Did Jesus die in vain?

I am disgusted with your reply.

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.

Or a more interesting question:If a immoral being sacrificed its mortal body for something, is that actually a notable sacrifice?Think of it this way: Trump sacrifices a nice car for something. He has the ability to buy 5,000 identical ones. Is his sacrifice notable?

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

---

How is that even relevant?Furthermore, how notable is it for a immortal being to 'sacrifice' itself for a short period of time when it cannot die?

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.

Oh wow. such a wonderful source. The world Nut Daily. I am sure they have high standards of accurate reporting.This guy who is running this flake house has been refuted over and over again. Ever time he makes a suggestion, and it is actually tested, he falls flat on his face.He is bringing up a straw man (the fire) that has been shown to be false over and over again. But, there is not stopping the 'beleivers'Psuedoscience at it's worstEdited by ramoss, : No reason given.

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

quote:

---

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

---

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?

quote:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Again your constant failure to address my points is bothersome.Deal with the question asked to you, not something you made up yourself.

How the HELL is that even relevant to my question?

There is a world of difference between these 2 things, the thylacines were still around up until the 1930's, less than 80 years ago, that is a far cry from the millions of years ago that the dinosaurs became extinct. There has yet to be any success in retrieving DNA from dinosaurs so it is in fact pretty far fetched. This is especially the case when you wish to to go onto 'resurrection' when all that has been done even in the thylacine case is that not even a gene but rather a 17bp promoter sequence have been shown to retain some functionality when transgenically introduced to a mouse. No, it isn't, maybe some day but not presently.You seem to be stretching the current science well beyond its ability to support your argument, it is still far fetched scientifically.TTFN,WK

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.

I want to offer an idea up for your consideration, but I feel obliged to forewarn you that this is what theology might call a "hard doctrine". These are the mighty building-blocks of the faith that St Peter warns us about, which can be so, smashy, to the unskilled workman.It's important to get a good feel for the legal setting. This is a capital case to be decided on points of law. So we will begin by building grounds for an analogy.Luigi is a murderer, an assassin, a hit man for the mob. He is guilty, he is almost the worst kind of killer there is, and the facts are also quite clear. In a case built on points of fact he is going to be found guilty and punished for his crimes.But Luigi works for Guido, a mob boss. Guido pays Luigi to kill people, and decides which people, he is the one who has them killed. And he makes a huge profit doing it, too.Sam is a crusading district attorney. He wants to get Guido, he wants to pursue a higher justice that will best serve the public good. So he is willing to make a deal with Luigi. If Luigi does exactly what Sam says, with full cooperation and good will and no reservations, then instead of being punished for his crimes he is going to get to go and live quietly somewhere reasonably nice with no more big excitement in his life.In this analogy Luigi represents the sinner, you and me, everyone whose aspirations ever exceeded their computations, each broken imperfect piece of Adam's shattered image. We got it wrong, we did things we can't undo, we deserve what we would get. But, we might, be able, to make, a deal.Guido represents God, the creator of evil. In the same way that Guido bears the primary responsibility for the crimes committed by Luigi, so also the creator, with foreknowledge, of creatures that would inevitably sin, bears primary responsibility for all sin whatsoever. God may have had a perfectly good reason to do it, some greater good that could be accomlished by "allowing" (creating!) sin. That's fine, Guido also did a lot of good for the community, he also had good reasons to have those men killed, all those men he killed were serial murderers much like himself. He's still Guilty.Sam represents the church, organized religion, the complex rigmarole we have to sign and seal and go along with in order to make our deal official. We have to cooperate completely, but with our help, they get the one who is really responsible. And execute him. For his crimes.Jesus closes off the circle in standard doctrine when he starts forgiving sins. How could a person forgive sins that were against someone else other than him? He would have to be the creator to do that, because sin is primarily an offense against God.The Mystery of the Trinity emerges here in that the creator, bearing primary responsibility for sin, is also its primary victim; and his own just execution can be conceived of as the very pinnacle of murder for which he was convicted.In short, God did it