[Boerseun]

The way the crucifiction happened, and under what circumstances, is immaterial. What I want to know, however, is what makes you so sure that Jesus' sacrifice is your salvation, and not some swami who committed suicide in the Himalayas in 879BC? Maybe, in a fit of empathy, this swami stabbed himself to death to take all the world's sins on his shoulders. Maybe he did, and this Jesus fella is simply an imposter. Who's to say? The evidence for both is at least equally strong, seeing as most of the myth around the crucifiction as well as the deification of Jesus was achieved at the Nicean council, quite some years after the fact. This casts more doubt over the whole affair.

[catholiboy]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

The evidence for both is at least equally strong, seeing as most of the myth around the crucifiction as well as the deification of Jesus was achieved at the Nicean council, quite some years after the fact. This casts more doubt over the whole affair.

You are quite deluded, and have clearly been reading too much Dan Brown.
The Nicean council took place in 325AD or thereabouts. The Gospel of John, which clearly discusses the divinity of Jesus was written in 125 AD or thereabouts. This Gospel, along with the Synoptics, was already well in circulation around the Christian world 100 years before the Nicean Council.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by catholiboy

You are quite deluded, and have clearly been reading too much Dan Brown.
The Nicean council took place in 325AD or thereabouts. The Gospel of John, which clearly discusses the divinity of Jesus was written in 125 AD or thereabouts. This Gospel, along with the Synoptics, was already well in circulation around the Christian world 100 years before the Nicean Council.

Deluded? Not quite. But using your info, the Gospel of John was also written 125AD, or approx 95 years after the fact. How trustworthy was his sources? Did he have eyewitness accounts? Is this to be taken as fact? If Dan Brown is the extent and limit of your knowledge of the Nicean Council, then you should read up some. But regardless of that - if I tell you that a swami in the Himalayas preceded Jesus dying for your sins by more than 600 years, based on an old document I have in my possession, would it make it more or less true? Where does this leave Jesus, then?
Smoke and mirrors, my friend - smoke and mirrors.

[ughaibu]

About the shipwreck: clouds are the best indication of land, the boat that heads for (non-storm) clouds will have the best chance.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

So basically what you are saying is that God manipulated, interfered with events on Earth to get humanity to a point where we would kill his son? To pay for our sins... Seems to me the biggest sinner is your god.

Which is irrelevant if there is no more condemnation for sin because of it.

God promised a path to heaven in the Mosaic Law. The irony is that Mosaic Law also foretold of the one who would fulfill it. Jesus fulfilled Mosaic Law but then surprized everyone by taking the punishment of sinners (death). The miracle is that God's promise does not fall flat, because his law ends up saving even those who don't follow it.

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

Also your argument just doesn't make sense.

Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

This also contradicts what I was raised to believe about God proving to Satan that man couldn't rule himself. Clearly with greater beings manipulating events, we're screwed.

How so?

[Dyothelite]

Originally Posted by catholiboy

You are quite deluded, and have clearly been reading too much Dan Brown.
The Nicean council took place in 325AD or thereabouts. The Gospel of John, which clearly discusses the divinity of Jesus was written in 125 AD or thereabouts. This Gospel, along with the Synoptics, was already well in circulation around the Christian world 100 years before the Nicean Council.

Don't mean to be critical here but even though you are partially right...... Boersun is also partially right. The Nicean Council was convened because there was diffenent theological viewpoints of Jesus divinty all over the empire. In fact it was priamarliy convened to address Aruius and Arianism which said Jesus was just a regular human. The very Trinity and deification was solidified in Nicea to address Arius and other opposing viewpoints.

Furthermoere, even in the Book of John which has clear authorship distinctions fro the other gospels doesn't fully clarify the theology of christianity.

The Trintiy is only mentioned directly in the end of Matthew and most sholars believe that was added because of its difference from writing style.

[Dyothelite]

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

So basically what you are saying is that God manipulated, interfered with events on Earth to get humanity to a point where we would kill his son? To pay for our sins... Seems to me the biggest sinner is your god. Also your argument just doesn't make sense.

This also contradicts what I was raised to believe about God proving to Satan that man couldn't rule himself. Clearly with greater beings manipulating events, we're screwed.

All this time I thought it was Satan I had to look over my shoulder for!

You're point is very valid, however it is no longer an acceptable theology, especially in Judaism.

The Jews always believed that God willed all things to happen. So in turn when they were enslaved or dominated by the Egyptians, Babylonians, the Greeks and Romans their theological answer was that God was upset at them for not fulfilling the Covenant (or pact to follow God's law). After all they were "God's people".

Well if you follow that logic you have to tell a Jew today that they deserved the Holocaust for the same reasons. Jews today no longer see evil as part of Gods will, it is created by humans. So therefore even the fulfillment of Jesus horrific death has to be seen as caused by the evil men around him. It may have divine repercussions and in turn his death paved the way to salvation, but if you believe God puts people on crosses on purpose youd have to suggest that God caused the holocaust for a reason.

The thinking that all things happen because its God plan is theologically flawed and is not even accepted by the Jews today whose ancestors created that thinking.

In fact it was in 681 CE when the church offiically coined the greek term "dyothelite" (dyo- 2, thelema- will) to define the relationship of human will and divine will.

[catholiboy]

I'm fully well aware of this fact. I was simply making the point, however, that the concept of the divinity of Jesus was well underway 200 years before the Nicean council.
Have you heard of the Q Document?

[catholiboy]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

If Dan Brown is the extent and limit of your knowledge of the Nicean Council, then you should read up some.

Not exactly. But the insinuation and theory of the Nicean council has been massively elevated by the importance it has for undermining Jesus' divinity in the Da Vinci Code.

Originally Posted by Boerseun

But regardless of that - if I tell you that a swami in the Himalayas preceded Jesus dying for your sins by more than 600 years, based on an old document I have in my possession, would it make it more or less true? Where does this leave Jesus, then?
Smoke and mirrors, my friend - smoke and mirrors.

The question of course being, whether you do have the said document. Otherwise, you can't really say anything.
Moreover, what the hell would the point be in dying in complete anonymity? Sure, we'd feel a lot better in heaven afterwards, but without some kind of message, there would be a completely different (potentially worse) society. Imagine an Evangelical Hell House, all over the world.

The ultimate difference being that in the quantity and diversity of all of Gospels alone, we can discern that Jesus was a pretty important and probably existing guy. Whereas your document as a unique could have been faked or made up by anyone.
People aren't going to give up their lives to convince other people that a man was the son of God, when really he wasn't.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

But regardless of that - if I tell you that a swami in the Himalayas preceded Jesus dying for your sins by more than 600 years, based on an old document I have in my possession, would it make it more or less true? Where does this leave Jesus, then?
Smoke and mirrors, my friend - smoke and mirrors.

The difference is that Mr. Swami does not have a culture who has been expecting a messiah verifiably for more than a millenia.

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm