TedM

Having said all I think that I can about this I am going on self-ban for a while. I can already hear the applause. I have a website-based business I'm trying to start up and this has been getting in the way, so this is necessary. Thanks to all for the interesting comments. Ted

aa5874

You have NO chain, you are merely hijacking parts of Isaiah.

The whole of Isaiah and Isaiah 61 have nothing whatsoever about abolishing of the Laws of God for Remission of sins by the blood of Bulls, Goats and Birds.

The whole of Isaiah was written specifically for Jews--NOT for Christians of the Jesus cult.

The Anointed in Isaiah is NOT Jesus of Nazareth, born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

In Isaiah, Cyrus the King is called the Anointed.

Isaiah 45:1 KJV 4Q521 has NOTHING whatsoever about the abolishing of the Laws of God for Remission of Sins by the Sacrifice of Bulls, Goats and Birds.

There is NO mention whatsoever about Jesus of Nazareth born of a Ghost and a Virgin in 4Q521.

The Christians of the Jesus cult Hijacked Jewish writings, isolated ambiguous passages and mutilated them.

Your suggestions are NOT reasonable because you have failed to take into consideration that NO story about Jesus as a Sacrifice that abolished the Laws of God for Remission of Sins has been ever found and dated to the 1st century.

You also fail to understand that gLuke is a mutilated and embellished version of the earlier Jesus stories found in gMark and gMMatthew.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...ad_Sea_Scrolls

4Q521 is carbon dated to 49 BCE-116 CE and gLuke [P4 and P 75] dated by paleography to c175-250 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

spin

Not, when you do this:

Wake up, TedM. You must be in a daydream. Please cite where I support what you claim that I support.


Oh, shit, the duffer's self-banned.

maryhelena

From Ted's OP.

And now Ted writes, Post #189

Oh my, Ted, what have we here??

The crucifixion of a man of flesh and blood is now a “self-sacrifice” not a human sacrifice after all? My, my.

If, as you want to maintain, this gospel crucifixion story is historical - then, Ted, it is what it is. An execution, a killing, a murder. You do not know the motive of the man so crucified. That is either assumption or theology.

So what is going on here, Ted? Are you now finding that a human flesh and blood sacrifice is what it is - an abomination - so that you are quietly changing tack here and trying to glorify the gospel crucifixion story by running with the idea that the executed flesh and blood man was making a ‘self-sacrifice’? What sort of logic is this? There is none. All you are doing here is presenting yet more assumptions and theology.

The gospel story is that a Jewish messiah figure (however interpreted) was crucified under Pilate. If this gospel story is true, as you want it to be true - you cannot read any self-sacrifice ideas into it. The gospel story says the man was crucified. Could the man have walked away? No man, worthy of being called a man, walks away from his own ‘truth’. Loyalty to ones self, to ones own identity, to ones own person, does not allow for ‘self-sacrifice’ in any shape or form. Viewed as a historical crucifixion of a flesh and blood man - notions of ‘self-sacrifice’ are as abominable as is the human sacrifice interpretation of this gospel story.

People don't face death willingly for some harebrained idea - they face the firing squad, the crucifixion or the execution - for the right to hold their ideas - whether their ideas are harebrained or 'true' ideas springing forth before their time.

(That a soldier killed in war is often referred to as giving his life, sacrificing his life - is, in actuality, neither self-sacrifice or a sacrifice. Sacrifice, in it's basic meaning, is the offering of something of value to a god in exchange for something else, rain, victory etc. Thus, when either the terms 'sacrifice' or 'self-sacrifice' are used in connection with a soldier dying in a war situation - they are an attempt to honor his life not his death. It is an attempt to redeem the ugliness of the soldier's death by giving his life, not his death, a sacred, a holy accolade; a respect for the life that was lived. To take these terms, in this context, literally, would be to join forces with all the bloody dictators who ever cast their shadow over this planet.)

Ted, imputing motives of ‘self-sacrifice’ to the gospel crucified man or interpreting the crucifixion of this gospel figure as a human flesh and blood sacrifice that has salvation value - are nothing more than theological nonsense. Devoid of logic, morality and humanitarian concerns.
-----------------------------

And, Ted, just to set the record straight re what you attributed to me in your OP:

I have never made such a claim.

If you have ever read anything I have posted on this forum over the last couple of years - you would know that I hold to the idea that an execution of a Jewish messiah figure, by Roman agents, is an important element in the developing gospel JC story. No, Antigonus, executed, hung on a cross and beheaded by Marc Antony, in 37 b.c., is not the "human founder" of christianity - but that historical figure is important for the gospel writers in the creation of their pseudo-historical, literary, gospel JC crucified story.

Ted, it's history you need to put on the table if you want to discuss the gospel crucifixion story - reading motive into the JC crucifixion or making ones own theological interpretation of that gospel story - do not, cannot, replace the Jewish history that preceded that story.

spin

'E's gawn, luv. 'E'll nevva readit. Done sewf-banned, 'e did.

jakejonesiv

So how can Jesus be an extrapolation of a blood/animal sacrifice that never existed?

The Jews who didn't agree with Christian bullshit as you have presented it here were too dull and uncreative? WTF!! You have given your self away.


This is the most pathetic attempt at an answer I have seen. You have completely rejected your own OP and offer only watered down pablum. That is why you self banned. It is a retreat from the field and an admission of defeat.
:wave:
Jake

jakejonesiv

Oh, Ted will read these comments for sure. He won't be able to help himself. He just provided himself with an excuse not to answer.

aspronot

This has to rank as one of the most absurd, cringe-worthy concepts in all of Christian theology. An immortal god spawns a little of 'himself' into a human vessel, that vessel being both god and man simultaneously (!), slums it for a while on Earth, and then 'sacrifices' himself to appease himself before being reabsorbed back into himself. WTF? I fail to see what was being sacrificed.

If we accept this bizarre concept, then Jesus basically planned and executed an elaborate suicide as a sacrificial offering to his angry father (who really is himself). And we are expected to take this suicide as a noble act? Is Christianity a religion or a black comedy?

maryhelena

It's called christian theology.....and it's been rearing it's ugly head on a forum that seeks to uphold rationality......

Net2004

hello Mary


the christian god created 100 % flesh and blood
i don't know if he became 100 % flesh and blood because some christians argue that god was hiding in flesh and blood

god created 100 % flesh and blood. he beat it up and then rewarded himself with his created reward. god rewarded god with heaven because god in flesh gave up his flesh to god in spirit

before god gave himself up he used to tell the jews to send an animal into the desert without food + water.




when the animals flesh cooked under the sun , the smell appeased / pleased god.




the christians celebrate jesus' murder every sundays and they have to imagine his flesh and blood in thier pagan minds.