+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 49

  1. #1
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    Ancient Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

    By ETHAN BRONNER
    Published: July 6, 2008

    JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

    If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

    The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink writings from that era — in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.

    It is written, not engraved, across two neat columns, similar to columns in a Torah. But the stone is broken, and some of the text is faded, meaning that much of what it says is open to debate.

    Still, its authenticity has so far faced no challenge, so its role in helping to understand the roots of Christianity in the devastating political crisis faced by the Jews of the time seems likely to increase.

    Daniel Boyarin, a professor of Talmudic culture at the University of California at Berkeley, said that the stone was part of a growing body of evidence suggesting that Jesus could be best understood through a close reading of the Jewish history of his day.

    “Some Christians will find it shocking — a challenge to the uniqueness of their theology — while others will be comforted by the idea of it being a traditional part of Judaism,” Mr. Boyarin said.

    Given the highly charged atmosphere surrounding all Jesus-era artifacts and writings, both in the general public and in the fractured and fiercely competitive scholarly community, as well as the concern over forgery and charlatanism, it will probably be some time before the tablet’s contribution is fully assessed. It has been around 60 years since the Dead Sea Scrolls were uncovered, and they continue to generate enormous controversy regarding their authors and meaning.

    The scrolls, documents found in the Qumran caves of the West Bank, contain some of the only known surviving copies of biblical writings from before the first century A.D. In addition to quoting from key books of the Bible, the scrolls describe a variety of practices and beliefs of a Jewish sect at the time of Jesus.

    How representative the descriptions are and what they tell us about the era are still strongly debated. For example, a question that arises is whether the authors of the scrolls were members of a monastic sect or in fact mainstream. A conference marking 60 years since the discovery of the scrolls will begin on Sunday at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, where the stone, and the debate over whether it speaks of a resurrected messiah, as one iconoclastic scholar believes, also will be discussed.

    Oddly, the stone is not really a new discovery. It was found about a decade ago and bought from a Jordanian antiquities dealer by an Israeli-Swiss collector who kept it in his Zurich home. When an Israeli scholar examined it closely a few years ago and wrote a paper on it last year, interest began to rise. There is now a spate of scholarly articles on the stone, with several due to be published in the coming months.

    “I couldn’t make much out of it when I got it,” said David Jeselsohn, the owner, who is himself an expert in antiquities. “I didn’t realize how significant it was until I showed it to Ada Yardeni, who specializes in Hebrew writing, a few years ago. She was overwhelmed. ‘You have got a Dead Sea Scroll on stone,’ she told me.”

    Much of the text, a vision of the apocalypse transmitted by the angel Gabriel, draws on the Old Testament, especially the prophets Daniel, Zechariah and Haggai.

    Ms. Yardeni, who analyzed the stone along with Binyamin Elitzur, is an expert on Hebrew script, especially of the era of King Herod, who died in 4 B.C. The two of them published a long analysis of the stone more than a year ago in Cathedra, a Hebrew-language quarterly devoted to the history and archaeology of Israel, and said that, based on the shape of the script and the language, the text dated from the late first century B.C.

    A chemical examination by Yuval Goren, a professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University who specializes in the verification of ancient artifacts, has been submitted to a peer-review journal. He declined to give details of his analysis until publication, but he said that he knew of no reason to doubt the stone’s authenticity.

    It was in Cathedra that Israel Knohl, an iconoclastic professor of Bible studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, first heard of the stone, which Ms. Yardeni and Mr. Elitzur dubbed “Gabriel’s Revelation,” also the title of their article. Mr. Knohl posited in a book published in 2000 the idea of a suffering messiah before Jesus, using a variety of rabbinic and early apocalyptic literature as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. But his theory did not shake the world of Christology as he had hoped, partly because he had no textual evidence from before Jesus.

    When he read “Gabriel’s Revelation,” he said, he believed he saw what he needed to solidify his thesis, and he has published his argument in the latest issue of The Journal of Religion.

