MarsCydonia said:So I'll repeat myself: No.
just for my information.I am aware of the fact that Atheist don't have to present any evidence, I simply what to know if this rule also applies in this conversation.
MarsCydonia said:You do realize that myths are not all completely fictional? That some myths are based on events that actually took place but that contain fictitious or exaggerated events?
But it would not be irrelevant to your point that "no author would invent the crucifixion" which my intent was to answer this point as being false
ok so my answer would be Yes, I do realize that myths are based on events that actually took place but that contain fictitious or exaggerated events
leroy said:the thing is that we know from historical (primary) sources that the crucifixion of Jesus was an inconvenient detail and made preaching the gospel harder
MarsCydonia said:You're confusing "harder" with "hard". According to Leroy-logic, what would make it easier? Actually, I think we have a good exemple of something that would have made it harder coming up...
ok, but what about the fact WE KNOW that the Crucifixion made it harder for Christians to promote their faith, and convince others?........If one is inventing a story why not simply inventing something that would make your goals more easily achievable, ?
MarsCydonia said:Now that would have made it harder... How would Jesus vainquishing the roman empire and not even die make it better story if the idea is to preach the gospel that Jesus died for our sins?
well in that case you would have to prove that Jews who lived 2,000y ago where expecting a messiah who died for our sins. ..........we know that Jews where expecting someone like Moses or someone like David........someone that would safe them from their enemies
but even of you provide such evidence you could still die for sins and still have a honorable death.
Can we imagine the preachers? "Adam and Eve ate of the fruit and sin entered the world. To redeem and save us from our sinful nature God sent his only son to slaugther the romans and die in his sleep..."
I asked for better and you gave much much worse
well I am assuming that you have historical evidence to support that claim
.
MarsCydonia said:Do you understand that perhaps the death by crucifixion for Jesus may not go against the gospel author's objective but is in fact compatible with the message of christianity?
yes perhaps, but there is no evidence for it..............and there is evidence for the opposite.
Christian doctrine holds that divine Jesus chose to suffer crucifixion at Calvary as a sign of his full obedience to the will of his divine Father, as an "agent and servant of God".*,** In Christian theology the Lamb of God is viewed as foundational and integral to the message of Christianity.***
yes, that is a Christian doctrine, this is what modern Christians believe, what you have to do is prove that 2,000 Jews where expecting a Lamb of God as a Messiah.........all the available information that we have tells us that the crucifixion was an obstacle for preachers. and this obstacle was evident long before the gospels where written, so any author could have removed that inconvenient detail from the gospel.
besides one can have a honorable death and be a Lamb of God at the same time. for example a Lamb of God could have saved his people from his enemies and then sacrifice himself to save them form their sins.
I mean, the majority of christians understand the idea of redemption achieved through Jesus' sacrfice. If you want to argue so far out of the integral and foundational message of christianity that's on you Leroy but that is something not only scholars but christians in general would disagree with.
what the majority of Christians believe is irrelevant, the only relevant majority would be the majority of Jews that where waiting for his messiah 2000y ago.....
[/quote]That is because something that is viewed as integral and foundational to the message cannot be reasonably argued to be against the message. There are things integral to christianiy and Jesus slaugthering romans is not it.
what you have to do is prove that Jews from 2000y ago where also expecting that message. besides you can still provide that message and die in a honorable way not naked in a cross.
so in summery you have to prove
1 that early Jews where expecting a Messiah who pay for our sins, rather that a Messiah that save his people from his enemies (like Mosses or David)
2 that it would have been convenient to die in cross in order to pay for such sins.
this has nothing to do with the criteria of embarrassment, so feel free to ignore it. but
why would the author invent a public death? it would have been very easy to expose the myth, everybody would have known that no supposed messiah was crucified