David B

To show that any claims regarding the crucifixion made purely on the basis of church tradition cannot be trusted, since church tradition contains so much obvious tripe.

Which I think my post succeeded in doing.

David B

Joan of Bark

For the same reason so many intelligent and educated people believe in God: because they've been brainwashed from birth to believe it. How many people have actually looked for historical evidence of the crucifixion?

Having said that, I'm not saying it's not true. Only that the historical evidence for it is negligible.

Clouseau

So claims regarding the crucifixion matter, and you are not telling the truth.

How odd that this poster knows for certain who the church is, yet does not even know whether there is a founder to create a church!

'Oh, what a giveaway!'

Sven

Got up with the wrong foot? :huh:

Clouseau

Any more desperate saboteurs?

David B

Whether some Koresh like figure was crucified 2000 years or so ago matters not a jot to me. The crucifixion doesn't matter. Which is waht I said.

Claims of the crucifixion are not the crucifixion. They matter, because some people are gullible to believe them. Many of them on the basis of church tradition.

That matters, because belief in that sort of supernatural event is what can, and has historically, led to witch-hunts, holy wars, people flying planes into buildings.

Who the church is? I have shown that there are bits of the church tradition, widely believed in antiquity, that are unreliable. I don't want to personify the church. why do you?

Give-away of what?

David B

Johnny Skeptic

The crucifixion of Jesus is a very important issue. In the NIV, Hebrews 9:22 says "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." So, a resurrected Jesus without good evidence of the shedding of blood will simply not do.

It is interesting to note that in the Old Testament, the shedding of the blood of animals for the atonement of sins, which was an absurd practice that no moral God would ever be a part of, was done without malice toward the animals. In the New Testament, however, the crucifixion of Jesus was done with malice. What this means is that God said that although murder is wrong, Jesus had to be murdered in order for peoples' sins to be forgiven. In my opinion, this issue discredits the Bible.

One would think that the supposedly one true God would dream up an original, non-violent way of dealing with peoples' sins instead of copying pre-existing pagan rituals that sacrificed animals and people. The notion that any moral God would ever be involved in any kind of killing for the remission of sins just ain't so.

RED DAVE

Let's stress here, to all xtians, that this was a HUMAN SACRIFICE.

RED DAVE

Clouseau

So are we to understand that a resurrection of a dead person is acceptable, but death with bloodshed is not?

Why not?

Sven

Got up with the wrong foot!