    Mr. Knohl is part of a larger scholarly movement that focuses on the political atmosphere in Jesus’ day as an important explanation of that era’s messianic spirit. As he notes, after the death of Herod, Jewish rebels sought to throw off the yoke of the Rome-supported monarchy, so the rise of a major Jewish independence fighter could take on messianic overtones.

    In Mr. Knohl’s interpretation, the specific messianic figure embodied on the stone could be a man named Simon who was slain by a commander in the Herodian army, according to the first-century historian Josephus. The writers of the stone’s passages were probably Simon’s followers, Mr. Knohl contends.

    The slaying of Simon, or any case of the suffering messiah, is seen as a necessary step toward national salvation, he says, pointing to lines 19 through 21 of the tablet — “In three days you will know that evil will be defeated by justice” — and other lines that speak of blood and slaughter as pathways to justice.

    To make his case about the importance of the stone, Mr. Knohl focuses especially on line 80, which begins clearly with the words “L’shloshet yamin,” meaning “in three days.” The next word of the line was deemed partially illegible by Ms. Yardeni and Mr. Elitzur, but Mr. Knohl, who is an expert on the language of the Bible and Talmud, says the word is “hayeh,” or “live” in the imperative. It has an unusual spelling, but it is one in keeping with the era.

    Two more hard-to-read words come later, and Mr. Knohl said he believed that he had deciphered them as well, so that the line reads, “In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you.”

    To whom is the archangel speaking? The next line says “Sar hasarin,” or prince of princes. Since the Book of Daniel, one of the primary sources for the Gabriel text, speaks of Gabriel and of “a prince of princes,” Mr. Knohl contends that the stone’s writings are about the death of a leader of the Jews who will be resurrected in three days.

    He says further that such a suffering messiah is very different from the traditional Jewish image of the messiah as a triumphal, powerful descendant of King David.

    “This should shake our basic view of Christianity,” he said as he sat in his office of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem where he is a senior fellow in addition to being the Yehezkel Kaufman Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University.

    Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.”

    Ms. Yardeni said she was impressed with the reading and considered it indeed likely that the key illegible word was “hayeh,” or “live.” Whether that means Simon is the messiah under discussion, she is less sure.

    Moshe Bar-Asher, president of the Israeli Academy of Hebrew Language and emeritus professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the Hebrew University, said he spent a long time studying the text and considered it authentic, dating from no later than the first century B.C. His 25-page paper on the stone will be published in the coming months.

    Regarding Mr. Knohl’s thesis, Mr. Bar-Asher is also respectful but cautious. “There is one problem,” he said. “In crucial places of the text there is lack of text. I understand Knohl’s tendency to find there keys to the pre-Christian period, but in two to three crucial lines of text there are a lot of missing words.”

    Moshe Idel, a professor of Jewish thought at Hebrew University, said that given the way every tiny fragment from that era yielded scores of articles and books, “Gabriel’s Revelation” and Mr. Knohl’s analysis deserved serious attention. “Here we have a real stone with a real text,” he said. “This is truly significant.”

    Mr. Knohl said that it was less important whether Simon was the messiah of the stone than the fact that it strongly suggested that a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus. He notes that in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have been written in by later followers because there was no such idea present in his day.

    But there was, he said, and “Gabriel’s Revelation” shows it.“His mission is that he has to be put to death by the Romans to suffer so his blood will be the sign for redemption to come,” Mr. Knohl said.

    “This is the sign of the son of Joseph. This is the conscious view of Jesus himself. This gives the Last Supper an absolutely different meaning. To shed blood is not for the sins of people but to bring redemption to Israel.”

    .

    Last edited by sojustask; 07-06-2008 at 04:43 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    415

    Re: Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    I think Jesus would be entirely shocked and surprised to see what his little anti-establishment protest group has been twisted to represent...

    Far too much in modern christianity is unsubstantiated, far too much belief for the sake of belief.

    We could all do ourselves a great favour by scrapping religon as we know it, and starting from year zero....too much taken far too seriously by too many for too little return.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    846

    Re: Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    Most likely a ritualistic symbolic death and resurrection (a ritual that lasted three days) was used as an initiation/rite of passage for rulers/kings/men of importance at the time.

