Jesus's sacrifice

[Paul the Human]

The propensity to sin is a taking away to nothing rather than anything created.

That's a very subjective statement. And the very fact that something exists demands that nothingness also exist (for lack of a better word). So, if god created existence, then he simultaneously created non-existence.

[Shell B]

Well said Shell... except that God didn't create dark - God is light. How do you create 'absence'?? The propensity to sin is a taking away to nothing rather than anything created... therefore anti God.

If god created everything we see around us, then he created absence. I didn't say he created dark, but, according to the idea that he created everything, he must have.

[SleepingDemon]

Sleeping Demon- And I supose anything penned by a Christian hand is completely irrelevant to the conversation? To answer your question about josephus, do you know he didn't believe jesus was the messiah? Perhaps he was depicting the socially accepted depiction of him. That would be the earliest actual account of Jesus, unless you count the prophesies of his coming. You're also precluding any possibility of anyone who had seen/heard him from existing a mere 40 years later. The bible also has Moses living 120 years I believe. Josephus was born in 6 and wrote "antiquities of the Jews" in 90 something I think. I think you're exagerating the possibility that they arne't first hand accounts, and I think I've used your own quotes to show that.

Your analogy is a little off to me too. Superman would be considered by many to be a hero. Whether you die or not isn't as relevant to your image as what you've done in that life.

Even if, and i'm not admitting this fully, Josephus did write a paragraph in antiquities of the jews wherein he completely disregarded his orthodox jew faith and wrote about jesus, it would have been based around what people were saying at the time, which wouldn't have been first hand, or probably not even second hand. Josephus never met jesus, Tacitus never met jesus, and it's conceivable that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never did either. Why did they wait so long after jesus died to write about the wonders that he did? Why would people who walked and talked with god incarnate wait half a century to write it all down? A lot changes in 50 years, memories fade, some things are exaggerated, some things forgotten altogether. Why isn't there any documentation from 30 AD about jesus? Why is it that the only verifiable documentation exists solely in a book written by christians for christians with very little outside and objective corroboration?

Most important however, why is it that someone so important to mankind as a whole, someone who healed the sick, raised the dead, preached to sinners, saved the lost, and walked on water spoken of so little by regional historians of the time? Some of the documentation concerning jesus may have been destroyed over the course of history, absolutely, but surely some of it must have survived. Jesus traveled during his lifetime, he met people, surely someone from 30 AD in modern day Pakistan, or Jordan, or Iraq, or any other region heard of this man, this living god walking amongst us and performing miracles, right? Jesus has as much historical evidence supporting his existence as Hercules and Santa. Prove me wrong.

[fr0d0]

The propensity to sin is a taking away to nothing rather than anything created.

That's a very subjective statement. And the very fact that something exists demands that nothingness also exist (for lack of a better word). So, if god created existence, then he simultaneously created non-existence.

How is it subjective? I thought it was logical. Before you create 'something', there is 'nothing'. You don't create 'nothing' ...you create 'something'.

Are you suggesting that God created 'nothing' first? Or 'nothing' afterwards? Excuse me for waving the preposterous suggestion flag

---

If god created everything we see around us, then he created absence. I didn't say he created dark, but, according to the idea that he created everything, he must have.

Same question to you. How do you logically propose anybody create nothing?

I'll expect your cards on my desk by morning

[Paul the Human]

Nothing, as a concept, has no meaning without something, as a concept. Existence requires there to be non-existence. I think we're off on a tangent and talking about different things. Heheh.

Oh... and it is subjective, because it is dependent upon your personal comprehension of what sin is.

[fr0d0]

The two things being sin and nothing you mean. ok.

Shell is arguing that God created nothingness. The principle of creation, <--- if that's what you're considering, is of a 'something' following a 'nothing'.

In the theological viewpoint, God represents the originating positive force. Everything that leads to nothing, a negative force, has to be anti God-the positive force. Sin was mentioned too, and I agree - you could define sin differently. Basically : sin, being the polar opposite to good, is a negative force, and therefore anti God. How is sin ever pro God? That's not subjective. Sin is a negative no matter how you define it.

[Paul the Human]

Sin is a wholly religious concept, so I will leave the hypothetical definitions of the word to you. The confusion between you and Shell and I is due to a collision of creationist and cosmological 'origin of everything' theories. In the cosmological view, the 'non-existence' that came before 'existence'... is different than the nothing that is the opposite of what things 'are'. I don't think this is constructive territory to tread upon.

[Watson]

Theologically speaking, sin is what happened when man brought the 'nothing' or the 'anti-God' into the world. Eden, being the perfect representation of what God is, was what God created to begin with; man was he whom brought in that which was negative to God. Since God is everything, theologically, the 'nothing' which man brought in was destructive to everything in the form of sin.

Just thought I'd pop in my 2 cents.

[Paul the Human]

Back to the original topic...

So, god (in the form of Jesus) came to earth to live as a human so that he could experience the nothingness of sin. That was the sacrifice. Death and subsequent ascension were the end of the sacrificing, then, and not the sacrifice itself.

Is that what you're saying here, fr0d0?

[fr0d0]

Sin is a wholly religious concept, so I will leave the hypothetical definitions of the word to you. The confusion between you and Shell and I is due to a collision of creationist and cosmological 'origin of everything' theories. In the cosmological view, the 'non-existence' that came before 'existence'... is different than the nothing that is the opposite of what things 'are'. I don't think this is constructive territory to tread upon.

You're chicken. I can see that

---

Back to the original topic...

So, god (in the form of Jesus) came to earth to live as a human so that he could experience the nothingness of sin. That was the sacrifice. Death and subsequent ascension were the end of the sacrificing, then, and not the sacrifice itself.

Is that what you're saying here, fr0d0?

Hey I just popped in to kudos Shell and make a small point

Nah, God didn't need to experience it, but set up a stooge that humans could relate to. The momentous statement was the abolition of sacrifice of course. There's now nothing between us and the attainment of the ultimate in positivity.