“What was the actual sacrifice that God made?.



How can you expect a "sensible" answer when you are asking a question about a FAIRY TALE. No supernatural god is proven to exist. No real sacrifice ever happened

THE fairy tale of the christ is nothing more than a retelling of RITUAL HUMAN SACRIFICE carried out by Pagans of that time and prior.

Xtians will claim that the christ was totally human - however =IF THE ONE GOD became totally human - and died - there is NO god left. A human cannot raise itself from the dead. So - the Xtians would have to create the "trinity" nonsense to claim that the christ was one "person" of god - but not all three.

However - YOU are correct - the problem is that the story is embellished with "miracles" - Humans do not have the power to raise a rotting corpse from the grave - and the story of the christ is not that of a totally human being. Of Course - since genetically - a human male REQUIRES a human male parent - the christ could not actually be a human male - having no human parent at all. Remember - at the time - the prevailing view was that the male provided the "seed" from which the whole human was derived - and the woman was merely the "dirt" the seed was planted in (THE "seed" actually is in the bible)

(August 23, 2012 at 4:01 am)FallentoReason Wrote: TheGreatestOfTheseIsLOVE... TGOTIL... Gotty; can I call you that? I read your post and I have to say you have a way with words that is pretty impressive. I wish I was more fluent when trying to get my points across like you are.

Speaking about points, I would like to hear from you about my thoughts on the topic: Jesus' sacrifice only makes sense if there was actually a god-man to sacrifice in the first place. From the research I've done, it seems like there was no such man. Even the NT itself lacks the evidence for such a man, and in my opinion, actually paints a whole different picture about what the early Christians believed. Why is it that Mark, the first Gospel written, originally had no resurrection accounts? Why did 'Matthew', a supposed witness, need to rely on Mark for his testimony (Matthew and Luke used Mark)? That's quite shocking for someone who was supposedly there for most of it. It seems like no author in the NT saw this god-man for themselves, and in fact, neither did any other historian of the time. There's no contemporary accounts whatsoever about Jesus and his one/three year ministry.

If anything, answer me this, because I've yet to hear any response from the theists on here: why does Paul claim his gospel came from no man, that he didn't get taught it by any man, but received it through revelation of Jesus Christ? Wasn't Jesus just on earth during his one/three year ministry?? To say that his gospel came from no man, but it did come from Jesus is telling us something very clearly; that Paul believed in a spiritual being, which makes perfect sense in reality. Jesus is simply nowhere to be found in history.

Sure thing, you can call me that. It was only after I made my username that I realised it was actually quite a mouthful!
Thanks for appreciating my post too. I really respect that. And it’s fantastic you’ve been researching these issues. It’s important we desire to know and learn things rather than simply take everything at face value. So keep questioning and researching, I’m sure you will continue to find answers and facts that surprise, astound, challenge and simply awe you.

There’s a journalist who started looking into the historical case for Christ. Formerly of atheist position, he did not believe Christ to be the Son of God; however after extensive research and questioning he accepted Jesus to be Lord and Saviour based on the evidence he had found. The journalist’s name is Lee Strobel. In his book “The Case for Christ,” he addresses some of the issues you have mentioned here such as NT reliability, whether the resurrection was a historical event and if there is evidence for Jesus outside of the bible, etc. Basically the aim of his investigation was to determine whether or not there was credible evidence for Jesus of Nazareth to be the Son of God. I suggest you read his book if you are interested in finding some answers. This link may or may not be useful also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fpr6ULGpik

Another man who has done extensive research into the historical Christ is a man named John Dickson. He is well known for his work called “The Christ Files.” You can find portions of this on Youtube, but it is also available on DVD. Interestingly when you begin to uncover the work of scholars and investigators who have already searched through much of history in a quest to uncover who Jesus really was, we can find that there is actually much evidence; firstly to say Jesus walked the earth, and secondly to credibly affirm that he is the Son of God – God incarnated.