    It is something that is hinted at in the Book "The Woman With the Alabaster Jar" by Margaret Starbird
    It is my firm belief that it is a mistake to hold firm beliefs.

    "All things are perfect to every last flaw and bound in accord with Eris's Law."
    -HBT; The Book of Advice 1:7

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    939

    Re: Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    I'm not sure how this is supposed to "shake the basic view of Christianity," given that almost everything Jesus did in the Bible was some sort of fulfillment of prophesy or Jewish tradition. The people who think his story was fabricated by Biblical authors to fit the mold will take this as further evidence supporting their case; Christians will take it as another indication of his legitimacy as the Messiah.

    Nor do I understand all the hoopla this has created among scholars:

    He notes that in the Gospels, Jesus makes numerous predictions of his suffering and New Testament scholars say such predictions must have been written in by later followers because there was no such idea present in his day.
    So what, excactly, has changed? Now, instead of followers making it up after the fact, they plagiarized it. What a paradigm shift! With re to Jesus's life, it's the same breed of fabrication, just under a different guise.

    Furthermore, the uniqueness of the three-day resurrection story itself has never been a major cornerstone of the faith (resurrection is present in numerous ancient pagan religions, as well as Buddhism), so I don't see this new bit of info having much of an impact, if any.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,308

    Re: Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    all i want to know is,when do i get the good news!?apparently,christianity is the only religion that professes the "good news" doctrine!?now the question might be,is the good news for the public or is it privately distributed!?if # 2 is correct than that can only mean 1 thing,there is not enough good news to go around,literally speaking!?and by the way,this is a good way to define the word "economy"!? :spin2: :judges: yb: hehe!!.....just askn...
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    136

    Re: Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    Translation (Semitic sounds in caps and\or italics)
    Column A
    (Lines 1-6 are unintelligible)
    7. [… ]the sons of Israel …[…]…
    8. […]… […]…
    9. [… ]the word of YHW[H …]…[…]
    10. […]… I\you asked …
    11. YHWH, you ask me. Thus said the Lord of Hosts:
    12. […]… from my(?) house, Israel, and I will tell the greatness(es?) of Jerusalem.
    13. [Thus] said YHWH, the Lord of Israel: Behold, all the nations are
    14. … against(?)\to(?) Jerusalem and …,
    15. [o]ne, two, three, fourty(?) prophets(?) and the returners(?),
    16. [and] the Hasidin(?). My servant, David, asked from before Ephraim(?)
    17. [to?] put the sign(?) I ask from you. Because He said, (namely,)
    18. [Y]HWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel: …
    19. sanctity(?)\sanctify(?) Israel! In three days you shall know, that(?)\for(?) He said,
    20. (namely,) YHWH the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of Israel: The evil broke (down)
    21. before justice. Ask me and I will tell you what 22this bad 21plant is,
    22. lwbnsd/r/k (=? [To me? in libation?]) you are standing, the messenger\angel. He
    23. … (= will ordain you?) to Torah(?). Blessed be the Glory of YHWH the Lord, from
    24. his seat. “In a little while”, qyTuT (=a brawl?\ tiny?) it is, “and I will shake the
    25. … of? heaven and the earth”. Here is the Glory of YHWH the Lord of
    26. Hosts, the Lord of Israel. These are the chariots, seven,
    27. [un]to(?) the gate(?) of Jerusalem, and the gates of Judah, and … for the
    sake of
    28. … His(?) angel, Michael, and to all the others(?) ask\asked
    29. …. Thus He said, YHWH the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of
    30. Israel: One, two, three, four, five, six,
    31. [se]ven, these(?) are(?) His(?) angel …. 'What is it', said the blossom(?)\diadem(?)
    32. …[…]… and (the?) … (= leader?/ruler?), the second,
    33. … Jerusalem…. three, in\of the greatness(es?) of
    34. […]…[…]…
    35. […]…, who saw a man … working(?) and […]…
    36. that he … […]… from(?) Jerusalem(?)
    37. … on(?) … the exile(?) of …,
    38. the exile(?) of …, Lord …, and I will see
    39. …[…] Jerusalem, He will say, YHWH of
    40. Hosts, …
    41. […]… that will lift(?) …
    42. […]… in all the
    43. […]…
    44. […]…

