Christians, change my mind: the more I think of substitutionary atonement, the less it makes sense.

[nPeace]

2 questions:
1. Is there anything your god can't do? If the answer is "no", then I'ld call that all powerful
2. is your god an eternal being? If the answer is "yes" then I'ld call that immortal

I recall we were talking about Jesus. I don't know how my God got to be the subject. Jesus Christ was not all powerful... No. Nor was he an eternal immortal being.
Did you not read my post. Perhaps you didn't understand that either. That's understandable, but I did explain it.

There's a problem with your analogy.
God in christianity is also the bar......

So he's really paying himself.
The son stole from his dad, then. The dad could just forgive the son, instead having beaten his other son (who's also himself for some reason) to death.

Also, reasonable judge would accept that, if the son is a 6-year old.
Not so much if it were a 30-year old.

How is God the chocolate bar, in my analogy?

The father can be the store manager, the judge, and the father. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the judge be fair, and reasonable.
Fair and reasonable - the store manager, judge, and father takes all the facts into consideration.
Can the chocolate bar be compensated for or replaced? Can the thief be given a chance to reform?
The other son, rather than being beaten to death, actually is in agreement with the father, because the thief, whether 6, or 30, is shown compassion based on consideration of the factors. Consideration of the facts, is a good demonstrate of reasonableness.

And the thing that was supposedly lost, is claimed to be lost by the religion itself. I'm not seeing any evidence of that. It's trying to convince me that there's something wrong without demonstrating it, and then conveniently providing the only cure for it. That makes my con-man alarm bells go off.

I consider this a strawman, that has no relevance at all to the OP.

 

[Jos]

So you don't make up your mind? This is an interesting idea... and a first I have heard.

There's a difference between making up your mind and having it changed.

This seems to be a new point you raised.
I think people misunderstand what it means to have faith, and they often confuse the expressions made in the Bible.
Did the Bible say the Jews were to have faith that Jesus was the Messiah? No. Nowhere does it say that.

So there was evidence that Jesus was the messiah? What exactly is faith anyway?

So you don't change your mind. I disagree, but... okay.

Fair enough.

Tell me about the two I quoted first.
Please explain why you claim that "if Jesus' payment was perfect then it should cover all my sins past, present and future."

Perfect mean meeting all requirements which means that His sacrifice should cover all sins past, present and future.

Your ideas are not scripture - nor in line with them, so I don't really see how they relate to what the Bible says.

Haven't we all blasphemed the Holy Spirit at some point? And didn't Paul claim that Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for all time? Isn't God also infinitely loving and forgiving and merciful?

I think what you are trying to say, is that if Jesus were human, then that makes him imperfect.
This is not scriptural, truth, nor fact. It is obviously your idea though, but we are not discussing your ideas, are we? I thought we were discussing what the Bible says... I hope we can.

What else could being human mean? It means being imperfect. If Jesus was perfect then I don't accept that he was human.

Please explain.
Check my response.
Jesus' sacrificial death, allows mankind to come into a relationship with God - to be reconciled to him (conditional), and to have their sins forgiven (conditional). Paul does not disagree with this.

If it's conditional then it's not an absolute payment for sin ie. it doesn't meet all requirements.

One word - Love. It goes beyond what many think love is though.

But that conflicts with justice, He should leave things as they are and allow humanity to perish as a just punishment for sins. Nothing extra required.

Human does not equal imperfect (human != imperfect).
That's a huge mistake to begin with.

That is what defines humanity though, imperfections are what makes humans humans.

 

[Jos]

You missed the big picture in the first place. You know what it is if you ever learned some statistics and probabilities about the bell shape normal distribution of human behavior.

Freewill is actually designed against a set of ultimate Law. Law is designed for yet another purpose. By Law and applied to the angels, 1/3 of them will fail with a Final Judgment. This is a norm or standard. In terms of statistics this is an expected outcome when Law is in effect.

Somehow and due various reasons, with the same set of Law applied to humans none of them can pass the same Final Judgment. The bell shape of human behavior somehow shifted to the extent that when Law is used to make a cut, none can survive the Final Judgment.

So in order to even save a single human, he needs to be judged alternatively. In order for a human to be judged in such an alternative way, a justification is needed. God needs to make a self sacrifice which is Jesus Christ.

With Law, 2/3 angels will be saved.
With covenants, less than 1/3 humans will be saved. That's how they are saved through the narrow gate as an expected outcome.

To switch from Law to covenants a justification is needed, which is Jesus Christ.

I don't understand, can you simplify this?

 

[Jos]

1Jn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
1Jn 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

How does that answer my question?

Even if considered beneficial to us?

Yes

Under Christ or fullness of grace and truth, if you sleep with your fathers concubine for example, you alone would pay the price in regards to sin and not your descendants.

At least this is how I perceive it all at this time

So both OT and NT are right?

 

[Jos]

Jesus inherited NO original sin thru his mother Mary because she was the immaculate conception.

Mary is human which makes her imperfect and if Jesus shares any of her DNA then He's also imperfect.

 

[Iymus]

How does that answer my question?

Underlined portion. There is a sin unto death. Therefore on the one hand it is free and also a gift of God but on the other hand also conditional.

Oxygen is a free gift but also conditional provided our heart and other required body functions work in order to obtain it. In life with freedoms there are conditions no matter how free therefore everything has a conditional maintenance or work to it. This seems to be a universal concept or principle.

Jas 2:20 KJV But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 KJV Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jas 2:22 KJV Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Certain conditions make freedoms and gifts perfect.

So both OT and NT are right?

To my knowledge yes. Discerning the law of moses thru the fullness of grace and truth received thru Christ. Being under the spirit of the law with the wages of sin of the letter of the law being paid for. The increase being of the Heavenly Father alone.

Mary is human which makes her imperfect and if Jesus shares any of her DNA then He's also imperfect.

1Jn 4:1 KJV Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jn 4:2 KJV Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn 4:3 KJV And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

There are some that say the only begotten son had to be in imperfect flesh to set a perfect example and be a perfect mediator.

On this platform you have the opportunity to ask such a standalone question and get arguments from both sides and thru both sides figure out what is believable or make the most sense if the bible or NT is a valid book.

 

[Jos]

Well that's like babies in the womb asking why they have hands and feet. For walking and doing things with. But they don't need them at all in the womb. They will need them. But we suffer now so we will be better in the next life. Suffering develops virtue. Which is going to last forever.

Why would one need virtue in heaven when there's not gonna be a test and there's not gonna be evil and everything's gonna be good and happy all the time. There's no use for virtue in heaven. Also your point is disproved by the fact that babies who die young will go to heaven and be good without enduring any suffering, testing or developing virtue.

I don't follow the logic. He didn't come to pay for your sins. He came to free you from sins. Whoever keeps on sinning is making Jesus die for nothing. So they remain guilty unless they repent.

Don't blame me, that's what I hear Christians tout. Why would I need freeing from sins if allowing me to sin is in keeping with free will and if suffering the consequences of my actions through the suffering that sin brings is a just punishment? There's literally no point in God intervening at all.

What can free you from sin? Think about it. The only thing is to be born another person(with a good nature) who doesn't sin. That's why Jesus died and rose from the dead. So you could live a new life in Him. That's resurrection power. That's freedom from sin.

Well if God created the rules for salvation then literally anything can save me, also God doesn't follow His own rules since Jesus didn't die an eternal death which was supposed to be the punishment for sins.

Therefore, Jesus came in the likeness of men to die in their place and rise from the dead. So He nullifies the effect of death. Because resurrection means you don't stay dead. Therefore it doesn't matter if you die because you will live again. That's how Jesus pays for our sins. He let's us live again. If Jesus didn't come then we would just die and remain dead.

Well again the punishment for sin is eternal death, and Jesus didn't satisfy that requirement so as far as I see it, He hasn't actually atoned for anyone's sins. Also God didn't need to intervene since we all would have faced the just sentence for our actions anyway, no need for any intervention on God's part.

Of course

Then you effectively believe in the Trinity.

If someone doesn't repent they'll pay for it alright. But if Jesus rose from the dead then death is overcome for Him and anyone who is baptized into His body will have the same immortality so long as they continue on with Him and don't resurrect the sins they used to do. Because if you raise the sin back to life you kill the soul and vice versa.

I kinda responded to this already:
If the punishment for sin is eternal death, and Jesus didn't satisfy that requirement so as far as I see it, He hasn't actually atoned for anyone's sins and also if Jesus is human then He's imperfect and not godly and can't use His godliness to save anyone.

 

[Jos]

It's valuable to know that this particular theory (human guessing) is only one of 3 main theories (the most widespread) to try to explain the mystery of the cross.

Only one theory, of several. The wiki suggests or points to or links the others, such as Christus Victor for example, so you can click through links and read various theories:
Substitutionary atonement - Wikipedia
(also, just in case it's not in there, I suggest also Abelard's theory; ah here it is, if a bit more abstractly than I like perhaps:
Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia
that by contemplating what He did, we are profoundly changed; the reality of what Christ did for us from Love can truly destroy our....evil hardness of heart, and hatred towards God and man which we tend to harbor as grudges and unforgiveness, for example.)

Others have mentioned this too. I'll have to look into them.

 

[Jos]

If I, a Christian, believe that Jesus saves but I reject the view of atonement focused on by the OP, what does the challenge want from me?

That's why I said it's for those who hold to the view of substitutionary atonement. Others views very well could make sense.

Trying to explain what Jesus saves a person from and how Jesus does it to a person who is clueless about sin and total (or substantial) loss of free will, and--even more importantly--doesn't think he/she needs saving is a exercise in futility, doomed to failure every time.

I already know about all of that, I was raised Christian for crying out loud although idk what you mean when you reference total or substantial loss of free will.

 

[Jos]

Therefore on the one hand it is free and also a gift of God but on the other hand also conditional.

A conditional gift isn't a gift. Also if Jesus sacrifice offers conditional forgiveness then it's not a perfect payment for all sins.

Oxygen is a free gift but also conditional provided our heart and other required body functions work in order to obtain it

Not quite an apt analogy since oxygen isn't really a gift but a product of a biological process.

In life with freedoms there are conditions no matter how free therefore everything has a conditional maintenance or work to it.

Sure but the atonement through the death and resurrection should be unconditional and absolute, again Paul even says that Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for all time which means that all sins at times would be forgiven, unconditionally.

To my knowledge yes. Discerning the law of moses thru the fullness of grace and truth received thru Christ. Being under the spirit of the law with the wages of sin of the letter of the law being paid for. The increase being of the Heavenly Father alone.

So why is it that one's sins can be forgiven through charity and being kind in the OT without any blood sacrifice required?

There are some that say the only begotten son had to be in imperfect flesh to set a perfect example and be a perfect mediator.

I would say that whether He was perfect or imperfect He still couldn't pay for anyone's sins.

On this platform you have the opportunity to ask such a standalone question and get arguments from both sides and thru both sides figure out what is believable or make the most sense if the bible or NT is a valid book.

That's what I'm trying to do.

 

[Terry Sampson]

although idk what you mean when you reference total or substantial loss of free will.

No surprise to me.

Romans 7:19 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

• 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.

 

[Jos]

No surprise to me.

Romans 7:19 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

• 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.

OK understood but that was one thing I didn't understand but I already knew about... I just didn't get the reference. I was raised Christian so I know a fair amount about all of this already but I was just curious as to what Christians thought since I hadn't spoken to some in a while.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I was just curious as to what Christians thought since I hadn't spoken to some in a while.

We're a motley crew, here in RF and in the world: Some of us are dogs, some of us are cats, and a lot of us are wildebeests. Watch out for the jackals among us.
Since you say that you were raised Christian, I'll lighten up on ya.

 

[Iymus]

A conditional gift isn't a gift.

So only a non-conditional gift can be a gift? Are you able to prove thru life experiences and concepts that a gift is solely unconditional or that a conditional gift exists?

Not quite an apt analogy since oxygen isn't really a gift but a product of a biological process.

Is there any gift that is not a product of something?

So why is it that one's sins can be forgiven through charity and being kind in the OT without any blood sacrifice required?

No blood sacrifice required? You may want to check with the high priests in the old testament and reason behind their sacrifices and offerings.

Col 2:17 KJV Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

and

Isa 53:10 KJV Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

I would say that whether He was perfect or imperfect He still couldn't pay for anyone's sins.

Life for a Life is an unreasonable concept for you?

Another question I have for you is that if you love yourself whole heartedly and unconditionally?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Can Jesus really save anyone? The more I think of the Christian idea of substitutionary atonement the less I'm convinced that Jesus can actually save anyone.

1) if Jesus paid the absolute debt for my sins then why must I ask for forgiveness? If my sins truly have been paid for then I shouldn't need to ask for forgiveness.

2) How does spending three days in Hell or dead, whichever interpretation you hold to, pay for an eternal punishment of death, separation from God or torture? If Jesus were to pay for my sins and take my place, then He should be dead forever, be separated from God forever or be in hell right now being tortured forever but supposedly He's not, so again, how exactly was my eternal punishment paid for?

3) How is it just for an innocent person to pay for the sins of a guilty person? Justice demands that the guilty pay for their own crimes... if an innocent person does so then it's not justice since the person guilty of the crime is not facing the requisite punishment for their actions.

4) If you're a trinitarian, how is it that God through Christ can be separated from Himself or die yet be alive at the same time or face eternal torture yet not face eternal torture at the same time?

5) If substitutionary atonement is the only just way for sins for sins to be paid then why does God punish people for their own sins and how can it be just for a person to pay for their own sins after they're judged by God when only an innocent person can pay for the sins of the guilty and the guilty can't pay for their own sins?

6) If the Fall actually happened then haven't we all already faced our just punishment by being condemned to live on this fallen planet with all the suffering and evil that it has? Why the double jeopardy of hell or everlasting death or separation from God in the afterlife if God already perfectly punished us for our sins in the Garden of Eden?

7) How can Jesus have been fully human and fully God, if being human entailed being a fallen being, with a sinful nature, who's guilty of sins and deserves eternal punishment when Jesus was supposedly a perfect being who was the complete opposite of that? How was Jesus even human at all?

Some of the questions may sound the same but they are not if you read them carefully... will be interested to hear responses, thank you.

I will use webcomics to answer some of these questions. Mainly because they seem to be heavy in symbolic imagery that sort of works. A warning in advance, some of these have intense images.

1) You don't need to ask for forgiveness. But the point of that exercise is admitting you consider something a sin. "If you say you have no sins, you deceive yourself. But if you ask Jesus, he will forgive."

2) Jesus was born into humanity, and died. This makes him part of the human race, and thus connects his fate to that of other humans. Also, the key question is to ask what he did those three days.

3) The exact same way that this works.
Flipside
Flipside
Flipside
Flipside
I'm not sure the person needs to be innocent though. I think this is something that fans of Jesus tacked on.

4) When you die, you don't cease to exist. It simply means the end of a mortal human body. As God does not have a mortal body this has no effect on God. As to why Jesus does not suffer...
Flipside
Flipside
Flipside
These are what Hell is probably like. However... if someone can shatter their illusion, there is actually nothing to worry about. The "punishment" can be overcome.

5) Read #4. God doesn't punish us btw. Hell is self-inflicted. We humans live in a state of sin, that is to say we believe what Satan accuses us of. But Jesus has already forgiven us.

6) Original Sin isn't a real thing. We are being punished for our sins. "But you just said God doesn't..." He doesn't punish us. Hear me out. The story of Adam and Eve depicts them eating a fruit of knowledge of good and evil. What does this mean? Well, think about it. Have you ever noticed that when you're starving, food is literally the best thing ever? And how when you're in a lousy mood, food tends to be flavorless? Well, it's sort of like this but for their actions. Just as we say "This crepe sucks" when someone who makes it is an abuser, our decisions about having done a "bad" thing put us in torment. The solution to this torment is not denial (or any of the other stages of grief) but being truthful, and accepting grace.

7) Read #4 again. Also, read #5 and #6. Original Sin entails that we humans have to pay for a crime someone else did. It also entails that Jesus automatically is a sinner. When we say that Jesus is "without sin" what we mean is that Jesus, while human, looked at the world as neutral not good or evil. He was able to overcome death because he understood it as an illusion.

Finally, substitutionary atonement is not the only theory of Jesus's death.

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D Morrison

I think my theory of Jesus's death is closest to #3 (Christus Victor) of those 7 theories.

 

[nPeace]

There's a difference between making up your mind and having it changed.

Please help me with the difference.

So there was evidence that Jesus was the messiah?

Of course. Did you think people were looking for a man who would come and say, "Messiah is here." So they can say, "Yeah."?

What exactly is faith anyway?

That's a different topic.If you really would like to know though, there are a number of threads where faith is discussed. I can find them for you if you like, but PM me if you want, so we don't derail the thread.

The point is though, you mistakenly thought the scriptures were saying of Jesus, 'have faith that I am the Messiah.' That's not the case.
However, if you don't know what something is, why talk about it as though you do? That's clearly leading to a misrepresentation. Isn't it?

Fair enough.


Perfect mean meeting all requirements which means that His sacrifice should cover all sins past, present and future.

So tell me if you think this is correct. The perfect "anything" should meet all requirement. Which mean anything and everything.
So for example, the perfect bed should be able to fly into space, and land on Mars, and I should be able to sleep in it comfortably... without dying.
I really hope in this case, you don't have that kind of mistaken view of what perfection is.

Hear is the right view of perfection...
An artist paints a painting (picture). "Perfect!" He exclaims. Why? It's exactly the way he wanted it to be.
An observer may argue, "Well no. This can be done to it, and that can be done to it. Then it would be perfect."
To the artist, "No. All you did was add what you wanted. It may be perfect to you, but it is no more perfect to me." He might even consider it ruined.

Another, more simple example...
A cutler, makes a knife for cutting bread. He carefully designs it, so that it is the perfect for cutting bread.
Someone comes along and says, 'You should add this and add that, etc.'
The cutler says, 'No. The knife is perfect. It does exactly what I designed it for.'

Did you note that perfection is relative to the individual who's purpose was met?
Perfect does not mean what meets all requirements of just anyone.
The only perfection that is complete in the absolute sense, evidently, is what we don't know about, unless we can trust what we are taught in the most ancient text about God.
Any other perfection is relative - having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

Haven't we all blasphemed the Holy Spirit at some point?

No. Obviously you don't know what it means to blaspheme the holy spirit either.
Good. You have done the correct thing here, in asking a question. I'm hoping the question is not in the form of a statement, as in rhetorical.

And didn't Paul claim that Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for all time? Isn't God also infinitely loving and forgiving and merciful?

Ultimate? Do you mean based on what is required, as in the definition for perfect in the relative sense?
Yes, the sacrifice was what was needed. It was a propitiatory sacrifice (Hebrews 2:17), and corresponding ransom(1 Timothy 2:6). It fitted the requirement, and was the the best it could possibly be. It could not be improved on, It was exactly right - perfect. Ultimate in this context, yes.

According to the Bible, God is perfect in the absolute - perfect in all his ways - in love, mercy, forgiveness... yes. (Deuteronomy 32:4 ; Psalm 145:17)

Good to see that you are asking question, rather than misrepresenting texts.

What else could being human mean? It means being imperfect. If Jesus was perfect then I don't accept that he was human.

Please... I'd be happy if you can show me from where you got your understanding that human means imperfect. Since I know it cannot be a dictatorship... Edit: Oops @Jos that should be, dictionary, or scripture, then I am curious... Is it just what Jos thinks?
If that's the case, why is Jos making arguments from what he thinks, rather than what is?
Would it not be better to make the thread title -
Christians, change my mind: the more I think of what I think of substitutionary atonement, the less it makes sense.
However, to do that, you would first need to get the facts right. Otherwise, your mind would never change, since, to quote you... "my mind becomes change due to the soundness of an argument or due to the validity of the evidence.", and since, evidently, you have started with wrong thinking, it does not open the door to soundness, or valid evidence... but that's on your part, not the Christians.
So how can we resolve that?
I suggest ask questions. Learn the facts about what you are seeking to argue against, first. Fair?

The fact is, according to the scriptures, Jesus was sinless, hence perfect, and he was human... and since human does not mean imperfect, then this becomes a matter of what Jos wants to believe, not what is factual... and since if Jos wants to believe what Jos thinks, rather than what is fact, Jos is would be the one who is not using sound argument, and not interested in valid evidence.
So by doing so Jos has would be demonstrated that he does not allow for a change of mind.
That's close-mindedness. That would mean that Jos is closed minded... if all the above is true.
Fair and reasonable conclusion?

If it's conditional then it's not an absolute payment for sin ie. it doesn't meet all requirements.

Please explain what you mean by "an absolute payment for sin, ie. it doesn't meet all requirements"
I really don't understand that.
Remember, as stated above, there was nothing wrong with the sacrifice. It was perfect, as it met all the requirements. What is conditional, is not the sacrifice, but the benefits from it.
Read again...
Jesus' sacrificial death, allows mankind to come into a relationship with God - to be reconciled to him (conditional), and to have their sins forgiven (conditional). Paul does not disagree with this.

Think of the example with the cutler. The knife is perfect for cutting the bread. Benefits from using the knife however, does not depend on the cutler, or the knife, but how it is used by the recipient, or if it is used at all.
They could take the knife and lay it beside the bread, imagining that it will cut the bread without any manual effort.

But that conflicts with justice, He should leave things as they are and allow humanity to perish as a just punishment for sins. Nothing extra required.

I suggest you really don't know what justice involves.
Perhaps, this is another case where it's what you think... I don't know.
So could you help me understand why you think, to quote you... "He should leave things as they are and allow humanity to perish", is justice.
You be the judge here, and Google's definition for justice is this - just behavior or treatment. What does it mean to be just? Use any dictionary you like, but just let me know your definition of choice.
Google has this definition - based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
So why do you think it would be morally right and fair that God "leave things as they are and allow humanity to perish as a just punishment for sins"?

That is what defines humanity though, imperfections are what makes humans humans.

Who decided what is human, and which text book says, "imperfections are what makes humans humans"?

 

[exchemist]

Which is why I initially considered the OP to be a silly anti-Christian challenge. The OP Challenge, IMO, boils down to this:

• "Convince me that the view of atonement (which I thought was the only one until others told me otherwise) makes sense."

If I, a Christian, believe that Jesus saves but I reject the view of atonement focused on by the OP, what does the challenge want from me?
If the author wants me to convince him that Jesus saves, then the "substitutionary" part is a red herring, and the author needs to confess to complete ignorance other than awareness of some "catch words" he's picked up here and there. His ignorance is a barrier to comprehension, and here I use "ignorance" in a factual, non-pejorative way.
Trying to explain what Jesus saves a person from and how Jesus does it to a person who is clueless about sin and total (or substantial) loss of free will, and--even more importantly--doesn't think he/she needs saving is a exercise in futility, doomed to failure every time.

And I say: No thanks.

To be fair, I suspect plenty of Christians are brought up in traditions that teach only one view of atonement and may not even be aware that there are other views. That's one reason I thought it was worth replying at some length to the OP.

Being myself brought up Catholic, in a family that spanned several denominations (Catholic, Anglican, Methodist), I was exposed to a variety of interpretations of Christianity. But I think my experience is probably unusual.

 

[sooda]

Mary is human which makes her imperfect and if Jesus shares any of her DNA then He's also imperfect.

Mary was the immaculate conception. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of that?

 

[LightofTruth]

You're forgetting that if Jesus became Adam then He becomes imperfect and therefore can't be a worthy or pure sacrifice.

The reason he was a worthy sacrifice is not because he was not a son of Adam but because he was.

 

[LightofTruth]

Mary was the immaculate conception. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of that?

If you begin with the idea that Jesus' flesh was not like the rest of us, then you need to ask yourself, "How can that be?"

Then you might suggest that Mary's flesh was not like the rest of us either.

The only problem with that is that the Scripture never says Mary's flesh was changed.But the Scripture does say that Jesus partook of the same flesh and blood as his brethren..