Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[sojourner]

I would be delighted for you to explain how I could present my answer, when you have already just disallowed me from giving my answer?

Oh, let's call the Waaaaaah!mbulance. You're dismissing the entire Bible as "false," when that is patently untrue. Even if the facts are disprovable, the bible still contains theological truth -- which is, after all, what we're dealing with when we talk about the validity of substitutionary atonement. The whole "fact" thing is misdirection.

If the bible is false how can I answer by not saying so?

You have yet to show that the Bible is false that in any way negates the OP.

Any answer I gave would have to address the ineffectuality of a false sacrifice and the fact that Jesus did not meet the criteria for Hebrew Moschiach [something Im pretty sure I've covered in the thread already], or the fact that God does not place anyone between Man and himself.. I mean, the list is large.

Theologically, the sacrifice isn't "false." Self-sacrifice is a truth of the human condition. That Jesus didn't meet the criteria of the Hebrew Messiah is also smokescreen. We all know that Jesus' ministry was parabolic to Temple Judaism of the time. But his validity is not predicated upon whether he "met the criteria." It is predicated upon whether he is God Incarnate.

nor the facts I cite which make your faith one of misery and murder.

**sigh** [rubs temples]. I though we'd already discussed the hyperbole of the whole murder thing. Your "facts" in that instance are nothing more than straw men.

If my answer concerning Jesus' false sacrifice, cannot be answered in a factual manner, regarding the true nature of the Hebrew God [that there is no intercessor between him and any man regarding his sins], or in the factual nature of sacrifice and how it does not relate to Jesus at all, well, what is the point of answering, if you whelps cannot handle the answers?

If your whelpish answers contained a kernel of theological argument, then they'd be worth handling. As it is, they're simply gadflies to be shooed away.

The direct answer is: No, Jesus did not have to die for our sins.

Now you've at least seen the gauntlet I laid down. Dare you to actually pick it up and explain why Jesus didn't have to die for our sins, using an intelligent, well thought out, valid, theological construct.

 

[sojourner]

Either you accept a prophecy and what it actually says, then look for the individual to come and fulfill it, wholly and as it says; or, you pick a person at random in history - or even of doubtful history - and proclaim him a 'savior', from what you may make up at will,. no matter what he actually does.

I don't really see any spiritual benefit to the latter.

Of course there's no spiritual benefit to the latter, because it's another hyperbolic straw man.
Jesus wasn't some "random person."

 

[sojourner]

Take a really good idea, the Hebrew Moschiach, then gut the original tale of all relevant information and such, and slap that label on something entirely different.

In what spiritual way is a military leader a "really good idea?" Jesus is parabolic of that idea. He presents us with a much better idea of what a messiah ought to be (no offense to my Jewish friends).

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Oh, let's call the Waaaaaah!mbulance. You're dismissing the entire Bible as "false," when that is patently untrue. Even if the facts are disprovable, the bible still contains theological truth -- which is, after all, what we're dealing with when we talk about the validity of substitutionary atonement. The whole "fact" thing is misdirection.

that wasn't the question, though. Facts, was the question.

You have yet to show that the Bible is false that in any way negates the OP.

Somebody hasn't been paying attention.

Theologically, the sacrifice isn't "false." Self-sacrifice is a truth of the human condition. That Jesus didn't meet the criteria of the Hebrew Messiah is also smokescreen. We all know that Jesus' ministry was parabolic to Temple Judaism of the time. But his validity is not predicated upon whether he "met the criteria." It is predicated upon whether he is God Incarnate.

Theologically, a sacrifice must encompass a permanent loss. Jesus is disqualified. Simple, really. Jesus wasn't human. He rose. He was destined to rise. Tell me the name of a single human who did so?

Yeah.

**sigh** [rubs temples]. I though we'd already discussed the hyperbole of the whole murder thing. Your "facts" in that instance are nothing more than straw men.

We've discussed it but your points were childish at best.

If your whelpish answers contained a kernel of theological argument, then they'd be worth handling. As it is, they're simply gadflies to be shooed away.

Oh, cry more newb.

Now you've at least seen the gauntlet I laid down. Dare you to actually pick it up and explain why Jesus didn't have to die for our sins, using an intelligent, well thought out, valid, theological construct.

When you've a general idea of the arguments I've put forth over the entirety of this thread, then you can make such a comment. Well, that and if you had any integrity. At this point, not only have I picked up your gauntlet, but as is traditional I've slapped you across the face with it several times.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Of course there's no spiritual benefit to the latter, because it's another hyperbolic straw man.
Jesus wasn't some "random person."

So, you haven't read the Hebrew origins of the Bible, then? And the ACTUAL requirements of being the Moschiach?
fascinating.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

In what spiritual way is a military leader a "really good idea?" Jesus is parabolic of that idea. He presents us with a much better idea of what a messiah ought to be (no offense to my Jewish friends).

So you wish to negate God's own granted prophecies, because you find the idea of a warrior leader, of a warrior people, in poor taste? Again, fascinating.

Read the actual Hebrew prophecies, and weep for your pacifistic view. The moschiach is a great man, a HUMAN man, who subdues the foes of the Jews and brings God's word to the entire world, by whatever means are necessary. Brings all Jews back to a Hebrew homeland, taken back by necessity, from powerful empires. Not at all a dishonorable duty. When it was given, that necessity required him to counter some very powerful foes. And then later, along came the Romans.

Somebody doesn't understand context. That would be you.

 

[waitasec]

In what spiritual way is a military leader a "really good idea?" Jesus is parabolic of that idea. He presents us with a much better idea of what a messiah ought to be (no offense to my Jewish friends).

hmmmm.

the evolution of a messiah....

seems to me that the idea/prophecy of the messiah, a jewish prophecy no less, has been altered in a way that is reminiscent to the oral tradition (an interpretive tradition). in other words, it is edited for the purpose to appease the believers understanding.

i equate that to altering the crime scene in order to fit the prosecutions argument.

 

[sojourner]

that wasn't the question, though. Facts, was the question.

In this case, facts don't help.

Somebody hasn't been paying attention.

Pot, meet Kettle. You're evading.

Theologically, a sacrifice must encompass a permanent loss.

Mkaaay...
and?

Jesus is disqualified. Simple, really. Jesus wasn't human.

Jesus was fully human, and he permanently lost his mortal life. Just like every other human who falls on a live grenade or steps in front of a bullet.

He rose. He was destined to rise.

So are we. So what? That has nothing to do with losing one's mortal life.

We've discussed it but your points were childish at best.

The fact that murder is a legal term, not descriptive action? I'd really like to hear you make your point stick in court.

Oh, cry more newb.

Hmmm...
Your join date: 10/11.
My join date: 1/06.
Pwned.

When you've a general idea of the arguments I've put forth over the entirety of this thread, then you can make such a comment. Well, that and if you had any integrity. At this point, not only have I picked up your gauntlet, but as is traditional I've slapped you across the face with it several times.

Sorry. Whiffed past harmlessly. Apparently, you also missed the part where I specified:

well thought out, valid, theological construct.

You're evading and calling names. Great debate style, there, Fred!

Can you, or can you not (I'm betting "not") answer the OP as I've specified? You certainly haven't done so yet.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

In this case, facts don't help.

that's rich!

Pot, meet Kettle. You're evading.

I am boasting of my accomplishments.

Mkaaay...
and?

And Jesus did not have such.

Jesus was fully human, and he permanently lost his mortal life. Just like every other human who falls on a live grenade or steps in front of a bullet.

he was not fully human. he was a scion of God.
he rose only 2 days later. He SELF RESURRECTED. And wandered around. And KNEW he would rise. No other human had that. You are wrong, alas for you.

So are we. So what? That has nothing to do with losing one's mortal life.

that 'promise' is a lie, and, it certainly does not come with the knowledge of certainty. Which Jesus had. Plus, it risks Hell; Jesus never did so. Oh, small details.

Un less of course, you'd like to dismiss various details of the dogma, at whim, as you have done previously, in order to avoid these unpleasant details. Make up your own interpretation for convenience. By all means.

The fact that murder is a legal term, not descriptive action? I'd really like to hear you make your point stick in court.

In court God would be executed for premeditated mass murder. By all means, haul him in . I dare you.

Hmmm...
Your join date: 10/11.
My join date: 1/06.
Pwned.

Well played. but, you still cry like a noob.

Sorry. Whiffed past harmlessly. Apparently, you also missed the part where I specified:

You're evading and calling names. Great debate style, there, Fred!

Name calling is fine where the description fits. i'm name calling in addition to answering questions.
I don't care if you approve of my style *edit* . I don't need your esteem.

Can you, or can you not (I'm betting "not") answer the OP as I've specified? You certainly haven't done so yet.

I've answered the question. Do you want me to answer it again?

 

[sojourner]

that's rich!

I am boasting of my accomplishments.

And Jesus did not have such.

he was not fully human. he was a scion of God.
he rose only 2 days later. He SELF RESURRECTED. And wandered around. And KNEW he would rise. No other human had that. You are wrong, alas for you.

that 'promise' is a lie, and, it certainly does not come with the knowledge of certainty. Which Jesus had. Plus, it risks Hell; Jesus never did so. Oh, small details.

Un less of course, you'd like to dismiss various details of the dogma, at whim, as you have done previously, in order to avoid these unpleasant details. Make up your own interpretation for convenience. By all means.

In court God would be executed for premeditated mass murder. By all means, haul him in . I dare you.
Well played. but, you still cry like a noob.

Name calling is fine where the description fits. i'm name calling in addition to answering questions.
I don't care if you approve of my style, you're essentially an idiot, in my book. I don't need your esteem.

I've answered the question. Do you want me to answer it again?

Perhaps, in the midst of your bombastic horn-blowing and provocative name-calling, you could find some time to post an intelligent, well-thought out, coherent answer to the question, using some valid theological construct.

 

[sojourner]

So, you haven't read the Hebrew origins of the Bible, then? And the ACTUAL requirements of being the Moschiach?
fascinating.

Of course I have. Jesus didn't fit that bill. What's your point? Since you've already called God a liar, I think you've effectively burned your Jewish-authority bridge.
Good for you!

 

[sojourner]

So you wish to negate God's own granted prophecies, because you find the idea of a warrior leader, of a warrior people, in poor taste? Again, fascinating.

Read the actual Hebrew prophecies, and weep for your pacifistic view. The moschiach is a great man, a HUMAN man, who subdues the foes of the Jews and brings God's word to the entire world, by whatever means are necessary. Brings all Jews back to a Hebrew homeland, taken back by necessity, from powerful empires. Not at all a dishonorable duty. When it was given, that necessity required him to counter some very powerful foes. And then later, along came the Romans.

Somebody doesn't understand context. That would be you.

No, I negate the prophecies, because the idea of a warrior-God no longer speaks to our world view, or our sitz im leben.
It's precisely because of context that I do so. When we live in a world in which humanity has the power to end all life, a human, warrior-god who uses "whatever means necessary" to reestablish Israel is hardly a good idea.

 

[sojourner]

hmmmm.

the evolution of a messiah....

seems to me that the idea/prophecy of the messiah, a jewish prophecy no less, has been altered in a way that is reminiscent to the oral tradition (an interpretive tradition). in other words, it is edited for the purpose to appease the believers understanding.

i equate that to altering the crime scene in order to fit the prosecutions argument.

Crime scenes are governed by establishable facts. prophecies are governed by theology. You're comparing apples to weasels here.

 

[Thief]

No, I won't look at this repetitious scenario again. It doesn't apply to what we were discussing.

I thought we were beginning to discuss how Jesus as the Messiah, is essentially the 21 Jump Street of the spiritual world.

Take a really good idea, the Hebrew Moschiach, then gut the original tale of all relevant information and such, and slap that label on something entirely different.

Not at all....we are discussing sin, and the removal of it....salvation.

That you might not be saved doesn't bother me.

That One person in particular could be the source of removal is altogether possible. (His word and approval...rather than your own)

But just in case a third party reading this didn't catch my previous post....
He didn't die FOR our sins.
He died because of circumstance and false accusation.

His salvation is in the parables...His word.

 

[waitasec]

Crime scenes are governed by establishable facts. prophecies are governed by theology. You're comparing apples to weasels here.

truth is truth.
made up truth for the sake of theology isn't truth.

fact =/= theology

 

[sojourner]

truth is truth.
made up truth for the sake of theology isn't truth.

fact =/= theology

Truth is truth, but there's a big difference between fact and truth. Prophecy can be true without necessarily being factual. That's the mistake a lot of people make with prophecy. Prophecies do not necessarily convey future fact. But they do convey truth.

 

[waitasec]

Truth is truth, but there's a big difference between fact and truth.

no there isn't.

2+2=4 that is a fact and a truth

Prophecy can be true without necessarily being factual.

huh?

That's the mistake a lot of people make with prophecy.

or it's a mistake to believe prophecies are true.

Prophecies do not necessarily convey future fact.

yes i get that..it can also be a social commentary....
tell you what, the prophecy for equality concerning same sex marriages went missing...for many people for many many years...either god didn't think their lives were important enough or it's lost. can you find it?

But they do convey truth.

i would say, it reveals a truth about those who actually believe in prophecies

 

[Thief]

no there isn't.

2+2=4 that is a fact and a truth


huh?



or it's a mistake to believe prophecies are true.



yes i get that..it can also be a social commentary....
tell you what, the prophecy for equality concerning same sex marriages went missing...for many people for many many years...either god didn't think their lives were important enough or it's lost. can you find it?



i would say, it reveals a truth about those who actually believe in prophecies

There's a flip side to that coin.

 

[waitasec]

There's a flip side to that coin.

no duh....

it's better to question...

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No, I negate the prophecies, because the idea of a warrior-God no longer speaks to our world view, or our sitz im leben.
It's precisely because of context that I do so. When we live in a world in which humanity has the power to end all life, a human, warrior-god who uses "whatever means necessary" to reestablish Israel is hardly a good idea.

Well, if we're just making things up as we go along, get a better writer.