Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Thief]

no duh....

it's better to question...

And that's all you offer....ever....

Without belief, you a blank billboard for anyone else's graffiti.
Why not answer the title question?
If you have please repeat....speak with conviction.

 

[waitasec]

And that's all you offer....ever....

better to question than to be gullible.

Without belief, you a blank billboard for anyone else's graffiti.

there's a flip side to that...

Why not answer the title question?
If you have please repeat....speak with conviction.

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.

 

[1robin]

I am not sure, really. But one made it and one didn't; I guess I'll just wait and ponder.

No it doesn't, it merely shows that there were so many copies. Copies of an erroneous text don't somehow improve that text's truth.... but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that you cited a false number. I have shown this concretely and after the following comment below I won't address your falsehood in that respect again; it's been beaten to death that you lied to promote biblical 'historical accuracy'

Most of these texts come from independent lines of transmission. You obviously don't know much about textual criticism. The more independently derived texts the more certain the original can be defined. This is textual scholarship 101. The bible is more attested by very far than any other ancient manuscripts. I have never presented anything that I knew was incorrect to support the bible. It isn't needed there are plenty of facts available. Compare the textual history of the "religion" or philosophy you subscribe to against the bible. It isn't even in the same ballpark.

Cite or be silent.

Nope. I sited several scholars who claim this is true. That is all that is necessary or possible in this case. Just to stop this nonsense I will amend my position to: Competent scholars claim there are 25,000 historical claims corroberated by archeology. When you get your balance at the bank you do not require them to list all the serial numbers of the bills. When a scientist claims black holes, quasars, the big bang, or pulsars are real you don't consider him wrong until he flies you to the spot.

Except where it hasn't; this man is another apologist. In terms of the OT he is, simply to begin with, wrong about its historicity as well; there is no historical evidence at all of a Hebrew Exodus, for example.

So I can't use a professional defender of Christianity to defend Christianity. This is typical nonsense. Are you suggesting I am only able to use people who don't agree with the bible to defend it.

********.
Sorry, that won't make it past the censor.
"Defecation of a male bovine"

Why did it make it past your sense of honor? No need to answer I already know.

Since it is you who keep stating, falsely, that there are so many, it is in fact your duty to prove that there are. You cannot, though, so again this lie is moot.

You have the same obligation to prove it is a lie, if you are going to claim it is as I have to prove it is true.

And there's no evidence, whatsoever, of a global Flood, and quite a lot of evidence against. Essentially the global Flood has been disproved.

Wrong, however I am not saying that there is sufficient evidence to prove there was one. I made no absolute claim and do not have to back it up. You did and so by your own logic are required to back it up.

I am correct. Essentially in legalistic terms this is blackmail; do what I say or you suffer forever. If the choice resulted in a neutral result, ie., death in some other location/afterlife, then it would in fact be a choice. it is not. I have described it accurately. 'Hell' is not just separation; it is an eternal torture which you, yourself, point to God as the creator of [you stated he made Hell for Satan and the fallen angels]. ONLY GOD can send a person there; therefore, it is, directly, his fault if anyone goes there. Your assertion that it's some 'natural' casual effect is patently false.

You once again are making absolute claims to knowledge without backing them up. You have no idea what hell is. I mentioned people much more qualified than you have stated that hell is separation from God. If we make it clear that killing someone without cause is punishable by death, the fact that people still murder is proof that we did not force a decision, and it is actually considered moral.

lol, that's just rich. I know more about your religion than you do.
Since you cannot decide which interpretation is actually the true one, you have no claim to pretend I don't care what the truth is; the irony of such a statement from you while mid-stream changing interpretations of stories, is hysterical.

You know sadly little about my religion. I never claimed a particular interpretation is correct so I cannot have changed a mind that was not made up. I listed the most prevalent interpretations and showed that at least one of them completely wipes out your ridiculous position.

You mean the verses which ignore the content of the story itself? Or your assessment of it?
Or do you mean something Sojourner said, where the Flood tale is not literal at all but merely an assessment of the social sins of the time?

When you collectively make up your minds perhaps I can answer.

Why do you expect that every point in the most comprehensive, exhaustive, and wide sweeping text on the most divisive and profound subject man has ever dealt with would have a perfect consensus of interpretation. That’s illogical. There are far ranging debates over just the titles or even the existence of Shakespeare and his works. Since your "religion" has virtually no followers and no text then agreement is easy. Your statement on the verses is so incoherent or absolutely of any merit then my consideration of it is pointless.

So, we will not hear the story? In that case my points remain unreffuted. I am content.

I actually found a shorter version but it is still too long to copy here. Ravi Zacharias | Success and Failure Blog

Except the numbers were completely false. You lied by giving false numbers to claim a large amount of evidence where such did not exist.
Providing random numbers does NOT establish sufficiency of evidence.
That's the last time I'm going to explain it.

You don't even remember what it is we were discussing here, your comments are not even applicable. You are confusing two different points that contained numbers.
The concept you give is valid, but you didn't follow it. You found some number, mistakenly related to how many copies of biblical texts there were [which frankly, is probably also false, but this is irrelevant to the subject at hand], and presented them as how many historically accurate facts have been confirmed.
The fact you are still protesting this after being caught red-handed is just amazing. I understand that, in the middle of a heated debate with someone you don't like you lack the courage to simply state 'I was wrong about that number,', but to then go so far as to pretending this didn't happen and that the number you cited is still valid, is embarrassing.
Your credibility is essentially zero at this point. [/quote] You don't even remember what it is we were discussing here, your comments are not even applicable. You are confusing two different points that contained numbers. Your assessment of my credibility lacks credibility and logic.

Jesus ******* Christ appeal to numbers.
You just don't learn at all, even when information is shoved down your throat several times, do you?

Misapplied and overvalued fallacies are a crutch of a weak position. I never claimed these numbers prove anything. I said they are a counterpoint to your pathetic claim.

So, basically you're an idiot arguing strongly against things which you haven't the slightest clue, despite conscious efforts by others to directly educate you on them? Oh, what a surprise.

I have never seen dishonor, arrogance, and unjustified pride displayed so obviously. The novelty of sarcasm and pride based on so little knowledge has lost its entertainment value. Even though I do not believe in Islam's Allah, if he were real I am humble enough and logical enough to make the honest assesment of my inability to judge his actions accurately. Since anyone so self rightous and illogical as to beleive they are competent to make a meaningfull moral judgement of an omniscient being will eventually contribute a diminishing rate of return. I have used language I do not normally use with you and I am beginning to regret it, I realise now that this discussion has not risen to a level that would make it worth the effort. I'm out.

 

[Thief]

better to question than to be gullible.



there's a flip side to that...

Yeah, well I'm not gullible....and you're still blank.

 

[sojourner]

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

"Making things up as we go along" is inaccurate, but that's your usual provocative, dismissive style. There's nothing wrong with reauthoring stories so that they remain relevant. It's done all the time. In fact, the two creation accounts are precisely an example of that very thing. Since humanity is living and growing and changing, our stories have to live and grow and change, too. There's nothing wrong with that and everything right with it -- unless of course, you're holding the Bible hostage to some arbitrary standard it was never meant to fill.

 

[waitasec]

how odd.

 

[sojourner]

how odd.

Elaborate.

 

[waitasec]

Elaborate.

i have.

 

[Melki]

Well popular argument from Christians would be, God has rules, and He prefer to keep it. And this preference is very important otherwise would be non Godly.
Same with the question why did God let Eve took the fruit, there's something in freedom that makes it void if God were to limit everything we do by His power. He decided that the thing that we call free will works in this world.

Therefore in order to keep God's laws, some procedure must be taken in terms of saving humanity. And apparently that procedure was to come into the world as a human.

If God just choose to make an instant change and make it so that humans didn't committed the sin, then would it be the same human as before? No it would be something else. And what happened to the previous humans, just vanished? God could, but God wouldn't because He love his works.

 

[beerisit]

Well popular argument from Christians would be, God has rules, and He prefer to keep it. And this preference is very important otherwise would be non Godly.
Same with the question why did God let Eve took the fruit, there's something in freedom that makes it void if God were to limit everything we do by His power. He decided that the thing that we call free will works in this world.

Therefore in order to keep God's laws, some procedure must be taken in terms of saving humanity. And apparently that procedure was to come into the world as a human.

If God just choose to make an instant change and make it so that humans didn't committed the sin, then would it be the same human as before? No it would be something else. And what happened to the previous humans, just vanished? God could, but God wouldn't because He love his works.

So the humans who end up in heaven will still be sinful or will god magically change them to be non sinful. Remembering that all people are sinful for their entire lives.

 

[sojourner]

i have.

Much as it pains you to do so, pretend for a minute that I'm completely clueless, and indulge an old man.

 

[waitasec]

Much as it pains you to do so, pretend for a minute that I'm completely clueless, and indulge an old man.

"Making things up as we go along" is inaccurate, but that's your usual provocative, dismissive style. There's nothing wrong with reauthoring stories so that they remain relevant. It's done all the time. In fact, the two creation accounts are precisely an example of that very thing. Since humanity is living and growing and changing, our stories have to live and grow and change, too. There's nothing wrong with that and everything right with it -- unless of course, you're holding the Bible hostage to some arbitrary standard it was never meant to fill.

like said, how odd.

 

[sojourner]

Why should that be odd?

 

[1robin]

So the humans who end up in heaven will still be sinful or will god magically change them to be non sinful. Remembering that all people are sinful for their entire lives.

Yes God emphatically states he will make us new and "This corruptable will put on incorruptable". God cannot permanently exist with sin. It must and will stop.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
It will happen in an instant, in a split second at the sound of the last trumpet. Indeed, that trumpet will sound, and then the dead will come back to life. They will be changed so that they can live forever.

Here is an exhaustive description:

IMMUTABILITY DEMANDS IMPECCABILITY

 

[waitasec]

Why should that be odd?

"reauthoring stories so that they remain relevant"

if it needs to be reauthorized, it's not relevant.

 

[1robin]

"reauthoring stories so that they remain relevant"

if it needs to be reauthorized, it's not relevant.

That should make an irrelevantist happy. What particular story are you referring to and how do you know it was was redone. I will need the original story from the bible, a date, and a source.

 

[waitasec]

That should make an irrelevantist happy. What particular story are you referring to and how do you know it was was redone. I will need the original story from the bible, a date, and a source.

i think you want to ask sojourner, who made that claim, not me.

 

[sojourner]

"reauthoring stories so that they remain relevant"

if it needs to be reauthorized, it's not relevant.

I didn't say "reauthorized." I said, "reauthored." like a movie remake. Like what happened when Gen. 1 rewrote Gen. 2.

 

[waitasec]

I didn't say "reauthorized." I said, "reauthored." like a movie remake. Like what happened when Gen. 1 rewrote Gen. 2.

oh you mean like a remastering...not what george lucas did with star wars IV V VI?


edit:

who gave whom the authority to have it reauthored...wait, don't tell me...it's all about personal revelation, right?

 

[1robin]

i think you want to ask sojourner, who made that claim, not me.

Apparently I have missed something crucial somewhere. Belay my last.