Also I must insist that the earliest manuscripts of Mark did actually have resurrection accounts, however some only in part. Mark chapter 16 addresses the resurrection of Christ. By reading this you can see that Christ’s resurrection is mentioned in verses 1-8. Some of the earliest manuscripts omit verses 9-20, others maintain these verses. One manuscript consists of a shorter ending (appearing after verse 8, omitting verses 9-20), in which it says, “And all that had been commanded them they told to those around Peter. And afterwards Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” It is interesting this shorter ending practically summarises the rest of the resurrection account in which Christ met with his disciples and gave them what has become known as “The Great Commission” (Mark 16:15-18; better known as Matthew 28:19-20), the command to go and tell the good news to all the world.

I have done some study in the ancient Greek text and it is important to note the purpose behind each Gospel account, hence the differences/similarities present in these written documents. While each account is essentially detailing the same events, they reflect over these events in various manners.
For example, Matthew gives much attention to Christ as Messiah as he is primarily writing to the Jewish Christians, affirming that Christ is indeed the Messiah whom they’d been waiting for. Mark however focusses on Jesus as the Servant-Messiah. While he writes much of his account in a manner which is more to the point, he does not fail to emphasise Jesus as the Son of God. The first verse of Mark’s Gospel identifies Jesus as the Son of God; therefore this truth is guaranteed not to get lost in his gospel as it stands as the opening remark. Luke focusses on Christ’s life, death and resurrection in terms of salvation. Although he may have used other sources in part (as a result of his investigation), he is adamant that his account is the result of “eyewitnesses and servants of the word,” detailing information which he has “carefully investigated” (Luke 1:2-3). John’s Gospel is quite unique, with a strong emphasis on theological richness. John was very much interested in providing answer to the non-Jewish believers, and seeking unbelievers. Therefore he takes things right back to the beginning and describes Jesus in terms of the Word, making it clear he is the incarnate Son of God, for the “Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). John’s Gospel draws our attention to the relationship between Father and Son, emphasising that the Son was sent to reveal the Father and make salvation possible, also explaining the Spirit’s role.


And then you question Paul’s experience. I’m glad you have asked about his perception of Jesus Paul is a powerful example of God’s saving grace through Jesus Christ. Being a Jew who had studied the law as a Pharisee, Paul was also a Roman citizen. Therefore he understood the religious climate of his day like no other; yet he was extremely zealous and killed a large number of Christians in his attempt to honour God (“God” as he understood God).

Then he met Christ.
(A short discussion can be found at: http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-te...eet-jesus/)

Did you know that 14 years passed between Paul’s experience on the Damascus Road and the beginning of his ministry as the apostle Paul? There was obviously a LOT of misunderstanding in his theology that he had to challenge and address after he met Christ, before he could adequately explain the truth of the gospel to his hearers.

Nevertheless you speak of Paul’s perception of Christ, for it seems he speaks of Christ as a spirit being and not a man, yes?
In the early church era, eyewitness accounts were seen as authoritative sources. Historical testimonies held great credibility when affirmed as eyewitness accounts (See the beginning of Luke’s gospel). This link may be useful also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRv4J10B8k4).

So to affirm an eyewitness account was to affirm credibility.

This concept is not unlike the way Paul states himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ at the beginning of some of his letters. For particular audiences, to state himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ affirmed his position to speak with authority to such audiences. For other audiences this was not required.

Therefore Paul, not unlike Luke and a majority of other historical writers, was aware of the context into which he was speaking. While Paul often refers to the revelation He received in/through Jesus Christ he does also speak of having met Christ in a manner similar to that of the disciples (See 1 Corinthians 15, namely verse 8 in which Paul lists himself among those to whom the resurrected Christ appeared).

Yet, we must note that Christ appeared to Paul after he had ascended to heaven. This is why we find the phrase “as to one abnormally born” (1 Corinthians 15:8), which identifies Paul not as part of the initial group of disciples, but nevertheless as an apostle of Jesus Christ. Such an encounter with Christ enabled Paul the standing to speak with authority and credibility, for his experience held the credibility of an eyewitness account; vitally important to his era.
Chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians also shows us that Paul does not discredit the accounts of those who walked with Christ; rather he upholds them along with his own personal experiences of Jesus. Therefore he affirms that he speaks of the same Jesus, the God-man who had literally just walked the earth.