    Column B
    (Lines 45-50 are unintelligible)
    51. Your people(?)\with you(?) …[…]
    52. … the [me]ssengers(?)\[a]ngels(?)[ …]…
    53. on\against His/My people. And …[…]…
    54. [… ]three days(?). This is (that) which(?) …[… ]He(?)
    55. the Lord(?)\these(?)[ …]…[…]
    56. see(?) …[…]
    57. closed(?). The blood of the slaughters(?)\sacrifices(?) of Jerusalem. For He said,
    YHWH of Hos[ts],
    58. the Lord of Israel: For He said, YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of
    59. Israel: …
    60. […]… me(?) the spirit?\wind of(?) …
    61. …[…]…
    62. in it(?) …[…]…[…]
    63. …[…]…[…]
    64. …[…]… loved(?)/… …[…]
    65. The three saints of the world\eternity from\of …[…]
    66. […]… peace he? said, to\in you we trust(?) …
    67. Inform him of the blood of this chariot of them(?) …[…]
    68. Many lovers He has, YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel …
    69. Thus He said, (namely,) YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of Israel …:
    70. Prophets have I sent to my people, three. And I say
    71. that I have seen …[…]…
    72. the place for the sake of(?) David the servant of YHWH[ …]…[…]
    73. the heaven and the earth. Blessed be …[…]
    74. men(?). “Showing mercy unto thousands”, … mercy […].
    75. Three shepherds went out to?/of? Israel …[…].
    76. If there is a priest, if there are sons of saints …[…]
    77. Who am I(?), I (am?) Gabri’el the …(=angel?)… […]
    78. You(?) will save them, …[…]…
    79. from before You, the three si[gn]s(?), three …[….]
    80. In three days …, I, Gabri’el …[?],
    81. the Prince of Princes, …, narrow holes(?) …[…]…
    82. to/for … […]… and the …
    83. to me(?), out of three - the small one, whom(?) I took, I, Gabri’el.
    84. YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of(?)[ Israel …]…[….]
    85. Then you will stand …[…]…
    86. …\
    87. in(?) … eternity(?)/… \


    http://www.bib-arch.org/news/dss-in-stone-news.asp

    http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archi...7/1184950.aspx

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,308

    Re: Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    i just had the thought,.......or is it the re-thought!?like the topic of this thread seems offensive to the faithful!?and yet how can anything be offensive to the all-knowing!?(that's a whole nuther topic!?)and so i asked myself,what's the truth contained in this proposal!?and it divides like this!?jesus died for god!?he now LIVES for ALL mankind thru the heart/mind command center!?a genius marketing move!?with a catch!?ya gotta believe it!?:spin2: :freak3: : hehe!!........just askn....
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    Since Jesus was a jew and israel focuses on law, the whole concept of death and resurrection is one in which subjection to the penalty of law is made void by the death of a Christ.

    Paul was a Roman citizen quite knowledgeable in Roman law as well as Jewish law, being brought up at the feet of Gamaliel. He was also well educated in Greek science and philosophy. Being from a city called Tarsus, which was a kind of New York of its day, with acess for a young Paul to multiple religions and beliefs, he was uniquely prepared to become the "apostle to the gentiles".

    Having knowledge of multiple religious ideas, Paul would have been quite capable of fashioning the death of Jesus into a concept of law that freed it from the limitations of Israel and allowed it to embrace everyone, with a concept of grace being added by Jesus' death as the son of God, which, like marriage, when a husband or wife dies, the other is set free of the contract. By Jesus' death, said Paul, all are free to practice faith and abandon empty ceremonies.

    This concept, tied to law as Paul taught it, is a powerful concept that can be applied in revolutionary fashion to all government structures.

