One thing I never understood....

[Andara Bledin]

The idea of Original Sin is that Man was in a state of constant salvation prior to disobeying God, and now Man lives in a state of mortality. Adam's sin (written from that patriarchal standpoint, as always) brought death into the world, and now Man works against what is believed to be a tendency towards being weak to temptation. Kind of like a hereditary defect that is always passed down to the children.

And Free Will actually factors a lot into whether or not a person can get themselves saved. They must honestly repent of their sins. They must honestly accept that God gave Man Christ's life and that Christ gave up that life so that Man could have salvation. And they must act to not sin again.

The whole Original Sin just posits that Man will sin because it's in Man's nature to do so and Christ's sacrifice was to provide a means of salvation for those who work for it.

Personally, I don't believe that is the only path to salvation. Just the path for those who profess to be Christian. However, the whole "be sorry for screwing up and do your best to not screw up again" part is just good sense all around.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

One idea I like is that, regardless of technical necessity, Jesus's death serves as a demonstration of love, and would at least be seen to the initial audience and many to fulfill the principles of their animal sacrifices. And I believe the most important *event* of the incarnation is resurrection, which of course cannot happen without death first.

[Kheldarson]

^ This. Without Christ's Resurrection, Christianity would be nonexistent.

[Gravekeeper]

^ This. Without Christ's Resurrection, Christianity would be nonexistent.

More precisely, without the deification of Christ, Christianity would not be where it is today. Up until that moment he was mortal and from a historical perspective, being mortal made it difficult to compete in the religion market. He needed to be made more awesome if he was going to compete with crazy stuff like the original Greek and Roman Gods. He needed some PR and from a historical perspective, many creative liberties were taken to get it.

[Kheldarson]

That is assuming that Bible is not accurate in that respect. But I know we disagree on that one so, from a purely historical argument, you are correct on that. Can't have a new religion without an awesome leader, right?

[Gravekeeper]

That is assuming that Bible is not accurate in that respect. But I know we disagree on that one so, from a purely historical argument, you are correct on that. Can't have a new religion without an awesome leader, right?

Yes, attempting to combine Bible and "accurate" would be a dangerous path. >.>

From a historical perpective, Christianity is a great plagarist and lends a lot of its success to said plagarism. Need to muscle out the local religion? Villify its qualities in your own religion or absorb it by adjusting it bit so you can go "Look! We have the same thing!". Morality of the tactic aside, it was a fantastic strategy back when everyone was killing each other over religion and not just some of us. Religion was very much about power back then and you needed to have the most awesome god on the block to back you up. So Jesus was most certainly beefed up in divine power, especially by ye old Roman Catholics. Christianity's wide spread nature is due to effective strategy more than anything else.

Jesus, as a historical figure, was basically an apocolyptic prophet whose life has been bookended with some divine awesomesauce to create the theological Jesus. Many of his ethical teachings were Buddhist like for example ( Which is, historically speaking, completely possible as Buddhist monks were around at the same time and place as Jesus ). Jesus's birth story co-ops Buddha's as well. Which all things considered, probably co-ops another previous divine birth story. Much like many of the morality tales in the Bible are imported from previous stories and fables. In fact there was actually a religion that combined Buddhism and Christianity around at the time, but it was of course, snuffed out. >.>

It should be noted that Jesus is a figure in all three Abrahamic religions and they differ on who he was so its important to look at what the three do agree on: All 3 agree he was a prophet and a teacher, but Judaism does not agree he was the messiah, and most curiously of the three: Islam rejects the crucifixion story and that he was cruficied at all historically or theologically.

From a purely scholarly perspective, modern Christianity is fascinating how its evolved and from where. Albeit admittedly frustrating at how many people take the end result without looking at the origins.

[Mytical]

Recently watched a history channel program that brought up some interesting questions...but since I am unsure of how much faith to put into claims by some people..will for now leave it.

Most of the sacrificing of animals/etc went to other gods, it would really make sense for 'God' to put a stop to it. Also, think of it this way..which would farmers rather follow..somebody who made them give up their best creatures...or somebody who said ..Hey keep them, eat them..I've taken care of it."

[Skunkle]

I've also heard/read claims that hell, too, has been mis-represented - that it is a place between earth and heaven, where you atone for your sins before ascending. Don't know if this is true. I do find it interesting that Andrew Schlafly's project of a new translation of the Bible claims, among the things they think need clarifying, that it must contain satan and hell as we think of them today: a corrupt being working ceaselessly with an army of assistants to tempt us away from salvation by any means necessary, and a literal lake of fire and torment-without-end into which satan and all unrepentant sinners will be cast and locked at Judgment. I would guess that this also involves modern-day thoughts on the "antichrist". I admit I haven't yet read the Bible in any depth, but I've been told that neither of these concepts is presented as such there: that satan, while a fallen angel, is not (directly) given as a tireless anti-salvation worker, and that there is something about satan and his demons being cast into a lake of fire but no representation of a hell-for-the-sinner as thought today. Can anyone clarify? Hyena? I've also been told that there is not - and I've been told that there IS - a Biblical description of the "antichrist" as a single person who will unite all nations against God or somesuch. Again, people who claim to have read the Bible in depth have given me opposing views on whether this is in there as such.

I' also like to state here that I agree wholeheartedly with two other comments. Mishi's remark about not preaching. I'll add to this by stating that, as far as I understand it, the command is to preach the gospel to those who have not heard the good news. Most people in the Western world HAVE heard. So I'm under no obligation to say it again and, in fact, doing so (considering others, [I]many[I] others, are surely repeating it too) eventually comes across as being pushy and egotistical and actually only drives people away from Faith. Christians haven't gained a reputation for being pushy for nothing. On that note, I also believe that the only sins I have to worry about are mine. I have neither right nor justification to do what I see many others doing: calling people on their sins, and covering it with, "But...but I'm only doing you a favor!" In a way, yes in intention, but I think you're both overstepping bounds and coming across as holier-than-thou. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" doesn't usually come across as love. It comes across as bare tolerance, if that. "You're a filthy sinner and, as a Christian I shouldn't even associate with you, but I'll step in long enough to tell you what to quit doing and maybe, if you follow my directions, you can be where I am." I don't preach, but neither do I hide my faith, and if someone wants to know, they'll ask - at which point I'll happily talk to them.

Which brings me to Mytical's comments. I stand by 'em. Faith, for me, indeed does come down to believing in something for which I have no concrete scientific evidence. That's what makes it faith. I don't have to explain myself to others to be allowed to believe. As long as I keep it to myself, since it IS very personal to me, I shouldn't have to argue my point to anti-theists before they'll let me stop having to hear their claims that I'm a deluded, egotistical idiot. Honestly, I meet just as many haughty, condescending Christians as I do anti-theists. And both drive me nuts.

I can see, honestly, why anti-theists get so nasty. And I can see why one regular here whose name I forget (lives in Utah) is anti-theist in a way, though he's politely anti-theist - you really have to meet some of the good ones to relax about it, whether or not you choose to believe, and many people never do run into the nice ones, which saddens me. Even if people choose not to believe, I at least hope that everyone eventually meets some kind, loving Christians and realizes that the stereotype doesn't belong to all of us.

[jackfaire]

The Sacrifice was neither ours nor God's

We didn't sacrifice anything because as was pointed out most people were like screw that guy.

God didn't sacrifice anything because unless he condemned Jesus to Hell then Jesus returned to Heaven upon his death.

Jesus however sacrificed his life before his time.

I have thought of it in two ways. Personally I prefer to think of it in the way that doesn't mean he is in hell. His sacrifice was to teach us how to get to god. He wasn't saving our souls by dying for our sins, since that would seem to indicate he is in hell in our places so that any of us that agree can have him take on our sin.

But rather by teaching us what kind of people to be to get to Heaven that was the point.

We aren't supposed to be just running around saying, "Whoops I did bad shit sorry Jesus" we are supposed to be acting and being good people.

That's the way I see it anyway.

[Hyena Dandy]

Well, I'm not an expert on Satan, entirely. But I can provide an answer for the Antichrist.

The word antichrist only appears in the Bible a couple times, and usually its pluralized. Its used as a synonym for false-prophet... People who come and SAY they're Jesus, but aren't really. You'll see it singular in newer American Bibles, especially Schofield.

What is usually referred to if someone talks about 'THE' antichrist is the Beast of Revelations. Revelations is one pretty fucking trippy book, but you'll get people who claim that they give it a 'common sense, literal interpretation' which is an absolutely ridiculous prospect.

[Kheldarson]

Revelations should never be taken at face value. Frankly, best interpretation is that John (the guy writing it) was trying to give the various churches instruction while keeping it from the Romans, who were currently persecuting the church. So a completely non-literal interpretation using historical context is necessary.

[Gravekeeper]

Frankly, best interpretation is that John-

The best interpretation is that John was tripping bawls to be perfectly honest. <cough>. Revelations is pretty crazy and really it was basically included to give an awesome ending to the Bible. Its inclusion was controversial even at the time, but it was such a good grand finale I guess they couldn't resist. -.-

Back to Jesus, though. Looking at it from a historical perspective, there's technically no sacrifice involved at all. He was basically executed for being a shit disturber. So I'm guessing its another creative liberty around his life and death. Of which there are an annoying amount to be honest. I think his original, unaltered teachings would have been a fascinating read.

But there's been so much interference over the centuries in the interest of power and politics.

[Skunkle]

I have a suspicion, though without evidence, that Jesus' unadulterated teachings would be far too friendly, kind and, well, peaceful than many people would like. The biggest messages I get are, "God wants us to be good people, both because it makes Him happy about His creation and because it makes life better for us. Love your neighbor and treat him with respect, and get the same in return. Be good because it's the right and just thing to do."

[Gravekeeper]

I have a suspicion, though without evidence, that Jesus' unadulterated teachings would be far too friendly, kind and, well, peaceful than many people would like.

Probably, especially if it was Buddhistish. The Gospel of Thomas for example was full of not particularly church friendly teachings was it not? Things like you didn't need a church to worship and you should experience everything for yourself instead of having anyone tell you what to believe, etc?

Hence it got buried >.>

[Andara Bledin]

Probably, especially if it was Buddhistish. The Gospel of Thomas for example was full of not particularly church friendly teachings was it not? Things like you didn't need a church to worship and you should experience everything for yourself instead of having anyone tell you what to believe, etc?

Hence it got buried >.>

No joke, there.

I've never had any trust for anyone who tries to position themselves between me and God. I don't need an interpreter, thanks. I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the Bible it says to not have an interpreter.

^-.-^