What was the actual sacrifice that Jesus made?

[Cyberman]

I prophesy a relatively short, ill-mannered and circular experience with our new friend.

[Minimalist]

[pgrimes15]

You can try to ignore it, but there are historical documents/texts outside of Scripture that speak of Jesus, an actual man who walked this earth.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

Yes I second that. Name one or conceed you were in error when you said that.

Regards

Grimesy

[Minimalist]

Name one.

Prepare for the standard Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Josephus line of shit that we have all heard so many times before to be regurgitated by this new asshole.

[Cyberman]

Indeed. In accordance with the prophecy.

[Napoléon]

Prepare for the standard Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Josephus line of shit that we have all heard so many times before to be regurgitated by this new asshole.

Oh I'm prepared Min, and I'm sure it won't take all of five seconds to dismiss those bullshit claims. It would be nice if this guy actually found some new evidence of Jebus being written about whilst he actually existed, but you know me, I don't choose to believe in things just because they might be a nice idea, so I remain skeptical.

[Minimalist]

Not likely, Nappy.

I'm sure he found some apologist who claims that Tacitus wrote about "jesus." He didn't. He probably didn't even write about "xtians."

[FallentoReason]

Thanks for your response Gotty. I don't have the time to go off and read books at the moment as I have enough to read for university already! This doesn't matter though, because I think we can come to an almost definite conclusion about the past from the Bible alone. I have to admit that external sources helped me to get to this conclusion, but in essence it's actually all there--in the Bible itself.

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.

The truth of the matter is that the original hands down did not have any sort of extended ending after verse 8. I don't know about your Bible, but mine is honest enough to tell me in square brackets that verses 9-20 are nowhere to be found in the earliest surviving copies. This is simply one of the few things that we can establish as an absolute fact about the NT--that Mark ends with, what I would call in modern times, a rather dramatic ending where it leaves the reader unsatisfied in the sense that it's a cliffhanger. What I'm talking about of course is the women telling no one about the young man's unsupported claim that Christ has risen. This is quite an elaborate and novel-type literary device that has been used, which doesn't sound like any sort of genuine history account I've ever read in my life quite honestly. So that's it for Mark.. the best it gets is an anonymous man claiming something that he never admitted to seeing himself. That sounds exactly like every other NT author actually.

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.

'Matthew' gave much attention in editing Mark's Gospel as he pleased. There's no evidence whatsoever that the Apostle Matthew wrote the manuscript attributed to him. Therefore it is nothing but an anonymous account who demonstrably used Mark as his starting point.

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.

Mark got most of his information that would become Jesus' life straight from the OT. You might be thinking 'well of course, Jesus fulfilled this prophecy and that prophecy' but the bits Mark used are actually not even prophecies but trivial events that aren't prophecy being fulfilled. This topic (Mark being an allegory for the OT) is rather a big one to discuss, but I'll start you off with this one: Jesus' last words on the cross were taken from Psalm 22:1. Interestingly, Psalm 22 is about a Jew who is suffering. Coincidence that Mark put Psalm 22:1 in Jesus' mouth? I think not. I think Mark was very brilliant in how he composed his Gospel. The downside to his technique is that unfortunately there's no room whatsoever for literal history to exist within the Gospel.

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).

Luke, like 'Matthew', used Mark as his starting point and bits of Josephus as well. His research hasn't come from anyone who witnessed Jesus for themselves.

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.

John's Gospel, being the last one written, is the biproduct of what happens to word-of-mouth gossip; it starts sounding a lot more incredible (in this case). 'I and the father are one' is what Jesus starts claiming now, which is nowhere to be found in the other Gospels. John is simply an outlier and doesn't fit in well with the Synoptics, which actually doesn't matter anyways because the Synoptics are faulty anyways.

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).

That really says something about these 'witnesses'. Paul never met the man but merely had a spiritual encounter with Jesus. If that's enough to have some authority then I think we're done here. It didn't take a human messiah to start the Christian movement in that case.

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).

Interestingly, he doesn't make any sort of differentiation between the types of encounters. He basically says 'these people saw a resurrected Christ just like I did'. There's nothing there to indicate Jesus was just on earth.

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.

In the bolded: there's simply no such evidence that that's what Paul is referring to. He fails to make mention of any part of Jesus' life except the crucifixion, which if understood spiritually, is no different to Mithra slaying the bull somewhere in the cosmos. That is the reality of what Paul is telling us. He has had these spiritual revelations through Christ Jesus and the prophets (OT) and has been made aware of the mysteries of this occurence in the heavens; that Jesus has died on the cross and been resurrected. This type of mentality--that things occurred in the heavens--was quite normal of all the mystery cults of the time who believed in saviour gods.

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.

in the bolded: where?! How are you coming to this conclusion? Paul refers to Jesus as being 'born of a woman' and being of the 'lineage of David, according to the flesh', but is it any coincidence that these claims come straight from the OT? In other words, Paul brings up (and seems to favour) the OT over recent events, in this case, that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. Yes Paul... the 'woman' had a NAME!

Paul is simply ignorant of the life of Jesus. You might argue that Paul's intentions weren't to preach about what had already 'happened' (i.e. the things mentioned in the Gospels) but the funny thing is that when Paul gives himself a chance to bring up a fact about Jesus' life, he fails to do so. Born of a woman... Paul, she was a virgin by the name of Mary i.e. a rather important prophecy!

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.

Sure, he had a revelation of Christ the messiah.. in the heavens!

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.

This is what you're trying to prove. You can't use it to show Paul was preaching about what you're trying to prove...

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 Paul was a marketing genious. While all the mystery cults were exactly that.. a mystery (which wasn't open for everyone to join) Paul instead decides his gospel is for the 'Jew and Gentile alike'. In other words, anyone has the permission to join the movement. Voila, you get yourself a cult which has the ability to expand exponentially compared to the other 'clubs' that had too many requirements.

As for disciples wanting to 'die for the truth'... look at Paul. He simply saw a shiny light in the sky and that's what he decided to die for. Until shown that there was actually a man who died on a physical cross and resurrected 3 days later, the claim that the disciples wouldn't have died for a lie is a baseless assertion.

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.

Paul's words paint a different picture altogether. In fact, all the early Christians seem to share the same beliefs as Paul. Look at the pseudo-Pauline epistle of Ephesians, which says the mystery of Christ (how is a one/three year ministry a mystery, by the way?) was not made known to previous generations as it has now been revealed to the apostles and prophets by the Spirit (Ephesians 3:4,5). So Jesus' ministry doesn't get a mention at all? It seems like all the credit goes to the prophets (OT) and the 'apostles' which never seem to get correlated with the 12 luckiest men to ever live. No, the 'apostles' seems to be your everyday people like Paul, who self-appointed themselves, as opposed to a physical messiah electing them.

A physical Jesus seems to be embarrasingly missing from the epistles, but most interesting of all, not needed.

For me, there is too much historical, factual and theological evidence in favour of Jesus as the Son of God.

I have yet to see any solid proof.

P.s. interesting story about the kids. I don't regard such stories to hold much weight though simply because you're in competition with every other major religion telling you the exact same sort of stuff. Why is your god mightier than theirs and therefore the 'real god' which provides 'genuine' experiences and theirs being fake experiences?

[Minimalist]

The Codex Vaticanus ( a more or less complete xtian bible dating from the mid 4th century ) has these omissions.

Verses not in Vaticanus but in later manuscripts

The text of the New Testament lacks several passages:

Matthew 12:47; 16:2b-3; 17:21; 18:11; 23:14;[13]
Mark 7:16; 9:44.46; 11:26; 15:28;[14]
Mark 16:9–20; —The Book of Mark ends with verse 16:8, consistent with the Alexandrian text-type.[16]
Luke 17:36, 22:43–44;[17]
John 5:4, Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11);[18]
Acts 8:37; 15:34, 24:7; 28:29;[19]
Romans 16:24.[20][21]
1 Peter 5:3.[22][23]

Phrases not in Vaticanus but in later manuscripts include

Matthew 5:44 – εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς (bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you);[24]
Matthew 10:37b – καὶ ὁ φιλῶν υἱὸν ἢ θυγατέρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος (and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me) as Codex Bezae;[25]
Matthew 15:6 – ἢ τὴν μητέρα (αὐτοῦ) (or (his) mother);[26]
Matthew 20:23 – καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὂ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθήσεσθε (and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with), as in codices Sinaiticus, D, L, Z, Θ, 085, f1, f13, it, Syriac Sinaiticus (syrs), syrc, copsa.[27]
Mark 10:7 – καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ (and be joined to his wife), as in codices Sinaiticus, Codex Athous Lavrensis, 892, ℓ 48, Sinaitic Palimpsest (syrs), Gothic Codex Argenteus.[28]
Mark 10:19 – μη αποστερησης omitted (as in codices K, W, Ψ, f1, f13, 28, 700, 1010, 1079, 1242, 1546, 2148, ℓ 10, ℓ 950, ℓ 1642, ℓ 1761, syrs, arm, geo) but added by a later corrector (B2).[29]
Luke 9:55–56 – και ειπεν, Ουκ οιδατε ποιου πνευματος εστε υμεις; ο γαρ υιος του ανθρωπου ουκ ηλθεν ψυχας ανθρωπων απολεσαι αλλα σωσαι (and He said: "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to save them) — omitted as in codices Sinaiticus, C, L, Θ, Ξ, 33, 700, 892, 1241, Old Syriac version (syr), copbo;[30]
Luke 11:4 – αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου (but deliver us from evil) omitted. Omission is supported by the manuscripts: \mathfrak{P}75, Sinaiticus, L, f1 700 vg syrs copsa, bo, arm geo.[31]
Luke 23:34 – "And Jesus said: Father forgive them, they know not what they do." This omission is supported by the manuscripts \mathfrak{P}75, Sinaiticusa, D*, W, Θ, 0124, 1241, a, d, syrs, copsa, copbo.[32]

Clearly edited bullshit.