    Later christians, borrowing from pagan beliefs such as the holy mother mary and Easter/ Christmas, turned Jesus into a god fashioned after the old collectivist models and taught that hierarchies of men were exclusive representatives. The freedom that Paul fashioned was altered and captured by the state via Constantine.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,308

    Re: Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    the question is,why does the law still exist!?why is it practiced!?and the best answer is..........MOST people WANT IT THAT WAY!?because...in him is only yes,not in him is only no,the first law is death,all others are just killin time,the time to find yes!?: :crazy1::spin2: hehe!!.......just askn...
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    131

    Re: Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx View Post
    i just had the thought,.......or is it the re-thought!?like the topic of this thread seems offensive to the faithful!?and yet how can anything be offensive to the all-knowing!?(that's a whole nuther topic!?)and so i asked myself,what's the truth contained in this proposal!?and it divides like this!?jesus died for god!?he now LIVES for ALL mankind thru the heart/mind command center!?a genius marketing move!?with a catch!?ya gotta believe it!?:spin2: :freak3: : hehe!!........just askn....

    Christ Jesus died for mankind, even for our sins. Being sinless, he died to save the sinful(us), that those whom believe in him may live, through him. He rose from the dead, truimphing over death, and is seated at the right hand of God, exalted.


    The Epistle of Paul to the Romans Chap. 5 : 8 states:


    But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

    9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

    10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

    11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.


    12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

    13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

    14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

    15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

    16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

    17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

    18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.


    19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

    20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

    21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    Lexx, you ask worthwhile questions.

    Can we simply make a decision to "accept Christ"? No. I've already been through the complications resulting from Romans 8:7, and Paul's logical reasoning extending from that in Romans 9:16. There is no decision procedure, no algorithm, no predictable process, by which someone can simply be "saved".

    The sacrifice of Jesus, true to the jewish culture, pertained to LAW, and only to law.

    Many do not realize it, but our 5th amendment rights against self incrimination, as admitted by the Supreme Court in "Miranda v Arizona" 1966, come from the ancient beginnings of the bible, Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15.

    Next to habeas corpus, that is the bedrock principle of modern jurisprudence, along with the 1st amendment in the US Constitution.

    The principle is simple enough. Jesus was tried, and offered no testimony as a defense, according to Talmudic protection of the right against self incrimination. In fact, by Talmudic law, his testimony could not be used against him, though it could be used to free him(alibi).

    Since he offered no defense, he was to be presumed innocent unless there were witnesses who claim that he had broken the law or harmed them in some way.

    Within Jewish legal concepts, as magnified by Paul, death is the penalty for disobeying the law, and since it was originated by God, there was no escape from the penalty.

    To say that Jesus "died for our sins" is to say merely that Jesus died innocently while convicted by the legal process. Because the jews believed the law came from God, there was no possibility of escaping its penalties. Since Jesus did not escape but paid that penalty innocently, Paul directed a countermeasure against ALL PHYSICAL LAW, which was picked up much later by the Puritans, Quakers, and John Lilburne of England at Star Chamber.

    Lilburnes stated that it had been a rule from ancient times that no man can testify against himself(Talmudic law coming from the bible), and refused to take the oath ex officio or testify. Thgis was also the practice of the Puritans and Quakers.

    In the US Supreme Court, Justice Abe Fortas would pronounce:

    "[The state] has no right to compel the sovereign individual to surrender or impair his right of self defense...

    (the value of the 5th amendment) "is intangible, it is true, but so is liberty, and so is man's immortal soul....Mea culpa(confesson of guilt) belongs to a man and his God. It is a plea that cannot be exacted from free men by human authority. To require it is to insist that the state is the superior of the individuals who compose it, instead of their instrument."

    The power, the TRUE POWER, of the "gospel", is that humans are free of guilt before the law. They are not to be convicted without permission of the people, a practice which came frm before Magna Carta and culminated in the practice of trial by jury with jury nullification of law regarding any individual.

    Today;s christians have taken a powerful legal principle that can apply here and now, and reduced it into some feel good religion in the mold of ancient superstition.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,308

    Re: Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    Quote Originally Posted by muarader64 View Post
    Christ Jesus died for mankind, even for our sins. Being sinless, he died to save the sinful(us), that those whom believe in him may live, through him. He rose from the dead, truimphing over death, and is seated at the right hand of God, exalted.


