ok i respect ur beliefs w but im going to make some points of mine i want to express
1 jesus dying for peoples sins
this is the conclusion that the early disciples came to. but theres only one time jesus himself makes any reference to his death as a sacrifice (and even this questionable) when he said the bread was his body. and even if it was a sacrifice it could be a sacrifice 4 anything.
jesus also went around simply forgiving sins with a few words before numerous times in the bible and they were forgiven so why did he have to sacrifice himself instead of just forgiving them with a few words.
jesus also didnt follow the law of moses before such as when he healed on the sabbath. so why suddenly follow the sacrificial laws. jesus also said when the pharisees complained about jesus not following the laws that they should learn what the scriptures mean by "i prefer mercy not sacrifice". so then why not rather the merciful manner of simply forgiving sins by saying "ur sins are forgiven" instead of the sacrifical method of sacrificing an innocent to forgive sins.
the sacrifice wasnt carried out probably because it has to be carried out in the temple and this isnt the same as destroying the temple itself.
i think jesus wanted to die because because he was convinced he was god and didnt fear death because he thought hed be resurrected, because any extremely tender and introverted person naturally wants to leave the world because they see it as cruel and because jesus was so gentle he couldnt even hit someone back, he could only turn the other cheek so naturally hed let people beat him up and kill him.
2 u shouldnt consult the bible in order to understand morality or how jesus would act because of his morals
its very clumsy with morals and it doesnt make an attempt to understand them.
the abrahamic god is an extremely clumsy construction. the jews tried to make him completely good and in doing so they just added lots of good qualities together even thought most of them cant exist together. a very good example is the omnibenevolent omnipotent paradox.
rather ask yourself the question why is it necessary for a christian to believe that omnibenevolence and omnipotence can exist together?
also look at this
"4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."
its very clumsily put together. love is a strong emotion of personal attatchment so how is it not easily angered. jesus himself got extremely angry because of the injustice in his father's temple. he even exclaims "Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!". did jesus not get into this frenzy because of his personal attatchment to his father, because of his love.
so instead why was it necessary for the people paul was speaking to to believe that love is not easily angered
3 the bible doesnt approach life from a historical perspective
its made ahistorically with a fondness of metaphor. jesus was completely introverted. he lived in the kingdom of heaven which is completely seperated from the objective world. so he didnt look at history properly. he saw all history and the objective world as symbols and allegories. everything in the torah was just a symbol 4 him.
he went too far with metaphors sometimes and tried to see symbols in anything. jesus said hed rise on the third day but in matthew he says he'll spent 3 days and nights in the land of the dead just like jonah in the whale.
the bible actually contradicts that jesus was dead for 3 days and nights. but on the other hand matthew could be misquotin jesus.
also none of the new testament found came b4 the 2 century ad. the oldest manuscript they found is from 125 ad. and they could vary from the original.
http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/s...nuscripts.html
4 what is belief in jesus
kant said we dont know things in themselves but we only know how they appear to us.
so jesus appears as a different person to each person. we each look at him as a different person. even one person himself will think of him differently at different parts of his life. so then u can basicly make the argument that no one truly believes in the real jesus because no one fully understands what hes really like.
now schopenhauer actually disagreed with kant and said we can experience things in themselves eg our body. when we lift our own arm we experience it as a thing in itself. it isnt the same as watching someone else lift their own arm.
so in order to truly belief in jesus we have to know him as a thing in itself. but is this not more an experiencine than a belief. this experience is the kingdom of god. this experience is the will of jesus. the experience of being a child of god wandering with no real home and loving in a gentle manner.
christianity is therefore not a belief but an experience.
this was pauls greatest mistake. he didnt really know what type of believe it was.
jesus himself only looked at what things meant. he saw the world as a symbol. so believing jesus was a historical figure doesnt really matter.
Bookmarks