What if Jesus didn't die on the cross

[billvon 3,064]

>It would mean that no one past, present, or future could have a right
>standing before God.

Well, that's pretty nitpicky. Different places define death differently; are you saying that if Jesus met the legal definition of death in Greece, but not Jerusalem, that he wouldn't really the Son of God unless he was crucified in the right place? Would Jesus dying a few miles to the right really mean no one could have a right standing before God? Is location (or medical detail, or legal definition) really that important?

Even today people have recovered from death (as someone circa 30AD would define it) after hours, days, even weeks with no signs of life. A great many people have died and been buried, and recovered after being in a grave for a few days. This got so bad during the 18th and 19th century that people started buying "safety coffins" with bells they could ring if they came back to life after a few days, presumably so someone could come and dig them up.

Nowadays, of course, we'd say that they hadn't really died; they had been hypothermic with almost no pulse, or were in a coma, or something like that. In 200 years even today's definitions of death will change; we may be able to reconstruct someone from little bits, or revive someone who has been dead for even longer than today. And so someone might not be really, irretrievably dead for weeks.

But again, why does any of that matter? To the people of the time, Jesus appeared to die. Isn't that enough? Do the medical details matter?

[jaybird18c 24]

I agree with the quote that man will believe absolutely anything as long as it's not in the Bible. Any...and I mean any answer will suffice as long as it means man doesn't have to admit wrong and submit to God's authority. Could be the craziest theory imaginable. Doesn't matter. They'll cling to it like a life raft.

[billvon 3,064]

>I agree with the quote that man will believe absolutely anything as long as
>it's not in the Bible.

And some will believe absolutely anything as long as it's _in_ the Bible. Wise men steer a more moderate course.

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

And some will believe absolutely anything as long as it's _in_ the Bible. Wise men steer a more moderate course.

Everybody's got to have a foundation of some sort. You put your full faith and trust in yours. I do the same in mine.

[billvon 3,064]

>Everybody's got to have a foundation of some sort. You put your full faith and trust in yours.

It would be absolutely fascinating to see what you thought mine was.

[jaybird18c 24]

I would guess yourself...or society..faith in people to come up with a common "good." Just my guess. I could be wrong.

[winsor 236]

Quote

I would guess yourself...or society..faith in people to come up with a common "good." Just my guess. I could be wrong.

You have yet to be right. About anything.

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

You have yet to be right. About anything.

You're so insightful. Thank you for your input.

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

Well, that's pretty nitpicky. Different places define death differently; are you saying that if Jesus met the legal definition of death in Greece, but not Jerusalem, that he wouldn't really the Son of God unless he was crucified in the right place? Would Jesus dying a few miles to the right really mean no one could have a right standing before God? Is location (or medical detail, or legal definition) really that important?

Even today people have recovered from death (as someone circa 30AD would define it) after hours, days, even weeks with no signs of life. A great many people have died and been buried, and recovered after being in a grave for a few days. This got so bad during the 18th and 19th century that people started buying "safety coffins" with bells they could ring if they came back to life after a few days, presumably so someone could come and dig them up.

Nowadays, of course, we'd say that they hadn't really died; they had been hypothermic with almost no pulse, or were in a coma, or something like that. In 200 years even today's definitions of death will change; we may be able to reconstruct someone from little bits, or revive someone who has been dead for even longer than today. And so someone might not be really, irretrievably dead for weeks.

But again, why does any of that matter? To the people of the time, Jesus appeared to die. Isn't that enough? Do the medical details matter?

Jesus didn't just endure physical suffering and death on a cross. While he hung on that cross, Jesus took upon himself the righteous wrath and holy hatred of God himself. God "crushed him" as the just penalty for our transgression. He suffered and died infinitely more than we can comprehend. Jesus endured way more than what Roman soldiers could inflict. Jesus died to pay an "infinite penalty for an infinite obligation." He died alright. No doubt.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

Well, that's pretty nitpicky. Different places define death differently; are you saying that if Jesus met the legal definition of death in Greece, but not Jerusalem, that he wouldn't really the Son of God unless he was crucified in the right place? Would Jesus dying a few miles to the right really mean no one could have a right standing before God? Is location (or medical detail, or legal definition) really that important?

Even today people have recovered from death (as someone circa 30AD would define it) after hours, days, even weeks with no signs of life. A great many people have died and been buried, and recovered after being in a grave for a few days. This got so bad during the 18th and 19th century that people started buying "safety coffins" with bells they could ring if they came back to life after a few days, presumably so someone could come and dig them up.

Nowadays, of course, we'd say that they hadn't really died; they had been hypothermic with almost no pulse, or were in a coma, or something like that. In 200 years even today's definitions of death will change; we may be able to reconstruct someone from little bits, or revive someone who has been dead for even longer than today. And so someone might not be really, irretrievably dead for weeks.

But again, why does any of that matter? To the people of the time, Jesus appeared to die. Isn't that enough? Do the medical details matter?

Jesus didn't just endure physical suffering and death on a cross. While he hung on that cross, Jesus took upon himself the righteous wrath and holy hatred of God himself. God "crushed him" as the just penalty for our transgression. He suffered and died infinitely more than we can comprehend. Jesus endured way more than what Roman soldiers could inflict. Jesus died to pay an "infinite penalty for an infinite obligation." He died alright. No doubt.

I find it frightening that anyone could conceive of anything that stupid, even in jest.

[jaybird18c 24]

Again, very insightful. Thank you for your thoughtful imput.

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

Again, very insightful. Thank you for your thoughtful imput.

Here's some insightful, thoughtful input for you...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=930_1307700763
Odds are you won't watch the entire clip.

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

Here's some insightful, thoughtful input for you...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=930_1307700763
Odds are you won't watch the entire clip.

I watched the entire clip.

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

Quote

Here's some insightful, thoughtful input for you...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=930_1307700763
Odds are you won't watch the entire clip.

I watched the entire clip.

Good...I hope it was enlightening. (you're not going to pray for me now, are you?)

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[jaybird18c 24]

[reply[Good...I hope it was enlightening. (you're not going to pray for me now, are you?)

[winsor 236]

Quote

Again, very insightful. Thank you for your thoughtful imput.

Given someone who supposes that the vastness and complexity of the universe is too vast and complex to simply exit, and thus is the result of a causal force that is orders of magnitude more vast and complex than the universe itself, is completely undetectable - and simply exists. Okay...

And given the wholesale acceptance of a set of conflicting, heavily redacted, fifth-hand archaic accounts, wherein the prime mover of the universe supposedly finds the focus of existence in a particular member of an agrarian desert tribe. Right...

Further given that the fate of the universe is presumed to be dependent upon the arcane nuances of badly documented interactions with said member of the agrarian desert tribe. Yeah, sure...

The whole set of concepts is barely worthy of derision.

Mythology is often but a bullshit overlay of history; Nicholas was a very real major player in Constantinople, but has precious little to do with the jolly elf bringing toys to all the good girls and boys, care of 12 arctic draft animals.

Similarly, the siege of Troy had major political and economic significance at the time, but the accounts involving various residents of Mt. Olympus can be attributed to literary style more than anything.

The observant Jew who got all the attention (AD - after departure, mind you) did so courtesy of those against whom he apparently railed. It was Romans (Paul, Constantine) who claimed to have become followers, but rewrote the rules of observance to more closely fit a European Pagan (rather than Hebrew) worldview, and much of the writing was done by the same scribes who put Greece on the map. In their literary style, ANYONE who was worthy of note was the result of a god impregnating his mother while the father was not around. Witness Heracles, Theseus, et al..

In any event, the fact that anyone should become an adherent of such patent nonsense is of great concern, and I lack the ability to achieve the level of stupidity to take seriously any of said nonsense - or its adherents.

Such stupidity is historically quite pathological, and thus very frightening.


BSBD,

Winsor

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

Given someone who supposes that the vastness and complexity of the universe is too vast and complex to simply exit, and thus is the result of a causal force that is orders of magnitude more vast and complex than the universe itself, is completely undetectable - and simply exists. Okay...

Why would size make the non-causal theory more plausible? Most believe and evidence points to the idea that the universe had a beginning. You obviously believe that everything in existence came from nothing (on its own), blew up, and organized itself. That's the usual mystical/dogmatic approach of the evolutionary atheist. It must be the unfathomable enormity of the universe or an unimaginable amount of time to make it all possible. Anything other than the idea of a Creator with purpose.

I can't even bring myself to respond to your straw man comparison to Santa Clause fairy tales. I'd rather keep the conversation on a mature and intelligent level.

[jakee 1,559]

Quote

Most believe and evidence points to the idea that the universe had a beginning.

How would you know?

What evidence, in your version of cosmology, points to the universe having a beginning?

Quote

I can't even bring myself to respond to your straw man comparison to Santa Clause fairy tales. I'd rather keep the conversation on a mature and intelligent level.

Dude, there is no mature and intelligent level on which to discuss your beliefs, because they are fairy tales.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreece 190]

Quote

I lack the ability to achieve the level of stupidity to take seriously any of said nonsense

You underestimate yourself:

Quote

The observant Jew who got all the attention (AD - after departure, mind you) did so courtesy of those against whom he apparently railed. It was Romans (Paul, Constantine) who claimed to have become followers, but rewrote the rules of observance to more closely fit a European Pagan (rather than Hebrew) worldview

How stupid is that?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

Quote

Most believe and evidence points to the idea that the universe had a beginning.

How would you know?

What evidence, in your version of cosmology, points to the universe having a beginning?

I don't know. How bout Edwin Hubble and the expanding universe?

[jakee 1,559]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Most believe and evidence points to the idea that the universe had a beginning.

How would you know?

What evidence, in your version of cosmology, points to the universe having a beginning?

I don't know. How bout Edwin Hubble and the expanding universe?

I said your version of cosmology. Hubble's observations (like, let's face it everything else) are one of those pesky little things that cause problems for your cartoon beliefs.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Coreece 190]

Quote

I said your version of cosmology. Hubble's observations (like, let's face it everything else) are one of those pesky little things that cause problems for your cartoon beliefs.

Hubble has nothing to do with my belief that Jessica Rabbit is hotter than Betty Boop and Holli Would combined!

Try again...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Most believe and evidence points to the idea that the universe had a beginning.

How would you know?

What evidence, in your version of cosmology, points to the universe having a beginning?

I don't know. How bout Edwin Hubble and the expanding universe?

I said your version of cosmology. Hubble's observations (like, let's face it everything else) are one of those pesky little things that cause problems for your cartoon beliefs.

You started off by asking how I knew the universe had a beginning and didn't just always exist like was mentioned "given its vastness. I just responded with an example supporting what I said. It's not the only reason I believe that. Just thought i'd give you a secular example. Both Creationism and the Big Bang theory say there was a beginning. No conflict there.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

I lack the ability to achieve the level of stupidity to take seriously any of said nonsense

You underestimate yourself:

Quote

The observant Jew who got all the attention (AD - after departure, mind you) did so courtesy of those against whom he apparently railed. It was Romans (Paul, Constantine) who claimed to have become followers, but rewrote the rules of observance to more closely fit a European Pagan (rather than Hebrew) worldview

How stupid is that?

There is a difference between cunning and intelligence.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

Given someone who supposes that the vastness and complexity of the universe is too vast and complex to simply exit, and thus is the result of a causal force that is orders of magnitude more vast and complex than the universe itself, is completely undetectable - and simply exists. Okay...

Why would size make the non-causal theory more plausible? Most believe and evidence points to the idea that the universe had a beginning. You obviously believe that everything in existence came from nothing (on its own), blew up, and organized itself. That's the usual mystical/dogmatic approach of the evolutionary atheist. It must be the unfathomable enormity of the universe or an unimaginable amount of time to make it all possible. Anything other than the idea of a Creator with purpose.

I can't even bring myself to respond to your straw man comparison to Santa Clause fairy tales. I'd rather keep the conversation on a mature and intelligent level.

Your whiffing on both counts.