Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2015, 02:24 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(01-06-2015 12:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  James wasn't just "writing a letter". He was serving as halachic authority on the Law! Anyone who knows anything about Judaism in the ANE would recognize that he would need to be a Pharisee to not only teach, but to teach his "way" (halachah) to other Jews... or He had seen the risen Messiah.

Your comments about salvation and the Jewish Messiah are far off the mark. Messiah is coming to remove the olam hazeh and usher in the olam habah. You are representing modern revisionist and secularist Judaism as if it is both ancient Judaism in the times of Y'shua and modern, religious Judaism per the Orthodox, Lubavitch sect, etc. No.

"Anyone who knows anything about Judaism in the ANE would recognize that he would need to be a Pharisee to not only teach, but to teach his "way" (halachah) to other Jews... "

Mmmmmmmm.

Your Jeebus was a teacher, right?

So Jeebus was a pharisee then? Facepalm Why would Jeebus say

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! ...woe to you, blind guides...You blind fools!... You blind men!... You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” (Matt. 23:13–34, NJB.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
02-06-2015, 07:31 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
Mark,

James could NOT be a priest, he wasn't a Levite. He couldn't be a Pharisee, the apostles, it was remarked, were untutored/unlearned men/not rulers of the people (religious rulers) etc.

The real issue is simple. Your premise is based on cherry picking and telling us James IS scripture/canon but other epistles aren't. Since you insist Paul didn't write many of the epistles bearing his name, how do you know James is accurate?

However, taking your premise at face value, that James was written before the gospels, does not explain why James saw fit as a non-Pharisee/non-Qumran mystic etc. to write about the Law. He must have believed in Messiah.

Also, as I've patiently explained and re-explained, and re-re-re-explained, I'm conversant with ancient and modern Jewish thought. I spend--guaranteed--hundreds more hours a year actually talking to Jewish people than you do about sin, salvation, Heaven, the next world, etc. I understand what you are writing about what Judaism believes. You are partially correct, but please don't inject presentist notions into the Bible. That's ridiculous.

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
02-06-2015, 08:21 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(02-06-2015 07:31 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  That's ridiculous.
What is ridiculous, is that you STILL have not answered the question.
You puffed-up, boasting, pharisitic, legalizing mausoleum. Drinking Beverage

"If you're going my way, I'll go with you."- Jim Croce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Kestrel's post
02-06-2015, 03:11 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2015 05:10 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(02-06-2015 07:31 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Mark,

James could NOT be a priest, he wasn't a Levite. He couldn't be a Pharisee, the apostles, it was remarked, were untutored/unlearned men/not rulers of the people (religious rulers) etc.

The real issue is simple. Your premise is based on cherry picking and telling us James IS scripture/canon but other epistles aren't. Since you insist Paul didn't write many of the epistles bearing his name, how do you know James is accurate?

However, taking your premise at face value, that James was written before the gospels, does not explain why James saw fit as a non-Pharisee/non-Qumran mystic etc. to write about the Law. He must have believed in Messiah.

Also, as I've patiently explained and re-explained, and re-re-re-explained, I'm conversant with ancient and modern Jewish thought. I spend--guaranteed--hundreds more hours a year actually talking to Jewish people than you do about sin, salvation, Heaven, the next world, etc. I understand what you are writing about what Judaism believes. You are partially correct, but please don't inject presentist notions into the Bible. That's ridiculous.

"James could NOT be a priest, he wasn't a Levite."

You don't understand first century Jerusalem. The high priest during this time was chosen by Rome and didn't need to be a levite. Look it up

James, in my opinion, acted as a type of defacto high priest in the eyes of many of the common people. See below

"He couldn't be a Pharisee,"

I never said he was. You can't seem to make up your mind.

"the apostles, it was remarked, were untutored/unlearned men/not rulers of the are people"

Wrong. You need to reread your babble, and read some more history...

Paul wrote:
“So James, Peter, and John, these leaders, these pillars...” (Gal. 2:9, NJB.)

That James was in charge is convincingly confirmed by the following quote from Paul:

“When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision” (Gal. 2:11–12, NJB.)

Paul makes clear that Peter (Cephas) was careful to be seen doing what James wanted.

The book of Acts also portrays James as the leader of the disciples.

Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 CE,) the most important early Christian historian of all, wrote that:

“James, whom men of old had surnamed ‘Just’ for his excellence of virtue, is recorded to have been the first elected to the throne of the Oversight of the Church in Jerusalem” (Church History 2.1.2.)

Saint Jerome, a prolific commentator and translator of early Christian material, quoted Hegesippus’ (a first century writer) account of James from the fifth book of his lost “Commentaries:”

“After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord named the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed on behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels’ knees.” (De Viris Illustribi.)

The “Holy of Holies” was a term referring to the inner sanctuary of the temple in Jerusalem. Since it was unlawful for anyone but the high priest of the temple to enter it, and then only once a year. This suggests that James was considered a more legitimate, and perhaps a de facto high priest in opposition to the one appointed by Rome.

Josephus also described James as a pious Jew who was well respected, and observed all the obligations of Judaism.

James obviously managed to achieve a high status among his own people. He was described in terms that emphasized his association with the temple and Judaism. His vegetarianism, unshaven state and wearing of linen were all Essene traits.
James was clearly a leading Jewish figure in Jerusalem until his death in 62 CE, yet he is barely mentioned in the Bible or in the annals of Church history. The Gospel writers and Church historians have deliberately diminished James’ importance for obvious reasons; James was too Jewish, and his beliefs were diametrically opposed to Paul’s proto-Christian theology.

"Your premise is based on cherry picking and telling us James IS scripture/canon"

?????????????????. The fact is James IS part of the canon. Even you should know this. Pick up your babble and look. What have I cherry picked?

"but other epistles aren't."

??????????????????. Either an epistle is in the new Testament or it isn't. I would never have said that an epistle that is in the Bible is not in the Bible. Have you lost your marbles?

Since you insist Paul didn't write many of the epistles bearing his name,

This is well accepted by 99% of evangelical and non-Evangelical scholars. Look it up.

how do you know James is accurate?

This argument is a non sequitur.

Also, you did not read what I wrote... I stated that we don't know for sure that the author was the brother of Jesus. I wrote...
"Even if it wasn't written by James, it was written by a very early and obviously Jewish source, someone who knew nothing of, or someone who ignored, the gospels. One wonders why the church fathers would have included it in the Canon if there wasn't some tangible connection to a Jesus. It certainly doesn't promote what became Christianity (because it contradicts Paul.)"

99% of Christians claim the author was James, Jesus' brother. You appear to be hedging your bets about this, but you are not honest enough to clearly state your position. You appear to be implying that James is "not accurate." Who is cherry picking the bible now?

"Also, as I've patiently explained and re-explained, and re-re-re-explained, I'm conversant with ancient and modern Jewish thought. I spend--guaranteed--hundreds more hours a year actually talking to Jewish people than you do about sin, salvation, Heaven, the next world, etc."

Argumentum ad verecundiam. An argument from authority is one in which a proposition is claimed to be true because a supposedly esteemed person says it is true. It is a fallacy in that it relies on the person's fame or reputation, rather than on logical arguments or empirical evidence.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.

"but please don't inject presentist notions into the Bible. That's ridiculous."

"Presentist" isn't a word. I think I know what you are trying to say, yet you haven't explained yourself.
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
02-06-2015, 04:41 PM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2015 02:56 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(02-06-2015 07:31 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Mark,

James could NOT be a priest, he wasn't a Levite. He couldn't be a Pharisee, the apostles, it was remarked, were untutored/unlearned men/not rulers of the people (religious rulers) etc.

The real issue is simple. Your premise is based on cherry picking and telling us James IS scripture/canon but other epistles aren't. Since you insist Paul didn't write many of the epistles bearing his name, how do you know James is accurate?

However, taking your premise at face value, that James was written before the gospels, does not explain why James saw fit as a non-Pharisee/non-Qumran mystic etc. to write about the Law. He must have believed in Messiah.

Also, as I've patiently explained and re-explained, and re-re-re-explained, I'm conversant with ancient and modern Jewish thought. I spend--guaranteed--hundreds more hours a year actually talking to Jewish people than you do about sin, salvation, Heaven, the next world, etc. I understand what you are writing about what Judaism believes. You are partially correct, but please don't inject presentist notions into the Bible. That's ridiculous.

"I'm conversant with ancient and modern Jewish thought. I spend--guaranteed--hundreds more hours a year actually talking to Jewish people than you do about sin, salvation, Heaven, the next world, etc."

If that is true, then it may be that you have something worthwhile and interesting to add to the conversation. Why don't you do that? Why don't you be a bit more careful about what you write so that people have a chance to, and reason to, respect you? For example, you write

"but please don't inject presentist notions into the Bible."

I suspect you know what you mean, yet you haven't respected your readers by giving them the faintest idea what you are on about.

A second example is that you write...

"However, taking your premise at face value, that James was written before the gospels, does not explain why James saw fit as a non-Pharisee/non-Qumran mystic etc. to write about the Law. He must have believed in Messiah."

What da fuck is a "non-Qumran mystic etc." ?

Seriously, if you wrote this in a high school essay, it would merit a fail.

You then write
"He must have believed in Messiah." What, pray tell, is the connection between a "non-Qumran mystic etc" and believing in (?a ?the ) "Messiah" (?Jeebus) ?

Your statements make no sense to anybody (except maybe yourself) and this is why you get shit heaped on you. I'm not sure if you're aware that Christians have a reputation for being, on average, rather stupid, and you are doing nothing to change that reputation.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2015, 11:48 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(02-06-2015 08:21 AM)Kestrel Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 07:31 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  That's ridiculous.
What is ridiculous, is that you STILL have not answered the question.
You puffed-up, boasting, pharisitic, legalizing mausoleum. Drinking Beverage

Which question? There have been a number of them. Which one is paining you?

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
03-06-2015, 11:52 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(02-06-2015 04:41 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 07:31 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Mark,

James could NOT be a priest, he wasn't a Levite. He couldn't be a Pharisee, the apostles, it was remarked, were untutored/unlearned men/not rulers of the people (religious rulers) etc.

The real issue is simple. Your premise is based on cherry picking and telling us James IS scripture/canon but other epistles aren't. Since you insist Paul didn't write many of the epistles bearing his name, how do you know James is accurate?

However, taking your premise at face value, that James was written before the gospels, does not explain why James saw fit as a non-Pharisee/non-Qumran mystic etc. to write about the Law. He must have believed in Messiah.

Also, as I've patiently explained and re-explained, and re-re-re-explained, I'm conversant with ancient and modern Jewish thought. I spend--guaranteed--hundreds more hours a year actually talking to Jewish people than you do about sin, salvation, Heaven, the next world, etc. I understand what you are writing about what Judaism believes. You are partially correct, but please don't inject presentist notions into the Bible. That's ridiculous.

"I'm conversant with ancient and modern Jewish thought. I spend--guaranteed--hundreds more hours a year actually talking to Jewish people than you do about sin, salvation, Heaven, the next world, etc."

If that is true, then it may be that you have something worthwhile and interesting to add to the conversation. Why don't you do that? Why don't you be a bit more careful about what you write so that people have a chance to, and reason to, respect you? For example, you write

"but please don't inject presentist notions into the Bible."

I suspect you know what you mean, yet you haven't respected your readers by giving them the faintest idea what you are on about.

A second example is that you write...

"However, taking your premise at face value, that James was written before the gospels, does not explain why James saw fit as a non-Pharisee/non-Qumran mystic etc. to write about the Law. He must have believed in Messiah."

What da fuck is a "non-Qumran mystic etc." ?

Seriously, if you wrote this in a high school essay, it would merit a fail.

You then write
"He must have believed in Messiah." What, pray tell, is the connection between a "non-Qumran mystic etc" and believing in (?a ?the ) "Messiah" (?Jeebus) ?

Your statements make no sense to anybody (except maybe yourself) and this is why you get shit heaped on you. I'm not sure if you're aware that Christians have a reputation for being, on average, rather stupid, and you are doing nothing to change that reputation.

Wow, you are being rude now. I'll answer you anyway, but please lighten up.

I'm aware that the levitical, legitimate line was usurped by Roman puppets. James was not a religious leader of the people. He was neither a priest nor pharisee. He was not a Qumran'er. So, why write an epistle? Pretty simple question.

I think the Occam's razor answer is he experienced either the Messiah or a Messianic pretender.

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
03-06-2015, 11:53 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(02-06-2015 02:24 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(01-06-2015 12:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  James wasn't just "writing a letter". He was serving as halachic authority on the Law! Anyone who knows anything about Judaism in the ANE would recognize that he would need to be a Pharisee to not only teach, but to teach his "way" (halachah) to other Jews... or He had seen the risen Messiah.

Your comments about salvation and the Jewish Messiah are far off the mark. Messiah is coming to remove the olam hazeh and usher in the olam habah. You are representing modern revisionist and secularist Judaism as if it is both ancient Judaism in the times of Y'shua and modern, religious Judaism per the Orthodox, Lubavitch sect, etc. No.

"Anyone who knows anything about Judaism in the ANE would recognize that he would need to be a Pharisee to not only teach, but to teach his "way" (halachah) to other Jews... "

Mmmmmmmm.

Your Jeebus was a teacher, right?

So Jeebus was a pharisee then? Facepalm Why would Jeebus say

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! ...woe to you, blind guides...You blind fools!... You blind men!... You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” (Matt. 23:13–34, NJB.)

A teacher was called rabbi. Jesus wasn't a religious leader of the people. This we know. Now, please explain your reasons why James felt free, not even being a rabbi, to teach the Law.

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
03-06-2015, 12:52 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(03-06-2015 11:48 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Which question? There have been a number of them. Which one is paining you?

You are aware of unanswered questions that have been put to you.
A responsible believer would have answered them, as they were asked.

So then answer the ones you have admitted awareness of.

Rest assured, I'll point out any omissions. Yes

"If you're going my way, I'll go with you."- Jim Croce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2015, 01:35 PM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2015 01:56 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(09-04-2015 02:16 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  It might have been a sacrifice if Jesus had gone to hell and was burning there for eternity but as the fairy story is told he ends up in cushy paradise. When a soldier sacrifices themselves for their country or a fireman dies trying to save someone from a fire, that's a true sacrifice because they didn't know in advance if they will survive. Jesus/God already knows what's going to happen, after all he's all seeing and all knowing. No sacrifice is made.

The church fathers that constructed this story didn't think it through I guess.

What she said. The whole sacrifice business would be more credible without the silly resurrection nonsense. What does the sacrifice amount to if he just went to hell for a day on a tourist visa and then rose from the dead? 3 hours of pain? Bah, what a pussy. I'd fucking dare him to spend 18 hours with a fucking burst appendix and peritonitis. Or die slowly from cancer. Not only is the concept of resurrection childish and just plain silly, it diminishes, devalues and debases the sacrifice so that it is not only pointless, it's downright blasphemous. God is dead and he took our sins with him. Rejoice for the sinless son of man yet lives!

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: