charge at any standards of it. I question if they are really atheists, but fact is that they claim to be and I can’t pretend to know them better than they do.

So, there is the point I wanted to make. Being either religious or atheists speaks nothing about how important emotion or rationality are in one’s life… even though it may give a clue about which one were the guiding force behind that particular matter.

Regards .

 

[ComradeDavo]

Not only is what you want not available, it is also irrelevant. Archaeology has not provided us with the proof you want. Demanding it won't make it appear. Proof of Jesus' life does not change the fact that christiantiy has been, for 2000 years, and continues to be, a force in world affairs. You want to use lack of proof of an actual person named jesus to undermine christian truth. Get over it. They have 2000 years of history that says "we are a force to be reckoned with." It is silly to think that you can undo that history by claiming "No proof of Jesus exists, so you must be wrong!"

If Christians are correct and jesus was the SOG, then all is right with the world. He came and did what he wanted and left. That's not saying anything claimed by believers is also true, but if Jesus was the "son of God" (or whatever you choose to call a divinely inspired manifestation of God) then without doubt he accomplished everything he set out to accomplish. However, we don't actually know what he set out to do. If this is true, don't worry. The SOG altered the world to his liking.

If Jesus was not SOG, but just another guy with good PR or a fictional character, then he is no different than any other popular leader. He certainly accomplished a great deal, but it is of no value beyond it's impact on people's lives. And in this case you should treat his church just like you do political parties or philosophical groups.

There is no argument to counter for the smug certainty of those who believe in god. And I suspect that is what is behind much of the animosity towards christians. They have something many other people do not have: certainty about the world.

The fact that many people believe in God because they are taught in school about Jesus and how he did all these great things for people and that God must exist because of him is surely a good reason to show that he did not exist. It is relevant because I don't like to see history altered, I want the truth! It is alrming to see so many people believing a falsehood.

The believe in Jesus is quite central to Christians when preaching and getting new converts, so the fact that there is, as you say, no evidence avilable that proves he existed without question....that is quite important because people are being turned to believe in God on a falsehood.

 

[JoeM]

Seriously.

1 Saved humanity by redeeming their sins.

2 Freed the good people waiting in Purgatory.

3 Gave us hope.


I think that's about it, but I may be wrong.

IMO this thread is not about the existence of God, sensibilities of the faithful, existance of Jesus or any of the other Time Honoured thread-jacks.

 

[Inhalaattori]

He gave me the place in Hell.

Well, im not really sure that he died for anyone. To me he was an example of braveness as symbolical figure. We never now if there was really a man called Jesus who lived his life like it is told us in the bible. I still find him as a facinating character.
I also think that he is one of the most misunderstood people of all times. He never wanted to create a new religion. He was a man of peace, but his follovers have not followed his teachings.