Furthermore we learn through reading all of Paul’s letters, that when Paul speaks of “Jesus Christ,” he encompasses the full revelation of Jesus Christ; in which Jesus came as God incarnate to restore creation to its original intent. This God-man offered himself as the perfect sacrifice, overcoming sin and death through his life, death, burial and resurrection.

While at first glance it may appear that Paul portrays Jesus as merely a spiritual being, it is evident as one delves further into Paul’s work that he had a revelation of Christ as Messiah. A revelation which drastically changed his outlook on life, transforming him from a zealousness against Christians, to a zealous love for Jesus Christ and his Church (all the believers, not a building) – the Church being a physical reminder of the body of Christ, the body and person in whom our hope rests.

Without Jesus’ physical resurrection, there is no hope for life to be restored to mankind. This is the revelation Paul received, and the gospel of grace he so embodied in his drastic life transformation. Thus it is God incarnate (Jesus Christ) whom Paul received a revelation of, chose to wholeheartedly follow, and urged others to accept as Messiah, Lord and Saviour.

In response to your comment, Jesus is simply nowhere to be found in history, I beg to differ. There is much historical evidence to show Jesus walked the earth as a man. In reflection over whether he was raised from the dead and thus truly the Son of God (able to restore us to life), a great comment has been made. If I remember correctly it is found in Lee Strobel’s musings in his book “The Case for Christ”. He says something along the lines of: why/how would the disciples have had courage to spread the Gospel message if Jesus had not been raised from the dead? To better understand this let’s remember Peter, one of Jesus’ closest friends...

BEFORE Jesus was even put to death, Peter lacked courage, denying Christ 3 times. If he was this afraid to spread the news of Jesus while Jesus was alive and breathing, how much less would he have been empowered to share the good news if his supposed Lord and Saviour was dead, forever? I suggest Peter was emboldened to speak on behalf of his teacher and friend because the resurrected Jesus – his Messiah – met him in person (as recorded in Scripture, 1 Corinthians 3:3-5).

It makes reasonable sense that Jesus was raised from the dead, showing himself to be the Son of God, Lord and Saviour of all creation. For if he had not, the Gospel message would not have spread so powerfully, or rapidly.

Furthermore, if Christ had not been raised from the dead, the disciples would have lost all faith in the man who claimed to have the power to save them. This supposed Saviour would have been rotting in a grave.

However history tells us otherwise.

History tells us Jesus’ resurrection was essential to the spread of the Gospel, to the steadfast faith of the disciples – all, except one, whom were martyred for their devotion to Christ. Such devotion does not point to a dead man. Such devotion points to a living God, who came in the form of a man in order to restore creation to life.


For me, there is too much historical, factual and theological evidence in favour of Jesus as the Son of God. I cannot understand him in any way other than God incarnate who came to restore his creation to its intended state.


(In addition, concerning contemporary accounts, there have been numerous near-death experiences recorded, in which people explain their experiences of heaven and of Jesus. One that continues to astound me is that of a young boy, Colton Burpo. His story is recorded in a book “Heaven is For Real” which details an experience he had at age 4 (if I remember correctly). What astounds me is his description of Jesus. When asked what Jesus looked like, and shown numerous “pictures” of Jesus, the only picture that resembled the Jesus he had met was one painted by a girl named Akiane Kramarik (a girl he had never met or heard of before).
What’s more, Akiane had dreams of God at age 4, yet she was from an atheist household. She began her art and poetry at age 4, inspired by visions and dreams of God and heaven. She painted this image of Jesus at age 8 (you can see their stories on Youtube). I find these stories remarkable and believe they point to a living God who knows us, loves us and connects with us).


I hope this response has been helpful

Hey, Lee Strobel - we've never heard of him before! We're in trouble now, guys!

Re: JC's resurrection: sorry to burst any bubbles, but histroy tells us no such thing. The only - repeat, only - source of information that talks of a formerly-martyred man returning to life is the same story that talks of that character being martyred in the first place. There are no contemporary sources outside of that story that mentions those things. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Sorry.

You might just as well talk about the resurrection of Snow White and then go on to cite the direct eyewitness testimony of Happy, Sleepy, Sneezy, Grumpy, Doc, Bashful and Dopey, as well as the handsome prince and the wicked stepmother as proof that it was a real historical event. The lie is safe because it guards itself, whether we're talking Snow White, Humpty Dumpty or religious wizards.

Just about everything else you wrote is ecclesiastical spam and thus dismissed as such. I suggest you read our rules regarding preaching before you bring down a world of trouble on yourself. Other than that, welcome and I hope you enjoy your stay.

Re: Stimbo

Unfortunately you cannot liken Jesus to Snow White. You can try to ignore it, but there are historical documents/texts outside of Scripture that speak of Jesus, an actual man who walked this earth.

When I say history shows us that Christ's resurrection is reasonable, I say so in terms of the many people who have based their life upon the news of Jesus Christ...people who have lived spanning hundreds of years since Christ walked this earth. That alone tells me there's more substance to Jesus' story, than to that of Snow White or Humpty Dumpty. Do you see billions of people living as followers of Snow White, or Humpty Dumpty today (if ever)? No. That's ridiculous. And yet, we do see billions following Christ. That is a fact neither of us can ignore.

Also, I read the rules. I am not trying to preach. I am trying to answer questions posed to the best of my ability. You are doing the same, so I suggest we allow each other the opportunity to continue doing so.

Just because something is popular does not make it reasonable.

Re: frankiej

True. However I didn't refer to Christianity as popular. 'Popular' has connotations to fads or passing waves where masses follow pop bands or the newest 'whatever'. Yet christianity shows a steady continuation over a great number of years, & it's not dying yet.

The fact that followers of Christ experience life transformation (ie, drug dealers' lives being turned around after accepting Jesus, a chance at suicide being overturned and new hope found for the bullied teen who hears about Jesus, people in developing nations whose hope and trust rests in God and they see provision and protection, etc.).

These are facts I cannot ignore.

These are transformed lives that testify to a living God; a God to whom those who believe have entrusted their lives.

TheGreatestOfTheseIsLOVE Wrote: You can try to ignore it, but there are historical documents/texts outside of Scripture that speak of Jesus, an actual man who walked this earth.

Name one.

As the forum's resident prophet, I know already what your reply to this request will include but please cite these "historical sources", because I promise you they have all been well and truly staked through the heart or they're not what you think they are. Try this resource for a start: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ (and don't forget our resurrected forum - link available from the main page there).

Many people have indeed based their life on the probability, or more accurately the hope, of JC's existence. We're not disputing that religious people exist; it is indeed a fact that I do not ignore (and I'm starting to resent the inference in your tone. Please moderate it. I'm being polite to you, as indeed I try to be with everyone; can you not find it in your heart to show me the same courtesy?). Yes, we do see billions (well, a lot anyway) of people following JC, or at least identifying as xtian. I hate ro raise the spectre of Hitler, particularly since you didn't go in this direction, but to borrow from Prof Dawkins, if the RC church wants to cite baptismal records in an attempt to swell their membership and demonstrate how many followers they have, then they are forced to include Hitler among their number as well. Then of course there are a lot of Muslims, apparently it's the fastest-growing religion on the planet (at least according to them). And let's not forget Scientologists. Citing the number of believers in a thing to prove the existence of that thing does nothing except prove that people have beliefs, nothing more. How many letters do you suppose are written to Santa each year? How many children's teeth get placed underneath pillows in the expectation of the Tooth Fairy exchanging them for cash?

(August 23, 2012 at 11:08 am)TheGreatestOfTheseIsLOVE Wrote: Yet christianity shows a steady continuation over a great number of years, & it's not dying yet.

Just like many other religions.

Quote:The journalist’s name is Lee Strobel.

And no one with any intelligence at all pays any attention to that fuckhead, either.

One of the things you doubtlessly will have in common with him.


Kindly go blow fucking jesus out your ass.