What Did Jesus Sacrifice?

As long as we don't claim to know absolute truth, neo, our display of erudition is all we have...and the desire to learn as well.

No, it's all you have.

Exactly!

That and $2.50 will get you a slice of pizza, but nothing more.

No drink?-- ****!

OK, if you're over 21, I'll buy you a beer.

I kinda suspected that you'd be so much fun to hang out with!

KING of the Universe and all things seen and unseen, BORN in a completely low state with talk that his mother was an adultress. Rejected by his generation and the people of his nationality and faith. Never married and had children. Betrayed by a friend, tortured, humiliated, mocked, wounded severly and died on a cross an absolutely horrible death and became sin on the cross for all mankind.

An interesting story however as others had pointed out so full of logical holes that it like a can that had been hit by a blast from 12 gauge shotgun.

I believe Jesus was a real person. I believe he was crucified. All the other stuff is conjecture but that's still one hell of a sacrifice. He may not have expected to be sacrificed in such a way but he didn't back down from his beliefs and principles and paid with his life. Give the guy the credit he deserves.

If Jesus suffered for a little while here on Earth, died and became the ruler of the cosmos, again, what was the sacrifice?

phil, If I was offered the chance to become the immortal emperor of the universe by simply being " BORN in a completely low state with talk that [my] mother was an adultress. Rejected by [my] generation and the people of [my] nationality and faith. Never married and had children. Betrayed by a friend, tortured, humiliated, mocked, wounded severly and died on a cross an absolutely horrible death and became sin on the cross for all mankind", I would take such offer in an heart beat....and still I don't see what the sacrifice was. In my life I have seen people who have suffered extensively because of genetic diseases (and or other misfortunes of life), and they don't get to become kings nor queens of anything.

Yeah, but that doesn't make it true. I can imagine an apple. And even though apples are real, my mind can create in my brain the model from a real apple. Apples exists, but the apple in my head is not real. Minds can also create the models for unicorns, dragons, fairies, and elves. Unicorns, dragons, fairies, nor elves exist...but minds can create such models the same way minds can create the model for the apple.


Exactly...everything in the bible is just conjecture. But I fail to see whether Jesus sacrificed himself.

He my not have expected it? But wasn't Jesus God in the flesh? If he were God, didn't he know everything that was coming to him?


He died and three days later resurrected...and better yet, he became supreme ruler of the physical world...this is sacrifice?


I give credit to the fantasy book called "The Bible" which is divorced from reason or logic, and yet is able to convince 21 century people that the validity of its content conforms to reality.

you' arguing me down on issues where I'm agreeing with you. that's not to bright.

Both those things are quite possible and reasonable.

But since it's also possible that Jesus was just a legend, what makes you think he was a real person?

There are many many secular historians who wrote about Jesus. They thought he was a dangerous nut job. Here's a couple of examples

http://www.nelsonprice.com/index.php/?p=105

If you remove all the religious connotations and just view Him as merely another in a long line of mischief makers or dangerous pot stirrers that could upset THE BOTTOM LINE of the people in power, Then why would you not believe He existed?

Whether Christianity, God, or any religion is real or just a huge fantasy, I do not believe Christianity could be based on somethng cooked up out of thin air but rather built around a living being who was exalted to the status Christ achieved and still has. Perhaps thousands of years from now after wars and brutality, the destruction of all records of who Ghandi or Martin Luther King or Jack Kennedy really were, archeologists, theologians and history buffs will debate on whether any of these people were truly flesh and blood humans or legends.

It makes sense to me that Jesus was a real person. A huge religion sprung up around Him that has been twisted, perverted and used, as all religions are, as a control mechanism to keep people in line to the benefit of the TRULY evil and powerful people who run the world at any given moment. I certainly don't deny that.

To say that Christ or the message He delivered is fantasy made up of whole cloth however is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and killing the messenger for the express purpose of ignoring the message. IMO.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Jesus died and came face to face with God, if that happens, and God asked Him "What were you thinking of running around telling people you were my Son ... all this crap about your mother being a virgin and all. What are you, stupid, crazy or both?" It doesn't change the fact that a man who believed in certain principles that went against the grain of the established order who could have shut up at any time and lived out his life chose instead, knowing what He was doing was dangerous, to keep pushing the envelope until the inevitable happened and He paid the ultimate price. Please don't tell me that you think crucifixtions and the ceremonies that went with them are a legend.

Can we give the guy His props for that at the VERY least please? That's all I'm saying.

I'm fairly neutral on whether he really existed or not. I just don't know, and haven't studied enough history to gather a consensus of probability. I was mostly curious to see what you were using as evidence for his actual existence.

