Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2014, 11:05 AM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
(04-11-2014 11:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 08:02 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  How so? The only thing I remember Jesus saying with respect to Rome was to pay your taxes to Caesar.

If you look at just the context of history at that time and place, if Jesus had existed, he would most likely have been a member or leader of a zealous xenophobic Jewish cult with an ax to grind with the Roman occupiers. Jesus most certainly wasn't a Hellenized Jew.

So the 'give unto Caesar' parts that shows up in the later Gospels were probably added there by later Pro-Roman supporters trying to co-opt the movement, and possibly by those in Rome with an eye towards purposely undermining it.

That is interesting. Do you have textual differences between gospels or gospel fragments or other textual evidence to support this idea?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 11:23 AM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
Did Jesus die for our sins? No, he died for his peeps. Rolleyes




"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Can_of_Beans's post
06-11-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
Stupidest fucking story, ever.


[Image: jesus_ta_da_holiday_card-r05512e4251864e...vr_512.jpg]


It takes a world-class idiot to fall for that.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Minimalist's post
06-11-2014, 06:39 PM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
Yes people will most likely kill him again. No one will believe it's the real Jesus. History will repeat itslelf. Cant' wait.

(06-11-2014 03:51 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Now, If for some reason Jesus death is good for humanity, then if that fucker comes back, you know, the second coming and all. Then would it be good for us to kill that fucker again? Would that give the Christians more to get excited about. We could have a second Easter, maybe the Christians can wear a cross and an electric chair around their necks.

Praise be the sacrifice of Jesus. He died so that we could sin!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 08:21 PM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
He didn't die at all. FFS he's got a youtube channel!

Jesus Christ On YouTube

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 11:50 PM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
(06-11-2014 06:39 PM)godnads Wrote:  Yes people will most likely kill him again. No one will believe it's the real Jesus. History will repeat itslelf. Cant' wait.
Well, hang on.
If it is the real Jesus then we ought to kill him, there are rewards for all of humanity if we do.

If it's not Jesus, then I don't see any reason to kill him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2014, 02:21 AM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2014 03:12 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
(04-11-2014 03:32 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 01:57 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The whole ridiculous concept was invented by Paul.

The real Jesus, if he ever even existed, died for one reason only, because he was an insurgent who tried to start a war with Rome.

Respectfully, Mark, I'm confused:

Jesus was an insurgent against Rome, so as you put it elsewhere recently, Rome used Paul to spread a religion to quell insurgency? I don't want to misquote you but that's what I understood from a recent thread.

"Jesus was an insurgent against Rome,"

Yes... in my opinion... if there was an historical Jesus that is what he was about

"Rome used Paul to spread a religion to quell insurgency?"

Yes. I'll give myself permission to post my spiel on this again because 1) You asked
2) I've significantly rewritten it, and it now flows better and my arguments are better presented...

Was Christianity a Product of the Roman Government?
What drove Paul so ardently in his efforts? Did the government employ Paul because they wanted to mar the power of messianic Judaism, and particularly Nazarenism? Was the Roman government trying to stop a war?

Paul taught that the Jewish messiah was the Christ, who had already been and gone, maybe because Rome didn’t want hopeful Jews rallying under a yet to arrive militaristic messiah who would challenge Roman rule.

Rome knew a revolt was brewing in Palestine in the 50’s and 60’s. The government sent many different procurators to Palestine to control the unrest, yet many of them were corrupt, which only made matters worse. All Jews felt a connection with Jerusalem and the temple; they even sent money as an annual gift to the priests in the temple. The government was aware that many Jews in the Diaspora didn’t assimilate well in a political and social sense, and that made them suspicious of their Palestinian connections. Jewish extremists throughout the empire (such as Yeshua) promoted the subversive idea that their own Jewish king should govern the world on behalf of God and in place of Caesar. If the government couldn’t pacify these Jews, it would set a dangerous precedent for other races to revolt. They needed to keep control over the trade routes to Asia and Egypt. They were frustrated at having to repeatedly use force to suppress Jewish extremists, as it was disruptive, expensive, and taxing on morale. Maybe they thought that if they could undermine Jewish extremism using propaganda it would prevent a whole world of hassle.

In an effort to achieve this, it is conceivable that Rome had a network of covert agents engaged in suppression of Jewish extremists. If so, there might have been many “Pauls” working as government employees. One of the reasons I suspect this is that Paul wrote to a community in Rome to introduce himself, and it’s obvious from his letter that the group he wrote to already had some beliefs about a Christ.

It’s plausible to surmise that the government was worried that Judaism was attracting converts from Gentiles, so tried to do something about it. Paul’s role was to stop the spread of the subversive religion. He tried to infiltrate the Nazarenes to undermine them and their messianic message. I suspect (but, admittedly, can’t prove) he passed information about them on to Roman authorities. His “conversion,” in which “God’s” new ideas were revealed only to him, and by which he became the founding member of his own Christ fan club, was his modus operandi. This could explain why he wrote with such passion; he was desperate to sell his watered down, non-militaristic version of Judaism, one that downplayed the importance of the temple and all the Jewish ethnocentric antisocial practices, which fuelled patriotic militarism. His (and the government’s) aim was to counter Jewish messianic fervor, which was building in momentum and needed to be quelled. He failed, because Jews in Palestine revolted in the war of 66 -70 CE.

What actual evidence is there that Paul was a funded insurgent? Well, it’s known that Paul was a Roman citizen, yet he didn’t publically reveal he was Roman until he was about to be physically assaulted by Roman soldiers, which indicates that he was trying to norm with the Jewish community, and simultaneously hide his true identity. Being a funded agent would explain how he managed to support himself financially, and undertake his ministry without doing any tent making. It might also be why he hoped a financial gift to the Nazarenes in Jerusalem would be accepted; he was trying to endear himself to the Nazarenes using bribery. His writings make it clear that he had little genuine respect for Pharisaic Judaism. He often insisted that the Torah was obsolete. These are traits very unlikely to be a part of the mindset of a Jew genuinely bought up to respect the beliefs of Judaism. What’s more, Paul was, by anyone’s standards, too obviously over zealous in promoting his own theology; so much so that the perceptive reader can’t help but question whether Paul had covert motives.

This idea makes clear why Paul not only promoted his new interpretation of Judaism, but also why he aligned himself with the non-religious administration of the Romans; the following is an extract from his letter to a Roman Jewish community:

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” (Romans 13:1-7 KJV.)

One could argue that Paul, in the above passage sounds more like a pro administration lobbyist rather than an evangelist.

This theory might explain the way Paul finished off his letter to the Philippians:
“All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22, KJV.) This confirms that he was aligned with the Emperor Nero’s family, and even permitted himself to speak on their behalf.

Paul being a Roman associate fits with the fact the book of Acts states:
“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul” (Acts 13:1, KJV.) So the earliest Christian community at Antioch boasted a member of Herod Antipas’ family, the pro-Roman Tetrarch who had murdered John the Baptist, and Paul (Saul) was associated with him.

Paul being an agent of the government would explain why, in the book of Acts, he was repetitively roughed up by traditional Jews nearly everywhere he went, yet was never attacked by Gentiles. It might explain why once the local Roman authorities knew who he was and what he was up to, he was treated so well, despite the fact he so regularly disturbed the peace. Paul’s so called “arrest” by Roman troops in Jerusalem doesn’t mean he wasn’t in league with them, he was in fact being protected. Things had got a little out of control and he ended up being a source of civil unrest. He’d become a diehard dogmatist causing trouble wherever he went. Instead of undermining Judaism, he incited Jews to the point of violence, something Rome didn’t want. The “arrest” was, in fact, for his own safety. Reading between the lines, he was never treated like a prisoner. Rather, there were remarkable Roman resources used to protect him. He had to be moved to Rome, as it was the best place his safety could be guaranteed (this will be discussed in chapter 17 about the book of Acts.)

We don’t hear from Paul after the early 60s. His anti-Jewish propaganda project hadn’t worked, and the time for talk was over; the military had to be bought in. He had become redundant. There is a Christian “tradition” he was executed in Rome, but no valid reason why that would have happened, and no good evidence to say it did. (http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12...ink.html).

If Paul was a spy, he was a cog in the wheel of a cunning government plan, and there is no doubt that he would have been viewed by the Jews as a charlatan.

Rome wasn’t into controlling people’s minds or interfering with their belief systems unless they started impacting on Rome’s ability to garner supply of goods, services and money. Jewish messianic beliefs, such as those entertained by the Nazarenes, did just that.

I’m not suggesting that Paul didn’t wholeheartedly believe in the value of what he was doing. If the project had been successful the first (66-70CE) and second (132-5 CE) Jewish wars would have been averted. I think he knew he was promoting manufactured dogma as a means to an end.

This means Rome, via Paul, created the Christ, a benign pacifist messiah.

Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon co-wrote “Operation Messiah,” and come to a similar conclusion. They postulate that Paul was
“…supporting the imperial structure, benefiting from it, cooperating with it, often saved by it. The end product for Rome was exactly what it wanted - a loyal, other –worldly, spiritual movement that was completely divorced from Palestinian revolutionary movements, from Jewish nationalism and from any challenge to Roman imperial authority. Its followers were supposed to pay taxes and be loyal citizens of the emperor.”

It is quite probable that Jewish and Gentile intellectuals, also working for the Roman government, a little later, after the first Jewish war, and after Paul’s failure, wrote the Gospels. The fact that belief in the divinity of Jesus, a benign pacifist messiah, arose in many diverse areas of the empire a number of decades after Jesus’ death suggests to me that it came from a central, well coordinated (and Gentile) source, not from the real Jesus’ Jewish friends in Jerusalem. The Roman led spin-doctors, who could have been the original authors of the gospels, knew ideas could be as effective as force. I think they tried to moderate and modernize Judaism by infiltrating it with Gentiles and diluting its dogmas, making it less militant. This is the same strategy Paul deployed, although these authors used a Jesus, where I suspect Paul had used a Christ. The authors of the gospels too told a tale that the Jewish messiah had already been and gone, and wasn’t a political activist, but a benign religious preacher who was a spiritual intermediary between God and man. If the Roman’s ideas caught on, there’d be no more messiahs and no more revolts.

Having a religion that embedded pacifist values such as “blessed are the peacemakers,” “turn the other cheek,” “love your enemies” and “pay your taxes” meant you didn’t cause trouble and you obeyed your Roman superiors. To promote this patronizing prattle would have been a lot easier than having to use the army again. This could be a reason why the true identities of all four Gospel authors are unknown.

In those times it was easier to promote propaganda than it is today, because the public was less informed and less able to check out the facts. The Romans could continue to keep the peace and collect taxes without having to exercise military force.

Perhaps it was a stroke of subversive brilliance that these authors of the Gospels twisted the knife to wound Judaism by blaming Jesus’ (a known insurgent’s) death on the Jews and making Romans look like the innocent good guys. It was made out that Jesus’ compatriots had effectively killed their own messiah, and had done so because of their religious beliefs. In creating this particular spin the authors embedded guilt into those they wished to control, while at the same time giving the Jews a bad name amongst Gentiles for killing a god man and a really nice guy. Guilt, hate and racism were powerful weapons used by Christianity leaders.

The government hoped the story of the new idol would convince people that true spirituality and the promise of eternal life were synonymous with getting along with them. It was the winners that wrote the history.

Ever since ancient times, people in power have tried to control popular opinion, and haven’t hesitated to flagrantly manipulate the facts. Most movements, or organizations, try to change the way people think and what they do. The creation of Christianity by the Romans appears to be one such example. Creating a new religion, with a charismatic central hero figure, and embedding guilt and fear while castigating the enemy and promising cooperative people a heavenly afterlife is just brilliant! Consider how well it has lasted until now. The Romans wanted control. They saw how powerful the Jewish religion was amongst the Jews, so they used that knowledge to their own advantage. They were smart. They controlled the world. They wouldn’t have felt guilty about what they were doing. They just saw this as an effective strategy for delivering change and keeping the peace.

In modern times, the use of tactics like this is called propaganda, disinformation or psychological warfare. It’s fascinating to imagine these subversive tricks as part of the first-century Roman government machine and jaw-dropping to realize the dogma has survived today without being exposed for what it probably is, and is still coloring the way people, and in particular trusting Christians, look at the world.

It’s ironic that the Gospels, purporting to be so truthful, were so manufactured, yet still became one of the most successful literary enterprises ever undertaken. There is no doubt that today, most Christians misunderstand what the actual (Jewish) Messianic movement was. This misunderstanding was Rome’s doing.

The propaganda may have been very clever, but it didn’t achieve its aims. Just as Paul failed to stop the first war of 66 to 70 CE, the gospel authors too failed in their original intention, as they didn’t prevent the second major war with the Jews in 132-6 CE.

The reader may be wondering why, if this is true, it’s often claimed the government persecuted Christians, particularly as there is a “tradition” that Domitian (Titus Flavius Dominatus Augustus, Roman emperor from 81-96CE) did just that, but the evidence for this is weak (http://bibleworld.com/domper.pdf). The fact is persecution of Christians wasn’t a policy of the state until over a century later, when it did occur in isolated areas, and only for relatively short periods. (http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Persecuti...62104527).

Generally speaking, Rome was tolerant of all religions, including Christianity. In those days the ideas of one government (as controlled by one emperor) were often completely different to the next emperor. After the Flavian dynasty (the rule of Vespasian, Titus and then Domitian) ended with Domitian’s assassination in 96 CE, there was a brand new emperor. Persecution happened sporadically many years later, but usually only if Christians refused to worship the state’s gods. By this time the militaristic ambitions of peasant Jews had been finally and definitively crushed in the second Jewish war of 132-6 CE, and there were different agendas on the government’s mind. (see http://www.religionfacts.com/christianit...tion.htm). What’s more, some stories of persecutions of Christians by the Roman government are now recognized as exaggerations and fabrications.

I hope the reader understands the significance of this. If this is true, Christianity has been the most monumental fraud ever inflicted on humankind.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
07-11-2014, 02:30 AM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
(06-11-2014 11:05 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 11:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If you look at just the context of history at that time and place, if Jesus had existed, he would most likely have been a member or leader of a zealous xenophobic Jewish cult with an ax to grind with the Roman occupiers. Jesus most certainly wasn't a Hellenized Jew.

So the 'give unto Caesar' parts that shows up in the later Gospels were probably added there by later Pro-Roman supporters trying to co-opt the movement, and possibly by those in Rome with an eye towards purposely undermining it.

That is interesting. Do you have textual differences between gospels or gospel fragments or other textual evidence to support this idea?

When I first read this I thought it said sexual in place of textual. Laugh out load

"If there's a single thing that life teaches us, it's that wishing doesn't make it so." - Lev Grossman
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2014, 03:14 AM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
(07-11-2014 02:30 AM)Nurse Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 11:05 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  That is interesting. Do you have textual differences between gospels or gospel fragments or other textual evidence to support this idea?

When I first read this I thought it said sexual in place of textual. Laugh out load

Gospel of Thomas : http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/th...as114.html

Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2014, 05:36 AM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
...also no because Moses:

Quote:31 So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. 32 But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.

33 The Lord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. 34 Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.”

I mean, when you live in a shithole yet call yourself chosen of god, there's gotta be a story to hack the discrepancy and "original sin" fits the bill. Now it's just a thing for dumb people who don't wanna think. Tongue

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: