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

[ComradeDavo]

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.

I am saying nothing was accomplished because the event never happened. All other posts have been responses to people who disagreed with me.

 

[JoeM]

I am saying nothing was accomplished because the event never happened. All other posts have been responses to people who disagreed with me.

I wasn't responding to your post in particular.

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

Implicit in the question is the existance of Christ, his death and the existance of Sin.

Come now Comrade, you are being facetious, no?

 

[cgannon64]

I am saying nothing was accomplished because the event never happened. All other posts have been responses to people who disagreed with me.

There is unanimous consent among rational people that Jesus, in fact, existed, and was, in fact, killed.

Your company in thinking otherwise are oddballs and crazies.

Moderator Action: Connor, please don't troll other posters. Warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[cgannon64]

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'?

How do you know that the people who raised you were your biological parents?

 

[azzaman333]

Jesus was a man who was crucified. This part is agreed by most people. What he did in his life is not agreed upon. I believe that he was probably a name used to fabricate a religion.

If any one doesnt like what i say about Jesus, i am willing to listen to your opinion and respect it, provided that you respect mine.

 

[Sickman]

There is unanimous consent among rational people that Jesus, in fact, existed, and was, in fact, killed.

Your company in thinking otherwise are oddballs and crazies.

There is unanimous consent among rational people that God, in fact, never existed, and was, in fact, invented.

Your company in thinking otherwise are oddballs and crazies.


Moderator Action: Connor's remark was out of place, but answering in the same fashion does not help as well. Warned too.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

How do you know that the people who raised you were your biological parents?

By trusting them?
And by DNA-test.
If you trust those tests...

Jesus by dying in cross became a martyr and after him was found a religion based into his teaching which were interpreted over time in whatever fashion desired by those in power to help themselves and slave the other people. (when read that sounded like some sort of religious hymn)
We found eventually way to live without gods mainly because of thoughts risen from christianity.
So thanks Jesus, you help us get out of that mind set.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

The likelihood of jesus being a fictional character is small, perpetuating such a fraud over the initial 50 years of christianity is not very feasible. Bush with all the powers of the US government can't even keep the lid on Rove's lying for two years. people are such that they tend to reveal themselves and "confess" great dceptions and crimes. They want to be "known" more than they want secret success. History has always been altered. The winners write it their way and if we are lucky it gets corrected later. People filter history and sometimes it is deliberate and other times it is ignorance.

It is your opinion that "people are being turned to god on a falsehood". You don't have a pipeline to the truth any more than anyone else. I've got to stop now, work calls.

 

[cgannon64]

There is unanimous consent among rational people that God, in fact, never existed, and was, in fact, invented.

Your company in thinking otherwise are oddballs and crazies

It's one thing to deny the existence of an unprovable God; it's quite another to deny the existence of a historical figure.

And by DNA-test.
If you trust those tests...

I suppose that rhetorical question is a little antiquated now that there are such tests. Ah, well. You understood my point.

which were interpreted over time in whatever fashion desired by those in power to help themselves and slave the other people.

Oh, that old chestnut.

 

[Sickman]

It's one thing to deny the existence of an unprovable God; it's quite another to deny the existence of a historical figure.

Yeah, it is.
Just wanted to give something back because you tried to troll a little there.
I for one don't want to try to deny the existence of historical Jesus only debatable is how precisely his activities were recorded.

I suppose that rhetorical question is a little antiquated now that there are such tests. Ah, well. You understood my point.

Yes I do.
But it always rises the question "what can we trust".
There's part of faith in our everyday life in too.

Oh, that old chestnut.

Why do you roll eyes for that? (or is my english really that bad?)
Or don't you agree it was interpreted by those in power for their own good rather than reading the teaching Jesus in a way that it helps all people?
Even currently it's interpreted in numerous ways and some people use it to prove points and use as evidence for something that even cannot be found supported by the book.

By rolling eyes to that it's like you are talking against the age old religionists defence when someone tries to point finger towards religion when talking about atrocities, religionists defend it by saying it's not religion's fault that someone used it as excuse for evil ends.

In historical sense we wouldn't know where we could have ended up without Jesus and his teachings. Even as someone who doesn't find reason to worship anything cannot deny his deep sphere of influence to our culture and societies.

 

[cgannon64]

Why do you roll eyes for that? (or is my english really that bad?)

It wasn't your English, it was the content.

Or don't you agree it was interpreted by those in power for their own good rather than reading the teaching Jesus in a way that it helps all people?
Even currently it's interpreted in numerous ways and some people use it to prove points and use as evidence for something that even cannot be found supported by the book.

People certainly do interpret the Gospels and the Bible in many different ways, but I disagree that it is in a conspiratorial and exploitive way. What it most likely is is that the people either want the Bible to conform to their own views, or they honestly beleive it means that.

By rolling eyes to that it's like you are talking against the age old religionists defence when someone tries to point finger towards religion when talking about atrocities, religionists defend it by saying it's not religion's fault that someone used it as excuse for evil ends.

I don't see how I am speaking against that, please explain.

 

[Sickman]

People certainly do interpret the Gospels and the Bible in many different ways, but I disagree that it is in a conspiratorial and exploitive way. What it most likely is is that the people either want the Bible to conform to their own views, or they honestly beleive it means that.

I don't see how I am speaking against that, please explain.

All that "old chestnut" thing with rolls his eyes was the "talking"-part but I don't really understand the above statement at all.
You say that some people want Bible to conform to their own views but you disagree that the interpretation is in conspiratorial or exploitive way.
What do you mean by that?

 

[ComradeDavo]

There is unanimous consent among rational people that Jesus, in fact, existed, and was, in fact, killed.

Your company in thinking otherwise are oddballs and crazies.

Wow, because I actually look at the facts rather than believe fairy tales I am the crazy one?

At any rate, I will start a new thread about the subject, and leave people to discuss the whole 'sin' thing in this one.

 

[cgannon64]

Wow, because I actually look at the facts rather than believe fairy tales I am the crazy one?

Oh, my. You think the facts are on your side?

 

[Dida]

How do you know that the people who raised you were your biological parents?

]

That is true, many people who was adopted but there foster parents never told them, in this case, they would not know that they were adopted.
However, you can easily seek hospital records if you want to be sure, or ask someone who would know.
Can you do similar things to verfy the accounts in the bible? obviously you cannot.
so do not make such ridiculous comparision.

 

[Taliesin]

To clarify, I do not say that the earliest Jesus-Christians falsified his existence for some nefarious purpose. Rather, I say that they constructed Jesus as a focus for myths, and never expected to be taken at face value. As Clement and Origen said, literal belief in a historical Jesus is a religion for children.

I think some mistake the weight of seventeen hundred years of assumptions for historical evidence. Josephus bears the only non-Christian testimony of Jesus' existence, and as detailed in my last post, this document runs sharply against Josephus' beliefs and inclinations, and is most likely a forgery from two or three centuries later.

It is not, as I already hear some of you shouting, implausible that the earliest Christians fabricated a live focus for their myths and their mystery faith (one of many very very similar faiths). Think-- the Christians were organised and energetic. They were one of many groups proclaiming the message of a salvatory god-man. In a time when hardly anyone travelled and mass communications did not exist, nobody would really be in a position to stand up and declaim the Gospel as ahistorical. Even if someone was, they had no means of communicating this and no weight behind their voice. An alternate explanation could be that the people at the time likewise understood the Gospels to be myth and allegory, and thus nobody saw any point in denouncing them as falsehood. Once the stories gained momentum, a decision to treat them literally would (and, in my opinion, did) have staggering effects upon all future interpretations of the texts.

 

[JoeM]

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.

Thought this was worth reposting considering the last page od 'did He exist' posts.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

He (and all prophets) accomplished to make people argue and even kill each other over such a trivial matter as made-up stories.
Imo, with their invention of a god and sins they intended to make people live after the codex contained in the bible, but we all know that the human nature can be a nasty and persistent thing...
To put it short: they failed with their agenda