If he did exist, and if he really did go through all the **** they said he went through, and if his real actions did indeed result in a philosophy which has lasted over 2k years, then I certainly do give him props for that.

Think of it as a satire.

The problem with those writings is they were not contemporary with Jesus.

so it's difficult to believe there's an historical person named jesus? That's like saying many many different people from different times and different angles and different opinions ALL published works about a mythical character and ALL of them happened to be bugs bunny. Not likely.

Even though early secular reports on Jesus may have been rare, there are still a few surviving references to Him. Not too surprisingly, the earliest non-Christian reports were made by the Jews. Flavius Josephus, who lived until 98 A.D., was a romanized Jewish historian. He wrote books on Jewish history for the Roman people. In his book, Jewish Antiquities, he made references to Jesus. In one reference he wrote:

About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, who did good deeds and whose virtues were recognized. And many Jews and people of other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. However, those who became his disciples preached his doctrine. They related that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Perhaps he was the Messiah in connection with whom the prophets foretold wonders. [Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XVIII 3.2]

Even though several different forms of this particular text have survived through the twenty centuries, they all agree with the above cited version. This version is considered to be the closest to the original - the least suspected of Christian text-tampering. Elsewhere in this book, Josephus also reported the execution of St. John the Baptist [XVIII 5.2] and St. James the Just [XX 9.1], even referring to James as "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ." It should be noted that the past tense in the clause, "Jesus who was called Christ," argues against Christian text-tampering since a Christian would prefer to write instead, "Jesus who is called Christ."

Another Jewish source, the Talmud, makes several historical references to Jesus. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the Talmud is "the collection of ancient Rabbinic writings consisting of the Mishnah and the Gemara, constituting the basis of religious authority for traditional Judaism." Although not explicitly referred to by name, later rabbis identify the person as Jesus. These references to Jesus are neither sympathetic to Him or His Church. Also these writings were preserved through the centuries by Jews, so Christians cannot be accused of tampering with the text.

The Talmud makes note of Jesus' miracles. No attempt is made to deny them, but it ascribes them to magical arts from Egypt. Also His crucifixion is dated as "on the eve of the Feast of the Passover" in agreement with the Gospel (Luke 22:1ff; John 19:31ff). Similar again to the Gospel (Matt. 27:51), the Talmud records the earthquake and the tearing in two of the Temple curtain during the time of Jesus' death. Josephus in his book, The Jewish War, also confirmed these events.

By the beginning of the 2nd century, Romans were writing about Christians and Jesus. Pliny the Younger, proconsul in Asia Minor, in 111 A.D. wrote to Emperor Trajan in a letter:

...it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of words to Christ as a god; and that they bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but not to commit theft or robbery, or adultery, not to break their word, and not to deny a deposit when demanded. After this was done, their custom was to depart, and meet again to take food... [Pliny, Epistle 97]

Special attention should be made to the phrase, "to Christ as a god," an early secular witness to the belief in Christ's divinity (John 20:28; Phil. 2:6). Also it is interesting to compare this passage with Acts 20:7-11, a biblical account of an early Christian Sunday celebration.

Next the Roman historian, Tacitus, who is respected by modern scholars for historical accuracy, wrote in 115 A.D. about Christ and His Church:

The author of the denomination was Christ[us] who had been executed in Tiberius time by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. The pestilent superstition, checked for a while, burst out again, not only throughout Judea...but throughout the city of Rome also... [Tacitus, Annals, XV 44]

Even with disdain for the Christian faith, Tacitus still treated the execution of Christ as historical fact, drawing connections to Roman events and leaders. (cf. Luke 3:1ff)

Other secular witnesses to the historical Jesus include Suetonius in his biography of Claudius, Phlegan recording the eclipse of the sun during Jesus' death and even Celsus, a pagan philosopher. It must be kept in mind that most of these sources were not only secular but anti-Christian. These secular authors, including the Jewish writers, had no desire or intention to promote Christianity. They had no motivation to distort their reports in favor of Christianity. Pliny actually punished Christians for their faith. If Jesus were a myth or His execution a hoax, Tacitus would have reported it as such. He certainly would not have connected Jesus' execution to Roman leaders. These writers presented Jesus as a real historical person. Denying the reliability of these sources in connection to Jesus would cast serious suspicion on the rest of ancient history.

Now these ancient secular writings do not prove that Jesus is the Son of God or even the Christ, but that is not the goal of this tract. These reports show that a virtuous person named Jesus did live in the early first century A.D. and authored a religious movement (which still exists today). This Person was at least called Christ - the Messiah. Christians in the first century also appeared to consider Him God. Finally these writings support other facts found in the Bible surrounding His life. The claim that Jesus never existed and His life is a myth compromises the reliability of ancient history.


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