Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[waitasec]

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

no worries...happens to me too

 

[sojourner]

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?

Since the Bible is a community effort, and was not "authorized," per se, until the canon was closed -- by which time the "reauthoring" to which I refer was finished, no "authority" was necessary. No one needs "authority" to write or tell anything. The canonization process was what "authorized" the texts. Even that was a community effort.

So, no, not "personal revelation," but rather, "the stories of the community." Again, why does that seem so curious? Why do you think there are so many points in the bible where the same stories are told with slightly different twists? It's like urban legend for the ancients. None of the texts was word-for-word -- even after they were first written down. The process of word-for-word copying didn't enter the picture for hundreds and hundreds of years. Even in the case of the gospels, which, biblically speaking were written fairly late, we're pretty sure they began as oral stories that were written down later on. So what? Why is that so curious?:areyoucra

 

[waitasec]

Since the Bible is a community effort, and was not "authorized," per se, until the canon was closed -- by which time the "reauthoring" to which I refer was finished, no "authority" was necessary. No one needs "authority" to write or tell anything. The canonization process was what "authorized" the texts. Even that was a community effort.

So, no, not "personal revelation," but rather, "the stories of the community." Again, why does that seem so curious? Why do you think there are so many points in the bible where the same stories are told with slightly different twists? It's like urban legend for the ancients. None of the texts was word-for-word -- even after they were first written down. The process of word-for-word copying didn't enter the picture for hundreds and hundreds of years. Even in the case of the gospels, which, biblically speaking were written fairly late, we're pretty sure they began as oral stories that were written down later on. So what? Why is that so curious?:areyoucra

i'll put to you like this

along time ago in a land far far away tribesmen thought god was mad at them for something they must have done because a huge part of their tribe got sick and died, so they sacrificed an animal/small child/virgin to hopefully appease god...even though we all die at some point anyway...go figure.
fast forward, we've learned since then that the reason people got sick was because of a little thing called a virus. however the idea that god is mad is still on the table as god created viruses because of the wages of sin (i'm not saying YOU believe this, okay.. so don't get your knickers in a twist). however, we have created vaccinations against viruses and have found cures for some diseases...therefore sacrifices (jesus/virgins/animal/small child) are no longer needed, just a a flu shot in most cases will suffice. where as before some unlucky person became the scapegoat instead of todays lab rat.
so, come to think of it, maybe jesus sacrifice is needed for todays lab rats...

 

[bigbadgirl]

What sins has "our" been guilty of? I assume you are referring to Christians only. There are lots of us out there who are not guilty of sins.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What sins has "our" been guilty of? I assume you are referring to Christians only. There are lots of us out there who are not guilty of sins.

Does that mean you have never told an untruth?
You have never disobeyed a parent?
Did you ever commit a sin against the speed limit traffic laws?
[Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's]

People that do not sin do not die.
Do you know anyone who is not expected to grow old and die?
If not, then they have leanings towards wrongdoing. [sin]

 

[bigbadgirl]

What you have listed are sins according to you own belief. Sin exists only in the minds of those who believe in it. What is sin to one, may be virtue to another. All I ask is that you prove that sin exists. Simply because it was written by someone, somewhere, sometime does not prove that it exists. Many people used to believe that the earth is flat (some still do), yet that never made it a fact simply because someone wrote it down in a book.

 

[waitasec]

Does that mean you have never told an untruth?
You have never disobeyed a parent?
Did you ever commit a sin against the speed limit traffic laws?
[Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's]

People that do not sin do not die.
Do you know anyone who is not expected to grow old and die?
If not, then they have leanings towards wrongdoing. [sin]

i get the confusion
maybe what you call a sin isn't what she means...

sin is what?
it's an act that violates a moral rule of a religion...since we are talking about jesus it's about christianity. however, those who do not adhere to this particular religion this sacrifice doesn't mean anything

in other words...
"did jesus die for the christian believers sin" would be a more accurate question...

does that make sense?

edit:

it is also interesting to point out that "sin", for the believer, is an all inclusive word that applies to those who do not adhere to
a particular religious tenent...when clearly it is not.

 

[Melki]

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.

According to my believe, without Jesus those who were taken by God, are still liable to death. Those whose body have perished will be resurrected but would be judged by Jesus including Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Those who are lovely and loved God, are still sinned because it's God's law that you should repay to the sources of solutions. Since humans are independents without Jesus, humans still owe for their existence to God, and for their use of evil services to the devil.

Even if you are righteous by human standards, how could you pay back your existence and your use of the whole world to God? That makes you a thief by default.

 

[1robin]

What sins has "our" been guilty of? I assume you are referring to Christians only. There are lots of us out there who are not guilty of sins.

This is nuts. I guess if you live long enough you will hear every claim no matter how rediculous. We all fail to live up fully to any standard that's worth haveing.

1 John 1:8
New International Version (NIV)

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

 

[beerisit]

Does that mean you have never told an untruth?
You have never disobeyed a parent?
Did you ever commit a sin against the speed limit traffic laws?
[Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's]

People that do not sin do not die.
Do you know anyone who is not expected to grow old and die?
If not, then they have leanings towards wrongdoing. [sin]

So the sinless Jesus was in fact a sinner, because he DIED.

People that do not sin do not die

 

[sojourner]

i'll put to you like this

along time ago in a land far far away tribesmen thought god was mad at them for something they must have done because a huge part of their tribe got sick and died, so they sacrificed an animal/small child/virgin to hopefully appease god...even though we all die at some point anyway...go figure.
fast forward, we've learned since then that the reason people got sick was because of a little thing called a virus. however the idea that god is mad is still on the table as god created viruses because of the wages of sin (i'm not saying YOU believe this, okay.. so don't get your knickers in a twist). however, we have created vaccinations against viruses and have found cures for some diseases...therefore sacrifices (jesus/virgins/animal/small child) are no longer needed, just a a flu shot in most cases will suffice. where as before some unlucky person became the scapegoat instead of todays lab rat.
so, come to think of it, maybe jesus sacrifice is needed for todays lab rats...

have we thus not reauthored the "cause of disease" story, then?

 

[sojourner]

so the sinless jesus was in fact a sinner, because he died.

d'oh!

 

[waitasec]

have we thus not reauthored the "cause of disease" story, then?

maybe in your xy mind...but no we haven't

 

[sojourner]

maybe in your xy mind...but no we haven't

But I thought you just said that we used to think that disease was caused by God being angry with us, and that now we know about viruses. That constitutes a reauthoring of that story.

 

[waitasec]

But I thought you just said that we used to think that disease was caused by God being angry with us, and that now we know about viruses. That constitutes a reauthoring of that story.

well no not really, because never created viruses as a form of punishment in the 1st place...


think of the tower of babel...were they really going to see god (reach the heavens) at 10,000 feet to make a name for their self?
:no: they would have suffered from altitude sickness instead...didn't god know that would happen?

 

[sojourner]

well no not really, because never created viruses as a form of punishment in the 1st place...


think of the tower of babel...were they really going to see god (reach the heavens) at 10,000 feet to make a name for their self?
:no: they would have suffered from altitude sickness instead...didn't god know that would happen?

We're talking past each other. I don't think you have a real good idea what I'm talking about. Too tired to explain now. Catch you later.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

This is nuts. I guess if you live long enough you will hear every claim no matter how rediculous. We all fail to live up fully to any standard that's worth haveing.

1 John 1:8
New International Version (NIV)

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

John was a sinner, so maybe he lied when he said someone said this.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Most of these texts come from independent lines of transmission.
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.

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For reference. Since you cannot include the Hebrew OT in your numbers, you aren't left with much. According to this page the early fragments are limited in number. It begins by listing 5800 Greek fragments but when you actually examine the timelines below that you'll see that those close to the original times number only about 40, until you get to the 4th century. So your claim is bunk; things written several hundred years later are not 'originals' as we are discussing, they are distant copies. That page also discusses in depth just how many variations and errors there are to be found. Very interesting read.

As for my religion, well of course not. It would not have been copied via printing press, as this was reserved/invented specifically for the bible itself; and Christians destroyed anything of ours they could find in an effort to subjugate our native peoples to their invading religion of lies. Hardly surprising at all, and certainly nothing to crow about as if it means anything, but that is much like anything else you've ever said. That we survived through your best efforts, however, is certainly a victory. We do have surviving texts, though. You should look for some; then you wouldn't be so obviously ignorant.

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.

Again, this is a lie. That 25k number is made up by you. I have already shown this, and you so much as admitted it.

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.

No, but never mind. I don't feel like explaining it to you again.

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

Did what get past my Honor? Calling bs for what it is? Please, don't talk about Honor, it's obvious you know nothing of it. Please.

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.

I have proven it's a lie. I don't need to do so again.

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.

There is no evidence of a Global Flood.
All evidence is against it.
carbonate hardgrounds
Noah's Flood - What does the Evidence Say?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord
There is no question. I make an absolute claim. I have backed it up.

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.

You have no idea what it is either. Then you also cannot make any definitive claims of it and thus deny what I say; the only info we have is from your book. And in what way are these people more qualified than I, exactly? Nonsense appeal to authority.
The system is immoral, and I have shown why; you can barely make coherent sentences about it. Attemptting to soften what the experience of 'being separated from God' is actually supposed to be like, does not hide that it's essentially conscious eternal torture, for a finite set of sins. Sins which are embedded in our very nature to commit.

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.

But others don't. So nothing of mine is wiped out as, and I pointed it out, you aren't sure yourselves. However in it's raw form and in all of its mainstream accepted variants the concept is immoral.

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

Because it's claims claim themselves to be absolute and concrete.

There are far ranging debates over just the titles or even the existence of Shakespeare and his works.

There's no question at all about his existence; i've been to his home. There are claims to the authorship of some of his works.

As you are thoroughly ignorant of my religion your claims can be excused as being false; which they are. And there are many texts. One of the most famous is actually written by a Christian, but, others have survived. They are often corroborated by archaeology as well.

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.

Ignorant and false.

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

It will take a while to get to it, but I probably will.

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.

No, you cannot attempt to back out on being caught in a lie.

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.

I have proven you to be liar. I need not go over it again.
IN fact:

It is claimed by scholars to have 25,000 historical claims verified by archeology.

Here's you MAKING THE SAME DAMNED LIE ON MAY 12th, IN ANOTHER THREAD, YOU BLOODY LIAR PANTS ON FIRE.

Misapplied and overvalued fallacies are a crutch of a weak position.

No, they show the weakness of your reasoning. You really are an amateur at this, aren't you?

I never claimed these numbers prove anything. I said they are a counterpoint to your pathetic claim.

But since they are made up they are a counterpoint of nothing. And you did say they proved something, and just did again, in that very sentence. By implying they are a counterpoint to something.

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.

Your demonstrated imbecility on multiple topics make this an empty attempt at gain-saying. You fail miserably.

We are perfectly capable of making moral judgments about such beings. Such concepts have specific definitions; if the actions of these beings fail to meet those definitions they they do not qualify as moral. The Dog Whisperer Fallacy explains why it's ridiculous to think that it's OK for God to act immorally or irrationally, if he gave us morals and reason.

If you choose to abdicate your ability to reason because you fear either the conclusions or the consequences, that's your affair. I don't think you'll miss it. I doubt it will miss you, as well.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

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

And just a quick preface: I've glossed over the page you actually meant me to find here [http://www.successandfailure.net/blog/tag/ravi-zacharias/], and holy crap, this is more awful than even I anticipated. Awful! Ravi's summation on the problem of evil is.. pretty bad.

If this page is the kind of apologist self-help scam artist thinking you enjoy reading and following as 'qualified' scholarship, wow, best of luck to you. In everything.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

well no not really, because never created viruses as a form of punishment in the 1st place...


think of the tower of babel...were they really going to see god (reach the heavens) at 10,000 feet to make a name for their self?
:no: they would have suffered from altitude sickness instead...didn't god know that would happen?

A thought just occurred: I cannot recall now what thread it's in but it's one of these with similar participants... does not the Tower of Bable story essentially prove that the bible does in fact describe the Earth as flat with the Heavens directly above it?