    The Epistle of Paul to the Romans Chap. 5 : 8 states:


    But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

    9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

    10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

    11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.


    12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

    13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

    14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

    15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

    16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

    17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

    18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.


    19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

    20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

    21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord
    what i was tryin to say is that according to personal statements in scripture,it would be logical to state that jesus died for god,because he believed in god!?not in man!?but you could expand/expound on this sentence for me!?

    Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound

    it seems like i'm/worlds still waiting for grace to "more abound"!?and offense is on the increase!?....: :crazy1: :sun_smiley: hehe!!.....just askn....
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    Lexx, think of it as a legal principle, and forget the religious crap.

    Israel was a nation based on the principle of law, God's law given at Mt Sinai, according to their beliefs.

    Whenever any strange idea from other nations intervened, they returned their focus on that law and its meanings.

    The "DNA" of all government is law. Anciently, god-kings ruled, and their word was law. Israel was born with the idea of only one god who was unseen, but expected his law to be kept, with sacrifices offered to atone for failing. "Sin" was simply the breaking of the law.

    What paul did was to universalize this concept so that it expanded to all forms of government., and actually took away the power of a god-king such as Caesar, and placed judgement in the hands of the people, with the realization that they themselves were lawbreakers.

    If one person paid the full penalty for your lawbreaking, wrote Paul, you should be willing to judge others according to that same mercy.

    This general idea was carried down through Magna Carta and to the present day, into what we call jury trial.

    You will see it in 1 Corinthians 6, where Paul admonishes people to judge according to mercy and not turn others over to the law.

    Jesus himself advocated it in Matthew 5:25 and Matthew 18:16, invoking a trial by community along with the Old Testament teaching of two witnesses.

    The Supreme Court has stated that our 5th amendment right against self incrimination arose as a result of this Talmudic translation of the two witness rule.

    So, Paul was merely saying that by one offering, after the sacrificial laws of Israel, sin(lawbreaking) was forgiven.

    Paul further states in Romans that those who accept this sacrifice for freedom are "dead to sin". IOW, they have chosen to follow a life of grace and freedom and are not bound to law.

    There can be no law against a dead man.

    So, if we read in Romans 13 to be subject to the higher powers, for they are the servants of God, those servants can only act in God's interest if they are first turned over to them by the people, as Paul recommends in 1 Corinthians 6, and as Jesus recommends in Matthew 5:25 and 18:16.

    Trial by jury, as established in England during Star Chamber proceedings, was used for this purpose by Puritans and Quakers to allow the people to protect against the powers of the state.

    The defendant could not be required to take the "oath ex officio", which is the same as we do today when we take the oath to testify. No man, from ancient times, could be made to testify against himself.

    The reason for this being that, since Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice for sins, the confession of guilt lay only between man and God. The state had no right to demand what may already have been forgiven by God.

    As both Paul and Jesus stated, the people first turned the accused over to the state after examination by the people.

    These are the origins of protections in the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, coming from Magna Carta and even before.

    The concept of universal grace as taught by Paul took the absolute power away from monarchs and placed all equally subject to the rule of God by grace.

    Christianity, however, has made it into a meaningless hodgepodge of crap.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,308

    Re: Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    ok,i can see your drift as they say!?doesn't the bible say that jesus came to FULFILL the law!?thus making it POTENTIALLY obsolete but not eliminated till all are saved by grace(that will be!?)!?if i examine my own fears in life i can see they are invisible boundaries/barriers created by/in my upbringing!? that have automatic control over my actions!?they condemn me so i run away!?i avoid or hide from their predictions!?it's kind of a sequential timeline imagination of outcomes!?temporary or permanent!?i reason them away only to have them return with a new angle on the situation!?i would describe their predictions/suspicions as "will" for my life!?i feel guilty as 'charged"(bio electrical animated projection pattern circuitry preselected and enabled!?)and in that feeling/picture i perform acts to reaffirm the outcome!?it's a trap with no way out!?the law has said "this" is wrong and has people ready to apprehend and punish!?confine or fine or both!?it's become a way of life,a game of a serious nature!?without the light of grace to show the WAY,wrapped up like a douche another runner in the night!?......OK!?........what was the question!?: :crazy1: :sun_smiley: hehe!!.....just askn...
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    Lexx, very good. Yes, in Matthew 5, Jesus did say he came to fulfill the law.

