Did Jesus die in vain?

quote:

---

I think it was a fair assumption to make as christians do believe this to be true. I used to sing hymms about jesus dying for us and I did believe it.

---

Your beief appears fully sincere and Gdly inclined. However, can you explain how the belief of such a sacrifice sits with these two factors, and I ask to better understand it:'THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER, NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE SON - ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY' [OT law]And that there was a standing decree of heresy declared by Rome, whereby 100s of 1000s of Jews were being crucified for challenging the roman decree: how could Jesus have escaped this factor, and if there was no choice, how does it conclude in a sacrifice? All of jesus' deciples, including Paul and Peter, were slaughtered by Rome on the charge of heresy, as were over a million Jews destroyed by Titus in the year 70. It appears many sacrificed themselves, and none could escape the heresy law.In fact, the OT forbids human sacrifice, and self sacrifice or suicide is only condoned when one is forced to kill an innocent person and to avoid such; or when one commits an open blasphemy after warnings.

My point is, if there was a decree of heresy which mandates death by crucifixion for anyone not worshipping a roman emperor, from the period 10 BCE to the late 200 CE - how can there be a notion of sacrifice: there ws no choice factor here. The charge of heresy was taken over by the Roman Catholic church, which killed even more than the Romans did. Sacrifice means one forfiets his life when he does not have to. The only sacrifice which occured in Judea was that of 1.1 million Jews who challenged Rome in 70 CE.

quote:

---

Insane Emperors, Cruel Emperors
Also, some of their emperors were maniacs. The most famous was Nero (see Famous Romans) but there were many others. Sometimes even the good emperors needed first to be utterly brutal in order to take power. Brutality was often the order of the day. More so of course, when mad or just particularly cruel emperors came to power.
Mad emperor Caligula ordered his legions to collect shells on the beach in order to prove that he had "conquered the sea". Nero killed his mother and his wife. And the cruel emperor Septimius Severus had the body of his dead opponent Clodius Albinus laid out before him, so that he could ride over it with his horse.
These are just some examples of Roman madness and Roman cruelty by its own emperors.

​

Ordered Suicides and "Proscription"
If an emperor wanted rid of a particular senator, he would simply write him a letter, ordering him to kill himself (or else he would send someone round to kill him). Emperor Nero ordered a great many such suicides.
The dictator Sulla during the time of the Roman republic invented the "proscription", by which he would just announce whom he wanted dead. This would be read out in public places and he then would reward anyone who would kill that particular person.

​

Nero
Capitoline Museums
Rome

​

Religious Persecution

​

Rome was brutal in its enforcement of its religious views. Several wars were fought with the Jews in order to try and get them to accept the worship of the deceased Roman emperors as gods. The fighting was so fierce, the great city of Jerusalem was destroyed, and with it the ancient temple of Solomon was razed.

​

The Evils of the Roman Empire | The Roman Empire

---

I'm not sure what conclusion you are pointing. However, a resurrection cannot be deemed for a very short period - what's the point, its such a cruel anti-climax, and does not become a significant factor for a Messiah to get resurrected - the big deal is that the mortal, every day sinner types beform this feat, as per Isaiah.This is not so far fetched scientifically. Recent news in Australia is, it is possible to bring back ancient dinosaurs via dna in their fossils, and that genes of extinct Tasmanian canines have already been produced. The book of Ezekiel mentions the resurrection via bones, which generate flesh and organs, and live again. Such re-generation is now also performed in organ growth stem cells. It appears more science than sci-fi, and the OT writings becoming less mythical.

C14 has been used wrongly for numerous instances, being unreliable for short margin datings. However, this one always seemed hoaxy, and this has finally been rectified. Why would anyone look for a shroud, when there is a total, historical vacuum of Jesus being a reality, with not a shred of contemporary hebrew writings, and the Gospel report disputed by the pre-islamic arabs and by muslims? For many years I tried to find any evidence of JC - but found nothing - where have I failed?

quote:

---

MUCH ABOUT HISTORY
Shroud of Turin's age miscalculated?
Questions raised over 'faulty' carbon-dating tests

​

May 20, 2008

​

© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Shroud of Turin's age miscalculated?

​

Part of the image from the Shroud of Turin

​

The mystery of the Shroud of Turin, a 14-foot-long cloth that many thought may have been the burial cloth of Jesus until scientists reported radiocarbon dating established it as no older than Medieval times, is being resurrected.

​

That theory, however, took a serious blow in the late 1980s when scientists including those at an Oxford University laboratory performed the age-dating process on a fragment of the material and came up with the results that it was no older than the 13th or 14th century, more than a millennium after New Testament times.

---

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

The article contains quotes by scientists. Are you contesting the claims or the media it appears in?

quote:

---

Your constant failure to address my points is getting quite annoying.

​

How is a sacrifice notable when the being making the sacrifice has unlimited power, including the power to die a billion times and revive himself a billion?

---

I am sure I understood your premise. I do not happen to condone in any way to unlimited powers being subscribed to the figure of Jesus. I chose to give more realistic, historical examples. While you make a valid point how an unlimited power making a sacrifice becomes a moot point, and affirms only there was no unlimited power in the first place - my premise in a way does allign with your conclusion. I said, there is little merit in a Messiah with divine assistance resurrecting himself [big deal!]. The point remains, Rome was not confronted by this messiah who appraently did not care about a million of his kin perishing [love is all you need abounds here?!]; and we have a charge of heresy hovering - with a non-negotiable mandated death sentence - which negates any semblance of sacrifce, making it compulsary with no option. And where there are no options - the term sacrifce becomes superfluous. Maybe I'm missing something here?

quote:

---

Neither of which are resurrection of the original animal. A more accurate would be the instance of Zombie dogs.
Zombie Dogs - The New York Times

---

Resurrection refers to long dead people [humans] being alive and active again, as an act of goodness. The verses in Ezekiel does not refer to a mechanised scientific process, however, a miraculous act will still go through nature; nature is also a miraculous enterprise. There is a sages' legion the resurrction will occur to a tail bone, so small it cannot be seperated from another bone, and hardier than diamonds.

quote:

---

You seem to be stretching the current science well beyond its ability to support your argument, it is still far fetched scientifically.

---

This applies to all sci-fi, and all sci-fi becomes science. IMHO, when resurrection science becomes real - humans, as is their nature, will cease becoming excited about it within a few months. If a fax machine was imagined 10 years before this technology existed - no one would have condoned it as occuring soon reality.Now that we can transmit a photograph or song across the globe in seconds, without corruption - it appears a forerunner for digital transportation across the galaxies: all that is required here, with some exaggeration, is to digitally map out the particles, and john doe can be transported to the moon and back in a jiff. Impossible or famous last words?I see all this possible, and that humans will dominite the universe in the future - even able to move the galaxy of virgo 5% to the left. Also, I see no other advanced beings out there, and this dominion will only apply to humans. All indicators verify this premise.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

How could a person forgive sins that were against someone else other than him?

---

Agreed, one must first get forgiveness from the wronged, before approaching God for forgiveness. This is not a Jesus law, but enshrined in the OT laws.

quote:

---

He would have to be the creator to do that, because sin is primarily an offense against God.

---

Disagree. Even the creator cannot violate his own laws - because the creator represents truth. Thus we find that a curse can be negated [by approriate recitification], but a promise of a gift cannot be negated even by the Creator. The guarantee of firgiveness of sins, mercy, loving kindness and long suffering are contained in the OT laws - these are not negated or transferred to someone else. What you subscribe to Jesus here, is quite superfluous and appears more a political enterprise. But I can see the belief is genuine - so it is fine. i wonder if christians were the stiff necked, and demanded proof from the Creator, rather than an agent!'God is not like man that he will change his mind' [Samuel]

The difference between quoting from Peter and the OT is that only the Creator can say this, and note the reverse order of the verse:'I TAKE LIFE AND I GIVE LIFE' [OT]And this is not a virtual statement: no one else can make such a claim. Before claiming any resurrection, let one show us they can create life - in a non-virtual mode. Tuff act to follow, and the OT correctly capsulises the only criteria applicable!Now if you made any improvised responsa to the OT, you would be aptly retorted with another tuff act none can emulate:'I AM THE LORD - I HAVE NOT CHANGED' [OT]And a resurrection clearly is a change, and whatever changes you is transcendent of what is changed. You will see the power of the OT here, with subtle, deceptively simple and modest speech it deals an irrovokable and irrecoverable death blow: who or what can claim not to change?BTW, 'changeability' is also the factor which renders all as finite; while non-changeability is the only definition of INFINITE. Deceptively simple ultimate science here!

Historically, the term christ, christians or christianity did not emerge till 200 years later than 30 CE. JC was actually 'VOTED' as the christian diety in Contantinople. Prior to this they were called nasserites and ebonites, two groups which seperated from their mother religion when Paul appeared, and his works were upheld outside of Judea, from where he was expelled by the original followers of Jesus.Paul, and most of the apostles were killed off by Rome on the charge of heresy, along with a million other Jews. Thus I find the issue of sacrifice superfluous here, and applicable solely to the Jews who challenged Rome's decree to worship human emperors. That this most pivotal event, which changed the world in the quest for freedom of belief, is omitted in the Gospels, is unpardonable. It is like pointing to the death of one Jew during the Nazi holocaust, and remaining silent of the rest. Although christian belief is genuine, it is astonishing they run far from historical truths and focus on belief instead - but the former must always transcend the later.'WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MIGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR'.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Consequently, they are unmoved to hear that Christ Who was sinless, was made sin on thier behalf that they might be saved:

---

I hope my question is not seen negatively, my pursuit being truth and better understsnding, notwithstanding I am not convinced what is ascribed to a 2000 years ago Jew in Judea was in fact not written in Europe centuries later. What factors evidence that Jesus was sinless? What is sin, and which document are you referring to when you measure what constitutes a sin - the OT or the NT? remember that the NT did not exist when Jesus lived.If the OT, which seems to me the only corrct one - because we are talking about a Jew, in Judea 30 CE, and when the term christ/christian/christianity did not occur for 200 years later; here, you have to account all actions in allignment with the 613 OT laws. How about:Desecration of the sabbathh openly? [I am not sure if this occured, though it has been inferred by some christans]Not engaging in the confrontation with Rome, and instead directing wrath to hapless, rowdy money changers doing what the OT laws commanded. Rome was demanding an open blasphemy to worship a Roman EmperorThe OT clearly states, one cannot give his life to negate another's sins. This deprives the sinner from redeeming himself and catering to his own journey ['Only the soul that sinneth it shall pay - the son shall not pay for the father nor the mother for the daughter'/OT]The alledged statement that Jesus prophesized the destruction of Jerusalem, his own kin and nation: a terrible legasy to infer, and one which clearly better alligns with medevial Europe than Jesus, which even applied till last century, and a non-confusing declaration of genocide: "We will never support the return of the Jews to their homeland because they rejected Jesus'/Pope Pious. [Of course, this was proven false, because it was Rome which disappeared, and Israel returned].A focus on an alledged son instead of the father of all life and creation. Are not all messengers, messiahs, prophets and revered ones only a bridge to bring us closer to the father - why did christians stop on a rung of the ladder and unable to elevate any higher - is this not because of persecution from the church against any who refused what was clearly a Roman style decree? One hardly sees christians discussing the Father, aside from occasional wake-up calls, and in the midst of mentioning Jesus millions of times. Knock, knock - hello there - God is ONE/OT?The worshipping of an image - clearly forbidden in the OT, and a violation which almost brought the destruction of the entire nation of Israel [The golden calf episode]. This even when the law was not yet given. It seems now christians are incapable of belief without an image - and thus always remaining one step outside of ground zero - the reason this law was given - as an advocation it is ultimately a wrong path.The above constitutes some items which make it all suspicious what one denotes as sin and an applaudable deed. Is it not ubsurd to judge Jews in Judea, 2000 years ago - from the POV of the Gospels, as opposed their own laws of belief conducted since Abraham? It begs the question should christians be judged by the laws of scientology, does it not?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

" ... the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." (Act 11:26)

​

Acts was written by Luke in 67 or 68 AD after he had written the Gospel of Luke (Acts 1:1).

---

You are quoting one part of the gospels [Acts] to prove other parts of the gospels. You won't be able to evidence any historical writings which verify those statements - there is no Gospelian dead sea scrolls, probably and most plausably because it was written in Greek/Latin in Europe. Jesus did not speak aramaic or greek - he spoke, read, write and prayed in Hebrew.It is also a fact that Jesus was not allocated the Gospel status till centuries later. The Nasserites and Ebonites, who followed Jesus but expelled Paul, did not allign themselves with those later premises.My point is not to negate christian belief, this is manifestly genuine and godly inclined today. Rather, that one cannot describe the crucifixion by the Romans as a self sacrifice. The charge of heresy, by which over a million others were massacred within a single 7 year period alone in 70 CE, and prevailed from Caligula [10 BCE] onwards, gave no choice factor here - except if one agreed to worship a Roman Emperor's statue. Here, the only sacrifice was by Jews. These are not my opinions but historical facts.Roman Catholicism continued Rome's heresy charge for some 1500 years, murdering even more innocent peoples than did Rome, then went on to invent 100s of false charges on Jews [blood libels, Protocols, money hungry, long nosed, devils, disbelievers, etc, etc]. Would it be an affront for christians to acknowledge the charge of deicide as one of the greatest falsities in all recorded history, and responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people: does this do any good for the image of Jesus - or is it better to expose the European lie and save christianity?

quote:

---

What I wrote I stand by. Luke informs us that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch during the lifetime of Paul. That was written in 67 or 68 AD.

---

Not any of our opinions impact in the pursuit of evidential history. One is not anti-gospels evidence where there is no evidence, and a pursuit of truth makes it encumbent to acknowledge what truth is at hand and what is not. You cannot prove Luke by quoting Luke - there are no contemporary writings for 200 years post-Luke, in a period when writings was commonplace [the Scrolls, Josephus, Roman, Greek, pheonecian, aramaic & hebrew archives]; nor are there any non-scripted archeological relics recovered, while reclics of 3200 years have been recovered. Even the church acknowledges the gospels is based on belief, not historical evidence. Better that you acknowledge it as a genuine belief - which cannot be questioned.My research shows no proof exists the term christ/christian/christianity was used till 200 years after Paul. You have nothing to convince me, while disproving my statement should be a simple task.

quote:

---

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia

​

Disputed verses
Textual critics have found variations among early manuscripts and have used principles of textual criticism to tentatively identify which versions are original. Bart D. Ehrman cites two cases where proto-orthodox Christians most likely altered the text in order to prevent its being used to support heretical beliefs.[52]

​

When Jesus is baptized, many early witnesses attest that Luke's gospel had the Father say to Jesus, "This day I have begotten you." In orthodox texts (and thus in most modern Bibles), this text is replaced by the text from Mark. Ehrman concludes that the original text was changed because it had adoptionist overtones.

​

When Jesus prays in the garden of Gethsemane, the text refers to his being comforted by an angel and sweating drops like blood (verses 43-44 in Luke 22:40-46). These two verses disrupt the literary structure of the scene (the chiasmus), they are not found in all the early manuscripts, and they are the only place in Luke where Jesus is seen to be in agony. Ehrman concludes that they were inserted in order to counter doceticism, the belief that Jesus, as divine, only seemed to suffer.

---

quote:

---

You have no case with those two terms. The epistles of the apostles John and Peter, not to mention Paul, include Christ, Christian, and churches or church.

---

The term christ or christian was not used by any deciple. Nor was the later status of Jesus as per the NT used here. This was an accumulative process, which emerged from Europe, which at no time observed monotheism, same as the greeks, romans and all of the early nations what constitutes Europe and the west.Contrastingly, Jews were always monotheists, since their inception. Abraham's past family was polytheist, and he marks the epochial breaway treshold: HE-BREW denotes one who went away, as in another, different direction. It would be an anomoly if the west did not cling to polytheism; it would also be anomoly for jews to not to follow monotheism.The NT has made its alledged son the primal factor, as opposed a rung on a ladder, as it should be. The pre-islamic arabian people rejected the NT - when they should have followed it first - this evidences that the NT is a european construct, and easilly affirmed by examining european history. Over 90% of all christians today are christian because their ancesters were enforced to follow this belief; the same applies wth the reason the NT malligns jews and calls them dis-believers. The arabs and jews resisted this belief: but they are hardly dis-believers in God. The christian belief of today is genuine; but what they believe is insane.

Still, its good to have a Plan B handy. There was no sacrifice, except by Jews. If you believe you could have resisted the roman decree of heresy, that is your choice - Jesus and all the apostles could not, nor would it have mattered an iota to the romans. Over a million Jews did resist this with Rome, then with the Roman catholic church. The Q you need to ask is, was the jews' sacrifice in vain, because only here there was a choice factor against the decree of heresy. Europe clearly failed this test. Paul sold out - nothing whatsoever to do with a Jew in Judea.