awww poor carly, hope you feel better soon

well i think you forgot to ask me lol but i caught the forum anyways :)

okay here's how i see this issue and you know i really don't understand it so feel free to just turn around and say that's not right
but from my understanding,

Christians are saying jesus died for our sins and we need him to repent for the sins we commit
what i'm saying is, no one else can take any responsibility for your sins but yourself

like shadowflame said to me

"Eve disobeyed God (I'm sure you know the story) and sin's thus letting sin into our world and into all her children. we were born with sin in us. Jesus came down to earth so we could repent our sins. You can't say (because I've seen comments you've written before) "My sins are my own." because you can't get rid of them yourself. You need Jesus."

to which i replied

"by the logic of you last statement
"it's our fault in the first place. It all goes back to The Fall."
it's basically like saying a poor innocent child who has never heard of the bible is dying slowly and painfully from hunger right now because a woman ate a apple
so your basically saying either god is on drugs or is actually crueler than Satan

I do not need jesus, i'm sorry i don't, if i lie to my mother i don't need someone to be brutally murdered on a cross that makes no logical sense, i need to apologize to my mother and tell her the truth weather i find the ability to do that from the fear that if i don't i will burn in hell or from my own morals

i know that sounds terribly disrespectful but if i can't find a way to phrase it better that"

i don't understand why god would want us to place our burdens on someone else, surly taking them on ourselves and trying to make amends ourselves is more the morally correct thing to do?

EDIT: random question, can it be called a sacrifice if jesus went to heaven afterwards anyway, if he lost nothing it's not really a sacrifice

hmm....no responses....

Wow i totally agree its nota good argument and yes debs your random question is quite interesting and i do agree with you that as the story goes its not that much of a sacrifice

Damn you, Deb, making all the points.

Question (a tad off topic): If Satan is a fallen angel who defied God, why would he punish people who defied God? Makes no sense

yeah what if all the fallen angels make a army.....

sorry sorry *holds up hands*
i'm not trying to be disrespectful i just can't help it

My question is: Was he even real?

Is Jesus just a figurehead to unite a fledling faith to ensure its survival, or was there a historical Jesus, who would have been considered heretical by the authorities?

By the way, I'm supposed to be researching why the Jews were driven from Western Europe in the Late Middle ages. Thank you for distracting me.

Actually, There is more prove of Jesus' existence than that of Julius Caesar. So Jesus is real, and everything He did mentioned in the New Testament are historical records of what He has done as seen by eyewitnesses during that time.

yes but all these reports of jesus are in the bible, yes?
the reports of julius ceasar are from actually historians at the time

so the questions becomes is the bible a credible source

i really don't know, maybe he was a guy who decided to steel the ideas of the previous religions that replicate Christianity in order for fame, maybe he was a guy from the future who got stuck in time and decided he might as well try and get some fame off it

and before you say time travel in impossible....hello, claiming to be son of god

I'm studying it at the moment.

Earliest records we have in the Bible concerning Jesus are Thessalonians 1, written by Paul, who never met Jesus.

The Gospels are those which recorded the life of Jesus, and historians are agreed that the Gospels are ascribed to people writing in the styles, not the actual apostles then.

There is no doubt that as a physical person Jesus existed. However, when the miracles come in is when people start to get iffy.
I think the Adam and Eve argument is a bit of a pointless one ask any priest (or at least the ones in my area) and they'll tell you its not ment to be taken literally. The dieing for our sins argument is one Ive lately gotten very sick of hearing. In religion class we've been discussing morality now I have no problem with people believeing in any religion but our teacher is very Catholic and thats her for solution for everything. We read sample stories and we have to come with a solution i.e a man decides to murder 20 people and he does what should happen now?
She would say first repent THEN decide wether to turn youself in because Jesus died for our sins and the only thing that matters is being seen as pure in his eyes.

"There is no doubt that as a physical person Jesus existed."

Yes, there is.

Theologians debate this all the time.

what was the original debate again.....

.....something to do with blaming a possible guy who may or may not existed or been a time traveler....

"maybe he was a guy from the future who got stuck in time and decided he might as well try and get some fame off it"

Well, the birth of Jesus is recorded in the book of Luke. Luke was a philosopher who wanted to make a historical record of Jesus's life. So, he gathered eyewitnesses to tell him everything they knew about Jesus (one of which could've been Mary [the mother of Jesus]). Those records showed that Jesus was born in that time. Therefore impossible to be a time traveler.

"yes but all these reports of jesus are in the bible, yes?
the reports of julius ceasar are from actually historians at the time"

No, there are some records outside of the Bible that also mention Jesus, but the main source is the Bible.
Also the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are from historians shortly after his time. Matthew and John were followers of Jesus, and therefore witnessed Him first hand. While Mark and Luke gathered together eyewitnesses asked of what they knew about Jesus then wrote there books.

I was kidding about the time travel thing.....sort of it might explain why mary was a virin, although that's more likly to do with the virgo thing than anything else

what are these records? I don't believe i have heard of them before

I actually have no idea, my teacher mentioned them before, but I forgot the names of the sources.

Edit: For some reason I want to say (Pontius?) Pilate wrote something about Jesus, but I'm not for sure.

A wide range of recent critical scholars believe that Mark was written at the earliest after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E.

And Mark is considered the earliest gospel written present in the Bible.

Now I'll let the original debate about Jesus and Marty McFly being the same person continue.

In reply to Cinders:
Sorry if its not true I assumed what they told us in school was right but all our religion teachers are extremely Christian so its all push push push but to be honest Id nearly believe the people here more then I would those that feed me the info Ive written above. That may have sounded quite sarcastic but I didnt mean it to.

It's OK, I was just trying to set the record straight. *Hugs!*

Sorry if it sounded like I jumped on you.

Here's an interesting (biased) article on the topic: link

we need some religious folks to come on and debate

debate topics brought up

"is jesus a scapegoat"

"was jesus a sacrifice, if he gained assention to heaven?"

"did jesus exist"

or more light heartiedly

"could jesus be a time traveler"

"did god make a bad choice by giving satan control of hell"

"are jesus and marty mcfly the same person"


okay so let me clear up one thing on the existence of jesus debate we have no written record of him until years and years after he was dead and we have no written record of him that is not religious

This is a sum of my opinions on those topics:

"Is Jesus a Scapegoat"-

Def. of Scapegoat: One that bears the blame for others,
so, Yes, He died for us and took the blame for all our sins, that we might be saved Spiritually.

"Was Jesus a sacrifice, if he gained assention to heaven"-
Dictionary Def: Destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else.

Yes, B/c He gave His life so that we may be saved, even though He was resurrected, It is still a sacrifice.

"Did Jesus Exist (there is no written record of Him non-religious or during His life)"-

Well, all Biblical records at least record the historical events of Jesus' life, which all were around 20-30 years after He died.

For non-religous records, I think that Pontius Pilate, (person who sentenced Jesus to death), made some historical record of Jesus, but I'm not 100% sure.

"Could Jesus be a time traveler"
Can He time travel, I would say yes,
but is Jesus a person from our future who can time travel, I don't think so.

The Bible has a detailed description of His birth, and a recording of one event during His childhood. Jesus also demonstrates a vast knowledge of old testament scriptures, from which He was able to say on quote, so no Jesus is not a future time traveler.

"Did God make a bad choice by giving Satan control of Hell?"-

Satan does not control Hell, Hell is Satan's punishment, so Satan doesn't have control of Hell.

"Are Jesus and Marty McFly the same person?"-

Hopefully this one is a joke, I don't know who Marty McFly is, but I'm going to say no.

-These answers are the best that a 16 year old christian can come up with, debating isn't something I want to get into too much, but I can share my knowledge (the little that I have of it) and opinions.

Now that I've answered these questions, here is my question to Non-religous folks:

What is your opinion on Good and Evil, (as in how would it be rewarded/punished)?

I take issue with one off your points.

According to the Bible, Jesus was not sentenced by the Romans. Pilate appears in all four canonical Christian Gospels. Mark, demonstrating Jesus to be innocent of plotting against Rome, portrays Pilate as extremely reluctant to execute Jesus, blaming the Jewish hierarchy for his death, even though he was the sole authority for this acton. In Matthew, Pilate washes his hands of Jesus and reluctantly sends him to his death. In Luke, Pilate not only agrees that Jesus did not conspire against Rome, but Herod, the tetrarch, also finds nothing treasonous in Jesus' actions

I think Jesus is Marty McFly because:

~ Michael J Fox, who portrays Marty McFly, mysteriously disappears for long periods of time and when he shows up again, dozens of prayers have been miraculously answered. Also, when he puts on a pair of glasses, some comment that he looks suspiciously like Clark Kent.

~ Marty McFly can be found in various pictographs and hieroglyphs throughout history, as a result of his mastery of the Delorean and his vast knowledge of the space-time continuum. As a result, he can also be found in history books under pseudonyms like Calvin Klein and Clint Eastwood (the only two known pseudonyms of Mr. McFly). It is highly possible that, when he traveled to other time periods, Mr. McFly also adopted other pseudonyms to disguise his true identity as a time traveler in history. Jesus could very well be one of these pseudonyms.

~ As Dr. Emmett Brown perfected the Delorean to move between dimensions in space, as well as time, it is highly possible that Marty McFly is with us right now, at this very moment, watching our every move, a talent that some reserve for deities.

And that is my debate for why Jesus is Marty McFly.

Well, Pilate had the decision to:
Free Jesus cause He committed no crime or
Kill Jesus b/c he would gain favor with the people.
And He chose People's favor over Correct Judgement.

Also when I typed it, I didn't mean Pilate was the only person involved with Jesus' crucifiction.
I just wanted to sum things up quickly.

Well, for the Marty McFly person, i still don't know who that is, but since Jesus has a recorded birth, it is impossible for him to be a time-traveler of any name.

Cinders:
- The fact that Marty looks like Clark Kent while wearing glasses has nothing to do with the question wether or not he is Jezus. It might even disprove it, since Clark Kent and Jezus don't look alike.
Prayers are miraculously answered everyday (according to some people), just because it happens at the same time with Marty/Micheal's mysterious disappearences does not mean it is BECAUSE of these disappearences.
- I want to see these various pictographs and hieroglyphs.
Marty can't be Jesus because in his time Jesus was already known and he had to travel back. Unless ofcourse it was already established that he would travel back and therefor Jesus was already known, but he still had to travel back to make sure that he was Jesus...
AAARGH. Time-traveling is confusing (I should've learned that from Harry Potter)

Anyway. Next point.

- I hope not. I'm not decent. But just because gods have the ability to see your every move, does not mean that everyone with the ability to see your every move is a god.
If you know what I mean. A dog has four legs, but not everything with four legs is a dog.

And that is my debate for why Jesus is not Marty McFly.

I did not watch the movies so forgive me any stupid mistakes in my 'argumentation' :P

(Coolguy: Marty McFly is the main character from the 'Back to the Future' movies. The Delorean is the car with which they travel to the past, and Back to the Future, and Dr Emmet Brown is the person who made the Delorean. I think I got it right like this.)

Thanks, that explains it, the Back to the Future movies were awesome, I just didn't remember the names of anyone.

Also in those movies, they had to try their best not to change anything that would affect the future, also there is no way that Marty Mcfly could have known all the knowledge of the old testaments in the Bible that Jesus demonstrated.

-Thanks Sappp for explaining who Marty Mcfly is, and those were some nice points that you made too.

so is this a debate for jesus the time traveller or jesus the scapegoat?

Both, it's all relevant, so it's overall about both, specifically, I think it's more focused on Jesus and why/why not He is/isn't a future human time-traveler. (which I believe He isn't).

I thought that was just a joke

Pardon me if I'm repeating myself from another forum (I vaguely recall posting on a similar topic before) on the nature of sin. Here's my summary of my understanding of Christian doctrine (I apologize in advance to those who find my jargon confusing or my writing too long - that's the way I am):

* the first people (both Adam and Eve chose to disobey God, not just Eve) disobeyed God and lost their innocence with the knowledge of Good and Evil.
* Having free will and good/evil at the same time means that everyone chooses evil sometimes. This is sometimes referred to as the fundamental brokenness of mankind.
* God provided the Mosaic law (outlined in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy) as a list of actions to take to maintain righteousness as well as a list of sins to avoid. This list, established by God, is not for people to pick and choose: all the law applies. Because the list is so long and arduous, this establishes the bar of righteousness as far beyond anyone's reach. In other words, it is impossible for anyone to obey all the laws flawlessly, which means, again, that everyone sins. The Gospels recount how the Pharisees and Saducees tried to be righteous through appearing to follow the law.
* The wages (that is, the sum total recompense) of sin is death. Everyone who sins will die.
* Part of the Mosaic law describes how offerings are made to God: burnt offerings, grain offerings, peace offerings, guilt offerings, and sin offerings. Sin offerings involved a ritual sacrifice to remove the stain of sin on a person or the nation(s) of Israel/Judea.
* There is no gradation to sin: all sin earns equal wages.
* Various Old Testament books (Daniel, Psalms, Isaiah, Zechariah, etc) write about an Anointed One (Messiah in Hebrew, Christ in Greek) who will become King, include people of all nations, conquer evil and death, restore the temple and the nation of Israel, and lead the world into a time of peace.
* Many identified John as the Anointed One, but he denied it, identifying Jesus instead.
* The Saducees and Pharisees, considering themselves righteous, were dismayed both that Jesus identified them as sinners (like everyone else) and that he was gathering a following.
* The religious leaders decided to eliminate Jesus as a threat to their self-image, as well as over concern that his followers would start sedition resulting in further Roman oppression.
* Most of Jesus' followers believed that, as the Anointed One, he was going to act as a warrior and overthrow Roman oppression, establishing Israel in its place...that is, that he would conquer the world, rather than sin.
* All of the leaders wanted to get rid of Jesus, but no one wanted to take responsibility. The religious leaders sent him to the Roman governor, Pilate, on claims of sedition. Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, and Herod sent him back. Pilate scourged Jesus, and then tried to get the crowd to decide whether that was enough.
* When it became clear he was to be a sacrifice rather than a conqueror, all of his followers took pains to distance themselves from him so that they, too, wouldn't be punished. When Pilate asked them what should be done, their disappointment in their hero, so helpless in the hands of their oppressors, was so great that they vilified him, and demanded that he be executed.
* Jesus' crucifixion acted as the ultimate sin offering.
* While a person can make restitution for one's misdeeds, just like a murderer can attempt to make restitution to his victims, a sinner does not escape from the sentence of the sin by that restitution, much as the murderer doesn't escape a jail sentence by trying to make it up the wronged parties. For someone to apologize to their mom for lying assuages the conscience of the liar (and maybe satisfies the mom), but it ignores the existence of the law, in much the same way that man-made law doesn't care if a shoplifter returns the stolen goods....the shoplifter will still get carted off by the cops.
* Jesus' sacrifice pays the debt on sin.
* There exist no written histories of Jesus from his lifetime for several reasons:
o - Historians tended to be educated Roman citizens who wrote their histories after retirement from public office. Most of Jesus' early followers would not have Roman citizens, much less literate.
o - The Jewish tradition was a verbal tradition, for the most part, even including the Talmud and Torah, which passages were memorized by the layperson. Why would you write something down for posterity, rather than telling someone? Who would read it if you did? The priests?
o - Christians were heavily persecuted for the first century of their existence, first by the religious leaders, later by a succession of Roman Caesars (most notably Nero). Any official documents about Jesus created during that time would have been destroyed as part of the efforts to stamp out the church.
o - Roman historians (pretty much the only kind available then) would not have been particularly interested in what would have been considered some minor yahoo from the sticks. Histories were written about great public figures or nations, not convicted criminals from outlying provinces that most of the author's readers wouldn't even be able to find on a map. Thus, the Roman histories that do mention Jesus are all in reference to the church, after it had gained prominence as a movement in Rome...which was decades after the crucifixion.
* Hell is existence without a relationship with God. Those experiencing hell are jealous of those who can still choose otherwise, so they try to encourage others to breaking that relationship/unrepentant sin: misery loves company. Hell is not meant as a punishment, it's rather an absence of the reward (restored relationship with God). So hell shouldn't be viewed as a motivator (though regrettably it is often cast in this light), but rather restoring relationship should be a motivator.

okay you mentioned this idea of a "sin debt"
and you used the idea of a shop keeper returning the goods not being enough but the idea of taking responsibility yourself would mean returning them and taking the punishment of the fine or jail time or what ever that may be
how does jesus dying so many years ago actually effect that is what i'm getting at

The idea, as I understand it, and illustrating it through the example, is that Jesus pays the bail so the criminal doesn't have to pay the fine, serve jail time, whatever.

One doesn't get the separation from relationship with God - the punishment - if one accepts Jesus' sacrifice.

This really should be in the comparative religions club, I think. There's really no actual debate so far in this discussion, just the bandying of ideas. But maybe I'm misunderstanding Cinders' original post, or missed something in debs' elaboration that served as a debate premise...?

To those of you who've been discussing "the wages of sin is death"/"Jesus dying for our sin" issues, please allow me to point you in the direction of a parable my friend wrote:

link

This is how we Christians see it. Hopefully it'll help you understand things a little better. :)