    Of course, the argument now is whether people should keep it or not. The problem is, Roans 8:7 says they can't if they tried.

    So, if the law is still iportant, and if we are unable to keep it, then we have no other choice but to develop a system in which forgiveness and mercy become the standard by which the law operates.

    One person is just as able to observe God's law as another, with no process of judgement by human authority.

    If Jesus came to fulfill the law, and if Romans 8:7 is true, then the very attempt to fulfill the law would create continual splintering causing individual to be separate from individual.

    Surely Jesus, in saying he came to fulfill the law, would realize this.

    In fact he did, and stated it as one of his purposes in Matthew 10:34-38. Jesus said that he came to create a situation in which "a man's enemies will be those of his own household".

    Why? The same reason as outlined in the Tower of babel myth. Becuase humans are driven by the genetic replicative algorithm which causes the need for exact replication, people organize religions, proselytize and convert, and seek to make exact organizational copies of themselves, which leads to an accelerated entropic process, not to mention groups seeking power and making war on each other because of their belief in God.

    That was Israel's purpose. They were to introduce a law that would actually serve to break apart vast systems and emnpires ruled by god-kings. Because israel could not keep the law the law in which they themselves believed, Israel became a tremendously diverse society, constantly re-adapting new experience into their different doctrines and codes.

    Being absorbed by Babylon, their adaptability caused some of them to rise to the top of that empire, But their very diversity of ideas, seeking a perfection of the law, created an individualizing effect on people within the empire.

    Israel did this in each empire wherever they found themselves. As an extension of judaism, christianity created these same divisions wherever it focused on law and meditated on the proper way to obey the bible.

    In Israel's culture, "sin", which is the breaking of the law, was also viewed as "leavening".

    Leavening is an agent that, when put into a loaf of bread, makes it rise, until it rises to maximum size and then collapses unless baked.

    Empires may be viewed in this fashion. They grew to massive suize with their god-kings, and destroyed other cultures spreading like a massive leavened product everywhere they went.

    This, in Israel;s day, was a great parallel to the process by which a system is "informed' and begins to grow, and must either find ways to adapt to its environment or grow to the point that it collapses, causing the destruction of related cultures.

    Israel, by their strict obedience to law, were told not to become part of the "leavening" of other cultures. Their purpose was not to become part of a gigantic growth and destruction, but to "inform" those systems that were growing massive and ready to collapse.

    To focus on the law and try to obey it is to force self reference. You must look only at yourself and not at the group that surrounds you. This will alienate you from the group.

    Christianity does the opposite. It seeks to convert as many as possible to a group, and can only do so by "dumbing them down". Their faculties for reason and logic must be dimmed, they must become 'estranged from the self" so they can be good subjects for the collective "God".

    By trying to find the truth of moral meanings, you will find yourself often alone and uncertain, but that is what brings a truly educated and free society.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,308

    Re: Uh oh! Jesus may not have died for sinners...

    hav'nt you just proven that it cannot happen for anything as large as a society!?"narrow is the path,and few be they that find it"!?unless you mean,"the meek shall inherit the earth"!?not anytime soon i suspect!?depends where we are on the "curve" of time!?what's that!?who sets the timelines!?: :crazy1: :sun_smiley: hehe!!.....just askn....
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

Similar Threads

  1. Died But Still Hero
    By TRUECRISTIAN in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 236
    Last Post: 03-15-2012, 05:48 PM
  2. My father died today
    By terry05_99 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-11-2012, 10:43 AM
  3. Jesus died (for our sins?)
    By Lord_jag in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-19-2006, 09:53 AM
  4. The Day Habeas Corpus Died.
    By DeeDee1965 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 10-27-2006, 05:57 AM
  5. Jane, We Hardly Knew Ye Died
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-25-2006, 02:54 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •