mountainman

Obedience to the Belief System [BS] is essential to christianity. If you understand obedience to the belief system [BS] associated with the new testament then that is all that is required. The OP is critically questioning the philosophical foundations of said Belief System [BS].

mountainman

I dont see what Toto is saying in this thread period, and as he admits, neither is he sure about it. The reference linked was History of the Devil, by Paul Carus, [1900], at sacred-texts.com. I mentioned the Gnostic gJudas because it is the most recent manuscript find, and the academic commentary concerning the conjectural "belief system of the Gnostics" post-dates Paul Carus's comments by a century.

The following is from Deconnick at this National Geographic article

To return to the OP about "What was the sacrifice?", to bring in the Gnostics to this discussion as the basis for any correspondence between Jesus and "The Sacrifice" is a false and inappropriate comparison. The Gnostics certainly did not share the orthodox "Belief System" [BS]" --- they appear not to have subscribed to the new testament story of Jesus and the Apostles as a narrative which was published to represent the historical truth. To summarise, "The Sacrifice" is an exercise in plain and simple pathos (ie: a direct literary appeal to the emotions of the audience). It is simply part of the plain and simple non-philosophical orthodox christian "Belief System" [BS]" and has no basis whatsoever when critically examined from a modern perspective. It represents a relic of an unsupported belief, by which children have been brainwashed for over 16 centuries.

Petergdi

Is your point the cute use of initials? You are making a category error, it is not possible to obey a "belief system." You can obey God as you understand him/her/it, but you cannot obey a belief system.

Peter.

aa5874

It is NOT Christ's title that is Son of God, it was JESUS who given the title of both CHRIST and EQUAL to GOD, the Creator of heaven and earth..

Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth. See John 1.

Jesus was given a name above every other name to whom every knee should bow in heaven, in earth and under the earth. Jesus was NOT just a mere human child of God. Jesus was FULLY Divine. See Philippians 2.

The Pauline writers mentioned a SPECIFIC character called JESUS over 200 times and gave him many titles such as LORD, SAVIOUR, MESSIAH, SON of GOD, the Creator of heaven and earth.

See Philippians 3.20

But, you have no external non-apologetic source for Paul and you know that is the case. Paul is your worse reference point. The Pauline writings cannot be dated. Not even apologetic sources seemed to have known what Paul wrote or when he wrote. Apologetic sources claim Paul was aware of gLuke.

Both apologetic and non-apologetic sources mentioned Philo, but ONLY apologetics mentioned Paul and not without forgeries.

There is really no external non-apologetic evidence that Paul came before Philo.

It is just not plausible that Philo could have missed Paul who supposedly travel all over the Roman Empire claiming that Jesus a Jew was EQUAL to the God of Moses with the POWER to forgive the sins of the Jews.

Jesus would have been the ENVY of the Roman Emperors.

But in the very gLuke the origin of Jesus is CLEARLY depicted. Jesus was the offspring of a Holy Ghost who walked on water was transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

Now, once Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, the Creator of heaven and earth, the Word of God then there was NO sacrifice.

It is just absurd that a God would sacrifice a God to himself who was a God that was the Word of God and was Before everything that was made.

What nonsense.

And if Jesus was a man, he was executed UNDER the LAW for blasphemy.

There was NO sacrifice when the Jesus story is thoroughly analyzed.

Petergdi

In both John and Paul, everything was made by God and through Christ. This seems to be the same distinction that you will see in the Memra article in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

I didn't say anything of the sort. They were contemporaries, although Paul was probably a generation younger and wrote most of his letters after Philo had died. I did say that it was entirely possible that Paul was not aware of Philo and did not get his ideas from him.

Peter.

mountainman

What do you understand was the purpose of orthodox christian belief in the Nicaean Creed of c.325 CE ?

Petergdi

The purpose of the Nicene creed was to make clear that those who say the creed do not agree to Arius' take on the Trinity. It is probable that most of the bishops who agreed to it did not intend to define a belief system by it but only to disagree with Arius. They did not necessarily intend to endorse the views of Athanasius.

Peter.

mountainman

But does not orthodox christian belief endorse the "story in the books of the new testament"? The Nicaeans swore upon the Creed of Nicaea, but the earlier christians were purported to have sworn on the historical truth contained in the story of the new testament. Specifically, to apply this to the OP, what do you understand was the purpose of the of orthodox christian belief in the sacrifice? If Jesus was God and vice versa, even the Trinity, then what was the big deal about Jesus coming to earth and being crucified?

I dont see at all how "obedience" is being factored in here in answer to the OP.

aa5874

Christ was a title given to Jesus. Paul claimed JESUS was the Creator.

Colossians 1.16 Well, I am saying that you have NOT ONE SINGLE historical non-apologetic SOURCE to date Paul and is providing mis-leading information when you claim Paul of the NT and Philo were contemporaries.

You have NO corroborative source for Paul yet you continue to pretend that Paul can be dated.

Philo did not mention any character called Paul or Saul who asked Jews to worship a Jewish man called JESUS to whom every Jew should bow.

Even apologetic sources provide contradictory information about Paul.

The Pauline writings are basically worthless by themselves as a reference point in the history of Jesus believers.

OLDMAN

Very interesting comments so far.

I've been thinking about what has been said and thought maybe I was looking at this the wrong way.

What if the sacrifice is....Jesus choosing to die. This gives Jesus the free will that all men are suppose to have been given in their lives.

Jesus (as described in the text) appears to literally have the power of life over death.
eg. He cures diseases, makes blind see, makes old feel young, brings the dead back to life.....all by simple touch. It sounds as though he may very well be immortal.

The text say thousand flock to him and are saved by belief in his divinity. So Jesus has a choice to make. Stay alive forever and save mankind through the living (ruling) God. I say ruling because with his powers (according to the bible) it would not be long before he could conquer all the world. (Given that he could feed his armies on a few fish, bring them back to life when they died, and simply walk across the water to invade Rome, plus other unstoppable acts.)
In doing so, he would fulfill God's need for an apparent redeemer.

But Jesus has a problem, if he stays on earth (as our living savior) he cannot save the souls of those who have lived and died before his coming. In other words, he needs to save the dead as well as the living. The only way to do this is to die (go to hell) so to speak. This act of choosing to die (freewill) as well as dying, fulfills the need to remove the sins of the living, the dead, and the yet unborn. (future)