aa5874

What a load of BS. You are now accepting the very admitted irrational beliefs of the ancient Jews, Greek and Romans.

YOU OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER.

You are wasting your time trying to convince the modern man that the irrationality of the past must be accepted because of their ignorance.

TedM

I never said that.

I'm not doing that.

What I AM saying is that it is misguided to reject a historical reconstruction simply because it involves irrational responses in the past based on modern day knowledge. People do irrational things, but 2000 years ago the CONTEXT was such that it may have been very reasonable (ie not irrational) to convert a human sacrifice to a divine-like sacrifice, and to do it quickly as Paul and gMark did.

maryhelena

My ignorance. Not nice, Ted. Insulting insinuations? How about details please?

Ted, when you post something on this forum, I am free to respond to it. All the more so when you post irrational, immoral and anti-humanitarian ideas about a salvation value in a human flesh and blood sacrifice. Your premise is not a rational premise that any Jew, now or 2 centuries ago, would sanction. That is the context here - a Jewish context.

Ignorant?

Ted, you have not done so, and cannot do so, shown the "REASONABLENESS" of a salvation value from a human flesh and blood crucifixion/sacrifice.
Stumbling block? Yes, Ted, but it's right in front of your theological absurd abomination of an idea.

:angry:

TedM

All of the following are insulting insinuations..all in one post from you last night:

Those are insulting insinuations about my character. I don't appreciate it.


Here's the Jewish context:

1. Belief that sin results in man's death. Since Genesis 1.
2. Animal sacrifices for sins for many centuries.
3. Sacrifices during Passover. Since Moses.
4. OT prophecies of a Messiah who would save Israel from their sins. Throughout OT.

I've yet to see a substantive reply from you to the following:

*The Jews expected a Messiah from God, who had godly characteristics. Any man who they thought may have been the Messiah was also considered to be the man who would save the Jews from their sins.

*If such a man was killed, then it is only logical for those who followed him to consider whether the death was that of a martyr -- and whether it was related to his ability to save the Jews from their sins.

*The obvious similarity between animal sacrifices for sins during Passover and a Messiah death during passover, would lead to speculation that his death had been a sacrifice for sins. This would either lead to or be supported by alleged resurrection accounts. The resurrection accounts would be seen as confirmation of the accuracy of the theology: If sins are forgiven there is no lasting death, so a resurrection confirms the salvation value of the sacrifice.

These are all logical inferences that the Jewish man or woman would have easily understood, and would have been the impetus for a fast-growing Christian religion.

I have not seen any substantive response to this CONTEXT which I've presented over and over to you.

Sure, you are free to respond or not. But your lack of response is for me very telling. It tells me you are not willing to engage in an honest discussion, perhaps because you are too emotionally upset by the idea that humans--and perhaps Jews in particular--can find salvation value in a human sacrifice. It clearly ISN'T because you want to have a rational, logical discussion. If you did, you would have responded.

maryhelena

I stand by those observations of how this discussion has proceeded.


"It tells me you are not willing to engage in an honest discussion, perhaps because you are too emotionally upset by the idea that humans can find salvation value in a human sacrifice. "

And you accuse me of making "insulting insinuations" and yet you so brazenly not only insult my intelligence but question my honesty and my emotional state???

I find your premise that there can be a salvation value in the crucifixion/sacrifice of a flesh and blood human figure to be irrational, immoral and anti-humanitarian. That you find this premise to be somehow "[COLOR="rgb(65, 105, 225)"]beautiful[/COLOR]" is beyond anything that I can grasp.

For now, Ted, in this discussion, I am pulling out from engaging with you. I will not continue to give this abomination of an idea the privilege of debate.

TedM

Yes, because there are universally acknowledged rules to engaging in a discussion. You ignore my best points and simply repeat your emotionally charged opinions. And you just did it again in your last post. Anyone can see your avoidance technique. THAT'S DISHONEST TO THE DISCUSSION AND IS CLEARLY AGENDA-BASED.

You've shown your true colors Mary. Too bad. I expected better from you.

Sheshbazzar

But then it must be understood that my view is based upon the final clause of that verse not being original to the text of Mark, was not wrirren by Mark and is therefore a crude redaction without informative value.

Don't mistake an admission that final clause is there, with acceptance that it is authentic.

And if my view is that the clause is NOT authentic, then my 'admission' is NOT supportive of 'a theology of salvation through the death and resurrection of ha'sooce'.

In other words, I'm not buying this clause, nor your implication that I in any way find it to be supportive of your religious claims.

TedM

I already knew that was your view: If you don't like it, just make it disappear.

You could be right, but the whole book was building up to his death. I would think the author saw theological value in his death. Getting revenge on those nasty unbelieving Jews (aa's position) doesn't seem like a very good reason to me--it's just silly a reason from where I sit.

jakejonesiv

:thumbs:

Sheshbazzar,

I see your point.

Jake

aa5874

It is you who is mis-guided. You are attempting to accept irrationality because of ignorance.