Did Jesus die in vain?

Historically, the term christ, christians or christianity did not emerge till 200 years later than 30 CE. JC was actually 'VOTED' as the christian diety in Contantinople. Prior to this they were called nasserites and ebonites, two groups which seperated from their mother religion when Paul appeared, and his works were upheld outside of Judea, from where he was expelled by the original followers of Jesus.Paul, and most of the apostles were killed off by Rome on the charge of heresy, along with a million other Jews. Thus I find the issue of sacrifice superfluous here, and applicable solely to the Jews who challenged Rome's decree to worship human emperors. That this most pivotal event, which changed the world in the quest for freedom of belief, is omitted in the Gospels, is unpardonable. It is like pointing to the death of one Jew during the Nazi holocaust, and remaining silent of the rest. Although christian belief is genuine, it is astonishing they run far from historical truths and focus on belief instead - but the former must always transcend the later.'WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MIGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR'.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This sounds like a serious "community service" sentence. Judges often use penalties like this to deal with celebrities like Guido because otherwise they are going to be a disruptive influence in the prison system.

I find that many people who think this way also have a very loose attitude about thier sins. They do not see its seriousness or that sin is an abomination to God. Consequently, they are unmoved to hear that Christ Who was sinless, was made sin on thier behalf that they might be saved:"Him who did not know sin He made sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor. 5:21)Some are cavalier about their sins and do not perceive the awfulness of their transgressions. Neither do they consider it significant that Christ who did not know sin, became their sins as He was judged by the Father in the sinner's place.They do not consider that it was a great treasure to the man Jesus to have been with without sin, and yet being righteous He carried up your sins in His body unto the tree.The prize was that He could present you holy before God as if you had never sinned. To do that He became sin. He carried up your sins in His body unto the tree, that you could be justified.For Jesus to charge His enemies "Which of you convicts Me of sin", and they were unable to do so, must have been very precious to Jesus. Though righteous and innocent the justice which was due to fall on you He allowed to fall upon Himself instead. And this He did that He could present you justified before God.You are not touched by this at all I suppose. That He bore the divine justice on your behalf so that you might be saved, seems of little significance to you. There was no sacrifice, you say.Does such an attitude make you feel kind of intellectually upright? That's curious to me. Rationalizing that there is no sacrificing involved may be one way of insulating one's heart against being touched by the love of God.I think that this mechanism of intellectually insulating one's heart from being touched with the love of Christ in His death one's behalf is just one more of many ways to reject the Son of God. It seems rather reasonable and logical.Often people like this also can live a year of life and never think to turn around and thank God for anything. Though God has allowed them many days of happiness and has spared them from many things, they find nothing for which they could possibly say "Thankyou God at least for this and that."I think probably you do not want to be thankful to God for anything. And I think you do not realize either the seriousness of your record of sins before a holy and righteous God, nor what it cost a righteous man to be condemned by divine judgement in your place. The things were not done by Him but by you. Yet instead of you suffering the nails and the darkness of separation from the Divine Father, Jesus took that on your behalf.Your reaction today "Where's the sacrifice? I see no sacrifice in what Jesus did for me."I think that I will take to Bible's word for it. I am thankful every day that He who knew no sin became sin on my behalf that I might become the righteousness of God. Even when my heart is rather cold towards God I find it so edifying to thank God based not upon my feelings or but upon the stated facts in the Bible. We are talking here about whether Christ and God sacrificed anything in His plan of salvation. You speak of Him going into Heaven. But I already showed you that He enters into the repentent sinner to be the indwelling Christ.Now maturity in the spiritual walk takes time. It takes a whole lifetime. In the mean time while the Christian is hopefully learning walk by the Spirit and live by the divine life, Christ has identified Himself so completely with that one.This too I feel shows His sacrifice. I bear His name. He dwells within me. Yet I have a long way to go to manifest the righteous living of this indwelling one. He is patient. He is expecting. He is longsuffering. He lives again on the earth but only this time within
millions of people who have received Him. He limites Himself to be imprisoned within them as they stumble and make mistakes, learning slowly to deny themselves and allow Christ within them to be spontaneously manifested.Not only do I see His crucifixion as sacrifice. But as much His coming into the vessel of mine to gradually work out His expression and manifestation from within my personality. The Gospel writers would not agree with you. And Matthew, Mark, and Luke faithfully portray the agony of temptation Jesus went through. In His love for you and I on a personal level, He was obedient even unto death, and that the death of a cross.So I regard the Gospel account to be more informative then your philosophy on this matter.Pharoah hardened his heart against God. Perhaps this is just your way of hardening your heart against God as well. You should be careful for you can become a slave to such an opinion. And your heart will become harder and harder against God though you can talk about God much. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

For one thing, for me to feel anything about something, I have to believe it happened. I don't believe in God, and I don't believe Jesus did anything after he died (if, in fact, he ever even lived). Also, it states clearly in the Bible that a person cannot sacrifice something on behalf of another person and gain anything from God. The person him/herself must sacrifice. Beyond that, there are passages that seem to indicate that a death sacrifice won't work at all either. Again, I have to disagree. How did Jesus take upon himself separation from the Divine Father by ascending to Heaven and sitting on the right-hand side of God?As for my "sins," I realize that I have made poor decisions in the past and try to make better ones in the future. I consider that the process of learning, and its one of the things that makes us human. I cherish my mistakes even as I rue them, for without them I would not be the person I am today. I don't think mistakes we make cling to us like some oily residue unless we fail to learn from those mistakes. I won't take a 200 year old book that was written primarily for illiterate nomads and shepherd's word for anything. I'm also finding it difficult to understand how a person can "become sin." Don't even get me started on the "stated facts in the Bible." You have stated assertions in the Bible, many of which we can show to be wrong, and many others that we no longer believe (selling your daughter into slavery, anyone?) Still, none of this implies a sacrifice. If Christ somehow comes into you, that seems to be because he wants to. Sacrifice means giving something up that you would rather keep, because by giving it up you can help someone else.For Christ to be making a sacrifice, you have to show that he doesn't want to do the things he does. Jesus didn't know me on a personal level while he was being crucified, unless you posit that he could see the future. In which case the claim of his sacrifice becomes even less logical and more tenuous. God hardening Pharaoh's heart is another example of the inhumanity of God. He makes it so Pharaoh can't be anything but a prick, and then punished Pharaoh for being a prick. Sounds pretty mean spirited to me.Again, I can't harden my heart against something I don't think exists. My heart isn't hardened against fairies or leprechauns or unicorns, either.All in all, it doesn't make sense, either in the Bible itself, or logically, that a man living 2000 years ago can do anything about the mistakes I make today.Edited by Perdition, : Typo

I think you will find it was GOD who hardened pharaoh's heart againstGod, so that God could satisfy his bloodlust once again.

"And I will harden Pharoah's heart and will multiply signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt" (Exd. 7:3)I am aware of God giving Pharoah some help with his already hardened heart. For who could stand up against such judgements?Then we see again "And Pharoah's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had said." (v.13)Oh don't kid yourself. Pharoah was plenty hard hearted to begin with. He had no intention to submit to God and let Israel go. But for a testimony of God's deliverence through the mighty signs and wonders I think God made sure he was good and hard. Otherwise I don't think anyone would be able to stand so long against God.The ironic thing is that Christ said that in the final judgement, some who served a special purpose to be a testimony, in a sense they will ask those who rejected Christ "What was it with you guys anyway? If we had Jesus Christ in our midst we would have repented long ago."Though his judgment in this life seemed harsh neither you nor I know what will be Pharoah's judgment in eternity.This is the irony. That Jesus taught His apostles:" I say to you that it will be more tolerable for Sodom in that day than for that city. Woe to you CHorazin! Woe to you Berhsaida! For if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. Yet it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment that for you.

​

He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects ME rejects Him who sent Me." (Luke 10:12-16)The temporal judgment in this life is not always a sure indication of the eternal judgment. For Jesus to say that it will be more tolerable in that judgment of Sodom than for those who rejected the Gospel of Christ He strongly implies that how one reacts to Jesus merciful death for them and His resurrection hold a greater responsibility.So I would not use Pharoah's experience to absolve myself. Besides, regardless of how or who is responsible for our tough heart I am sure that God hears the prayer -"Lord, I believe. Help thou my unbelief."As for your accusation of bloodlust on God's part, you are wrong. In the Old Testament it was necessary for God to demonstrate the awfulness of sin and His hatred for it. Otherwise we would not appreciate that Christ bore the judgment God for the sins of the world.Even with this ground work of God's opposition and judment some still are befuddled and seem to be in a stupor. They want to remain unimpressed that the Righteous Son of God bore the terrible penalty on their behalf.God's harsh judgments were not blood lust. They were a testimony of His power to judge His enemies. So though Christ we need reconciliation. For sinners are at enmity with God and in rebellion against God as His enemies.He loved and died on the cross for His enemies."For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we shall be saved in His life, having been reconciled." (Rom. 5:10)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This is not at all an issue for me. The New Testament says:"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed unto the day of redemption." (Eph. 4:20)This informs me that the Holy Spirit within the believer can be made unhappy. We disciples are to "walk by the Spirit" and not "grieve the Holy Spirit." Grieving envolves going through something you would rather not go through."Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17) So I know that this Person Who I can grieve but should not is the very Lord Jesus.However the subject of this thread is whether or not Jesus died in vain. So I am very glad that though I may temporarily grieve the indwelling Spirit, He also knows that the day of maturity will nonetheless come for I am sealed for the day of redemption.My whole being will be conformed to the image of Christ. This is a glorious destiny even though on the way I may grieve Christ by making Him go along with me instead of me going along with Him.So repeating what I said before, I take the Bible to be more informative on this matter than your philosophy. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The subject of the discussion is "Did Jesus Die in Vain".The resurrection of Jesus is God's way to demonstrate that He did not die in vain. Of course it requires faith to believe in the resurrection. And if you believe that Jesus is still in the tomb, though His body has never been found there, as far as His teaching is concerned, yes He would have died in vain.But we believers believe that His resurrection is the seal and proof that God says His death was not in vain.Go chooses the way of faith to carry out His purpose to wrought and work the living Jesus into the hearts of men and women:"That Christ might make His home in your hearts through faith" (Eph. 3:15) For His own reasons God has chosen the way of faith to work out His plan to have the resurrected Jesus make His home in our hearts. He is alive and is the life giving Spirit - "the last Adam became a life givng Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45). And He makes His home, His dwelling place our hearts through faith.Jesus did not die in vain since He is still making His home in the hearts of so many through faith.Living in our hearts is not a matter of sentimentality but of the life giving Spirit strengthening the believer to live in the sphere and realm of the "inner man""That He would grant you according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit into the inner man, that Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith."The believer needs to be strengthened more and more into that realm of Christ living within him - the regenerated inner man where he is one spirit with the Lord Jesus:"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jesus is an aspect of God right? They are separate but the same, or some such thing? If that's the case, could God not have sent part of himself to dwell within people without sending Jesus down? Couldn't God have forgiven people their sins without the pageantry of incarnating as a man and "sacrificing" himself to himself?I don't see the reasoning behind Jesus, if God is as powerful as people seem to think he is.

quote:

---

Consequently, they are unmoved to hear that Christ Who was sinless, was made sin on thier behalf that they might be saved:

---

I hope my question is not seen negatively, my pursuit being truth and better understsnding, notwithstanding I am not convinced what is ascribed to a 2000 years ago Jew in Judea was in fact not written in Europe centuries later. What factors evidence that Jesus was sinless? What is sin, and which document are you referring to when you measure what constitutes a sin - the OT or the NT? remember that the NT did not exist when Jesus lived.If the OT, which seems to me the only corrct one - because we are talking about a Jew, in Judea 30 CE, and when the term christ/christian/christianity did not occur for 200 years later; here, you have to account all actions in allignment with the 613 OT laws. How about:Desecration of the sabbathh openly? [I am not sure if this occured, though it has been inferred by some christans]Not engaging in the confrontation with Rome, and instead directing wrath to hapless, rowdy money changers doing what the OT laws commanded. Rome was demanding an open blasphemy to worship a Roman EmperorThe OT clearly states, one cannot give his life to negate another's sins. This deprives the sinner from redeeming himself and catering to his own journey ['Only the soul that sinneth it shall pay - the son shall not pay for the father nor the mother for the daughter'/OT]The alledged statement that Jesus prophesized the destruction of Jerusalem, his own kin and nation: a terrible legasy to infer, and one which clearly better alligns with medevial Europe than Jesus, which even applied till last century, and a non-confusing declaration of genocide: "We will never support the return of the Jews to their homeland because they rejected Jesus'/Pope Pious. [Of course, this was proven false, because it was Rome which disappeared, and Israel returned].A focus on an alledged son instead of the father of all life and creation. Are not all messengers, messiahs, prophets and revered ones only a bridge to bring us closer to the father - why did christians stop on a rung of the ladder and unable to elevate any higher - is this not because of persecution from the church against any who refused what was clearly a Roman style decree? One hardly sees christians discussing the Father, aside from occasional wake-up calls, and in the midst of mentioning Jesus millions of times. Knock, knock - hello there - God is ONE/OT?The worshipping of an image - clearly forbidden in the OT, and a violation which almost brought the destruction of the entire nation of Israel [The golden calf episode]. This even when the law was not yet given. It seems now christians are incapable of belief without an image - and thus always remaining one step outside of ground zero - the reason this law was given - as an advocation it is ultimately a wrong path.The above constitutes some items which make it all suspicious what one denotes as sin and an applaudable deed. Is it not ubsurd to judge Jews in Judea, 2000 years ago - from the POV of the Gospels, as opposed their own laws of belief conducted since Abraham? It begs the question should christians be judged by the laws of scientology, does it not?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

" ... the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." (Act 11:26)Acts was written by Luke in 67 or 68 AD after he had written the Gospel of Luke (Acts 1:1). Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

" ... the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." (Act 11:26)

​

Acts was written by Luke in 67 or 68 AD after he had written the Gospel of Luke (Acts 1:1).

---

You are quoting one part of the gospels [Acts] to prove other parts of the gospels. You won't be able to evidence any historical writings which verify those statements - there is no Gospelian dead sea scrolls, probably and most plausably because it was written in Greek/Latin in Europe. Jesus did not speak aramaic or greek - he spoke, read, write and prayed in Hebrew.It is also a fact that Jesus was not allocated the Gospel status till centuries later. The Nasserites and Ebonites, who followed Jesus but expelled Paul, did not allign themselves with those later premises.My point is not to negate christian belief, this is manifestly genuine and godly inclined today. Rather, that one cannot describe the crucifixion by the Romans as a self sacrifice. The charge of heresy, by which over a million others were massacred within a single 7 year period alone in 70 CE, and prevailed from Caligula [10 BCE] onwards, gave no choice factor here - except if one agreed to worship a Roman Emperor's statue. Here, the only sacrifice was by Jews. These are not my opinions but historical facts.Roman Catholicism continued Rome's heresy charge for some 1500 years, murdering even more innocent peoples than did Rome, then went on to invent 100s of false charges on Jews [blood libels, Protocols, money hungry, long nosed, devils, disbelievers, etc, etc]. Would it be an affront for christians to acknowledge the charge of deicide as one of the greatest falsities in all recorded history, and responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people: does this do any good for the image of Jesus - or is it better to expose the European lie and save christianity?

What I wrote I stand by. Luke informs us that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch during the lifetime of Paul. That was written in 67 or 68 AD. If you refuse it I will not bother supplying extra biblical confirmation. You can't be trusted to be free from your anti Christian Gospel bias.If you don't want to take the book of Acts as a historical document and if you automatically hold in skeptical suspect everything that is in the documents of the New Testament on general principle, I have no time to waste with you.I will not exclude the New Testament to gather information about Christ and Christians. If those are the rules you want to set for a discussion with me, forget about it.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What I wrote I stand by. Luke informs us that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch during the lifetime of Paul. That was written in 67 or 68 AD.

---

Not any of our opinions impact in the pursuit of evidential history. One is not anti-gospels evidence where there is no evidence, and a pursuit of truth makes it encumbent to acknowledge what truth is at hand and what is not. You cannot prove Luke by quoting Luke - there are no contemporary writings for 200 years post-Luke, in a period when writings was commonplace [the Scrolls, Josephus, Roman, Greek, pheonecian, aramaic & hebrew archives]; nor are there any non-scripted archeological relics recovered, while reclics of 3200 years have been recovered. Even the church acknowledges the gospels is based on belief, not historical evidence. Better that you acknowledge it as a genuine belief - which cannot be questioned.My research shows no proof exists the term christ/christian/christianity was used till 200 years after Paul. You have nothing to convince me, while disproving my statement should be a simple task.

quote:

---

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia

​

Disputed verses
Textual critics have found variations among early manuscripts and have used principles of textual criticism to tentatively identify which versions are original. Bart D. Ehrman cites two cases where proto-orthodox Christians most likely altered the text in order to prevent its being used to support heretical beliefs.[52]

​

When Jesus is baptized, many early witnesses attest that Luke's gospel had the Father say to Jesus, "This day I have begotten you." In orthodox texts (and thus in most modern Bibles), this text is replaced by the text from Mark. Ehrman concludes that the original text was changed because it had adoptionist overtones.

​

When Jesus prays in the garden of Gethsemane, the text refers to his being comforted by an angel and sweating drops like blood (verses 43-44 in Luke 22:40-46). These two verses disrupt the literary structure of the scene (the chiasmus), they are not found in all the early manuscripts, and they are the only place in Luke where Jesus is seen to be in agony. Ehrman concludes that they were inserted in order to counter doceticism, the belief that Jesus, as divine, only seemed to suffer.

---

It was a simple task, exceedingly simple. I'm satisfied and rest my case, period.But to be specific, perhaps the term "Christianity" came over 200 years latter. I don't argue that that is possible. But Christ and Christians?You have no case with those two terms. The epistles of the apostles John and Peter, not to mention Paul, include Christ, Christian, and churches or church.The "anity" added to Christian may well have come much latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.