Why did Jesus die for our sins?

[Admiral Thrawn]

Hindus do not acknowledge jesus as anything other than some guy in a foreign religion. If you knew anything about hinduism you'd know how rediculous you sound claiming that they believe jesus is one of the gods. They have a hundred or so different gods, some specific only to certain regions IN INDIA. Jesus has never been one of them.

 

I have spoke to Hindus in the past. Where Hindus differ from Christians, is that in the Christian faith, there is only ONE God that demands exclusive worship, and it is a SIN to worship any other god besides Him. It is called Idolatry, and it is actually the first of the ten commandments.

 

The fact of the matter is the debate on whether Jesus existed is quite irrelevant to the other religions, the real contentions amongst different religions centers on the faith based parts of the life of Jesus, the exclusive worship of Jesus as being the ONLY way to get to heaven, and the diety of Jesus Christ. If you hold any other view, other than scripture, then you cant find or hold a reason of why Jesus died for everyone's sin.

 

I can't speak for muslims, but as far as buddhists go, they dont give a toss who jesus is and whether he existed.

 

Like other heredies, buddists will likely portray Jesus as a good man, and would obviously try to use His life as an end to portray their own religion and maintain a heretical perspective of the life of Christ, and reason He died for the sins of the world.

 

Again, most religions will agree that there is a God, and would agree with the general principals of Jesus' teaching, and think that He is a great example to follow.

 

What you are saying doesn't resolve my contention or proposition, that in fact, many religions that are heretical to the bible, and do not follow it, will acknowledge that Jesus existed, but wont believe in Him in such a way that they would receive salvation for their souls and thus abandon their other religions, and furthermore, the * real * debate is on the identity of Jesus and the exclusivity that Jesus is the ONLY way, and that every human being who has ever been born is in a way responsible, due to their sin, of Jesus dying on the cross, and in a sence are as equally to blame as the Roman soldiers who crucified Him. This thread deals with one of the core issues of why Jesus died for our sin.

 

If you fail to acknowledge that Jesus died for your sin, then He died for you in vain. It was the only possible way that anyone could be saved. If there was another way, He would not have died, and God would not have sent His Son to become a human and die if the whole thing was unnecessary. So denying the veracity of the existance of Christ, and His sacrifice for you is extremely dangerous.

 

Just because jesus was a mythical figure doesnt mean christianity is fictional. As Ive said on other posts, at the time that jesus was supposedly around, there was a group of christians called the gnostics, who did not believe jesus to be a literal man but a mythical figure created in order to teach the spiritual path of christianity.

 

Well, I'll have to look up on that one myself at a later time. However, it is in the minority, or an extreme minority if it is true. There are plenty of cults and heretical Christian sects that are contrary to scripture, and just rely on vain philosophy. The preponderence of evidence is that Jesus is acknowledged by most people as a historical person. That however, is quite irrelevant in terms of salvation.

 

Of course, that is not enough to be saved, as Jesus has to realised as a spiritual Savior that exists right NOW and can be received right NOW, and the sacrifice on the cross exists, NOW, not 2000 years ago. Jesus can not be known as someone from a book 2000 years ago, He must be known as a Person NOW, or a relatoinship with Him NOW, for the cross to really mean anything. You can know about Jesus, but fail to actually know Jesus.

Salvation is rooted in the cross, and acknowledging that Jesus died for your sin. If you die in your sins right now, you are on your way to hell and to live seperate from God forever. If you acknowledge that Jesus died for your sin, and receive Him into your life, and repent of your sin, then you can miss hell and receive eternal life.

 

Your sins were already judged on the cross of Jesus Christ. If however, you fail to acknowledge this and choose to bear responsibility for your own sin, then yes, you can be judged for your sins and held into account in hell.

[flavius]

Not only smart, but clearly better educated than you flavo. Ive posted on other threads in the past, commenting that there are no historical documents from the time mentioning jesus. At least none that any intelligent scholar accepts.

 

Sorry, Bogie.

 

Try "Jewish Antiquities" written by the Jewish aristocrat, Roman loyalist, and noted historian Flavius Josephus between 71AD and 91AD (the volume was completed on the last year of the reign of Flavius Domitian.) This volume was translated both in Byzantium and in Arabia BEFORE the first century ended, and both translations included the following passage:

 

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

[Jewish Antiquities, 18.63-64]

 

Not only is are the Histories of Flavius Josephus "accepted by intelligent scholars", they are foundational works in the study of Greek and Roman antiquities.

 

What a bonehead! :lmao: :lmao:

 

In the age of the Internet you have to be more than a good liar. You have to be right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Josephus

[Bogun]

Try "Jewish Antiquities" written by the Jewish aristocrat, Roman loyalist, and noted historian Flavius Josephus between 71AD and 91AD (the volume was completed on the last year of the reign of Flavius Domitian.) This volume was translated both in Byzantium and in Arabia BEFORE the first century ended, and both translations included the following passage:

 

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

[Jewish Antiquities, 18.63-64]

 

Not only is are the Histories of Flavius Josephus "accepted by intelligent scholars", they are foundational works in the study of Greek and Roman antiquities.

 

What a bonehead!

 

Thanks flavius, nice of you to call me names.

 

If you'd bothered to read my post, and bothered to do some research apart from what you find on the internet you would learn that those passages by Josephus are accepted by scholars today as forgeries. They do not coincide with the passages that contain them, they just appear out of no where, and they contradict Josephus's own beliefs and other writings. Its widely accepted that those passages were added a few centuries later.

 

If you are going to debate with a bonehead, come educated next time. If you want to argue with me about Josephus's writings I will provide the references to texts written by respected scholars. Not links to wikipedia. Wikipedia does not count as "intelligent scholars".

 

If you studied the Bible from a historical point you would recognize that it was not a 'debt' of any kind. That is your very limited view based on current human development and recent past social practices and beliefs, and your attempt to put a human/mortal 'spin' on something or someone who is not human/mortal and does not follow any physical or spiritual 'rules of life'. No one is telling you to worship anything. Well, AT is telling everyone that does not believe as he does that they are 'wrong', but that is no different than you telling everyone who does not believe or think as you that they are wrong.

I am not debating faith issues here hokey, merely pointing out the historical facts that need to be considered.

 

Is it not worth reconsidering the way most people view christianity if;

1. There are no historical documents mentioning a man called jesus that went round healing people and ultimately causing so much trouble that he gets executed? Especially when there were hundreds of roman and jewish historian at the time, yet NONE of them mention jesus?

2. The gnostic christians existed at that time and still do to this day, and they viewed jesus not as a literal man but a mythical figure. In fact there are documents where the gnostics comment on the literalist view and laugh about their simplistic views.

 

 

How human of you both

If debating with people who hold different views is human then I'm guilty of that, and the world is a better place for people being able to do this. If you're not going to post anything constructive to the thread then bugger off hokey.

[Admiral Thrawn]

 

If you'd bothered to read my post, and bothered to do some research apart from what you find on the internet you would learn that those passages by Josephus are accepted by scholars today as forgeries. They do not coincide with the passages that contain them, they just appear out of no where, and they contradict Josephus's own beliefs and other writings. Its widely accepted that those passages were added a few centuries later.

 

Of course, what you dont agree with is a forgery.

 

If you are going to debate with a bonehead, come educated next time. If you want to argue with me about Josephus's writings I will provide the references to texts written by respected scholars. Not links to wikipedia. Wikipedia does not count as "intelligent scholars".

 

Or Bogus scholars that are taking drugs. You are telling people not to believe the internet, not to listen to historians who confirm Jesus existed, and not to even consider other circumstantial evidence to listen to some scholar that you are only listening to because they support your view.

 

I am not debating faith issues here hokey, merely pointing out the historical facts that need to be considered.

 

Your bogus historical facts.

 

Is it not worth reconsidering the way most people view christianity if;

1. There are no historical documents mentioning a man called jesus that went round healing people and ultimately causing so much trouble that he gets executed? Especially when there were hundreds of roman and jewish historian at the time, yet NONE of them mention jesus?

 

You have the Bible. But of course, that, and any other document that will support that view you would dismiss as inauthentic or a forgery.

 

2. The gnostic christians existed at that time and still do to this day, and they viewed jesus not as a literal man but a mythical figure. In fact there are documents where the gnostics comment on the literalist view and laugh about their simplistic views.

 

So what? Gnostic Christians are not even Christians as far as I'm concerned if they dont believe that Jesus existed.

 

If debating with people who hold different views is human then I'm guilty of that, and the world is a better place for people being able to do this.

 

If the debates are intelligent.

 

If you're not going to post anything constructive to the thread then bugger off hokey.

 

But doesn't Bogen relate to Bugger? Before you judge other people, you must look at yourself first. I would hardly call this hijack to this thread constructive.

[flavius]

Wow, is this ever painful. Flavius was wrong. If I HAD read the Bogun post about the Josephus "testimonium" I would have looked for "hostile" sources and would not have stubbed my toe so grandly. I greatly overestimated Bogun's dumb-ness. Let the Fall of Flavius be a warning to all!

 

But for now, I'll stand by the "bonehead" assertion, pending futher research.

 

Bogun's main point is clear, if I understand it: all of the first century manuscript evidence is of Jesus' life is of Christian origin, therefore it cannot be trusted. The lack of a non-christian historical record within "the time period" (what, 100 yrs?) makes it doubtful to Bogun (and all he accepts as legitimate scholars) that Jesus existed.

 

That reasoning is hard to swallow (Not least because I don't WANT to.)

 

Of course, Jesus was a man of little consequence in the 1st century to anybody except his immediate adherents. There were no daily newspapers in Judea to record local events, particularly those which had not yet altered history. Who knew it would matter? It was not until the grass-roots Church began to proliferate numerically and geographically (i.e., politically) that they entered the historical record. Not long after, under Constantine, Christians (who were then swallowed up in the mechanism of the State) gained the power to mainly control the texts of reference.

 

Does that mean that everything they said thenceforth was false? Now that's quite a leap. It is also a leap to say that all or most "respectable scholars" would agree with it, unless the definition of respectablility is that they must reject the entire Christian-originated Jesus record.

 

Chastened, but unrepentant. And if I don't get my butt back to work I'll be unemployed too.

[Beth]

This thread has in places wandered far and wide from the original topic. After skimming through the posts it appears to contain many posts which are hostile and contain some name calling. For these reasons I am closing the thread. If/when I, or one of the other modertors, has time to clean up the thread it may be reopened.

 

Please keep in mind the LoveShack.org Guidelines for posting with civility and respect when posting in ANY thread.