The Atonement is the important part - Not the Crusifixion

[logician]

From a statistical point of view, however, if no historian contempory to the supposed time of Christ acts like he even heard of such a man, the probability is quite low that the man existed, at least as presented in the Xian bible.

 

[Hope]

If secular history is inaccurate, it doesn't risk my eternal future. It's not the history so much as the implications that give rise to the different standards.

Of course. But again, that is not a legitimate excuse for not subjecting secular history to the same scrutiny that is applied to Biblical history.

 

[Hope]

From a statistical point of view, however, if no historian contempory to the supposed time of Christ acts like he even heard of such a man, the probability is quite low that the man existed, at least as presented in the Xian bible.

I don't think any historian contemporary to your time will mention you either ....unless, of course, you happen to achieve some type of fame before you die.

I just find that argument silly. Why would historians concern themselves with a humble Jewish rabbi from an obscure town in Judea in the first place? During most of His life He was a "nobody." It was only His death and resurrection that spread His fame around the world. And rightly so.

Most scholars nowadays agree that Jesus did exist. The probability that He was "invented" is far lower than the probability of His actually existing.

 

[Buttercup]

By your attitude I mean your feelings, your subjective stance. You made it clear that you oppose the idea of hell. Therefore, that opposition is going to affect any otherwise objective inspection of the historical validity of the Bible.

I suppose the same goes for you in regard to believing anything against the bible? Your subjective stance won't let you see otherwise?

If that's what you're saying to me.....it's simply not true. I was a devoted Christian for 30 years (Baptist) and did the majority of my studying of theology and bible history during those years. That's why I don't have a problem with any newly discovered cities, coins, or other artifacts that support the bible historically. It's not hard to imagine that most of the "history" surrounding bible stories is true.

Like I said before....Through reading fictional stories you can find some truth within. It's when a novel makes supernatural claims you start to treat it differently, like the fiction it is. The same holds true for what the bible claims.....we are left to believe second or third hand accounts of what people saw. It's incredibly unfair to impose such a harsh punishment on humans for not wholly believing in heresay that's over 2,000 years old.

 

[Hope]

I suppose the same goes for you in regard to believing anything against the bible? Your subjective stance won't let you see otherwise?

If that's what you're saying to me.....it's simply not true. I was a devoted Christian for 30 years (Baptist) and did the majority of my studying of theology and bible history during those years. That's why I don't have a problem with any newly discovered cities, coins, or other artifacts that support the bible historically. It's not hard to imagine that most of the "history" surrounding bible stories is true.

Like I said before....Through reading fictional stories you can find some truth within. It's when a novel makes supernatural claims you start to treat it differently, like the fiction it is. The same holds true for what the bible claims.....we are left to believe second or third hand accounts of what people saw. It's incredibly unfair to impose such a harsh punishment on humans for not wholly believing in heresay that's over 2,000 years old.

I understand where you are coming from, buttercup. And we've had a similar discussion before.

However, my main point on the matter, as I keep saying, is that it's unfair to not subject secular history to the same stringent standards as Biblical history. And comparing the Bible to fictional stories is not entirely accurate either. It may seem like a fair analogy to you, but only because you see the Bible as containing mostly myth. To be fair, unlike fictional stories, the Bible never claims to be fiction----on the contrary, it claims to be true.

So if Christians, and non-Christians alike, take this claim seriously, it should at least be investigated. If we are basing our faith on the basis of a document being historically accurate, we have every right to discover if it is indeed accurate! I think Christians should be applauded for that, because it shows we are not relying on blind faith, or basing our faith on myths.

You have a good point about Christians' subjective stance. However, those who don't believe the Bible to be true have far more at stake than those who do believe it to be true. Why? Well you and others have already admitted why. If Christians are wrong, then, sure, it'll be highly disappointing, but it won't affect us too much. However, if we are right, then it has enormous implications for unbelievers. And this is why I'm saying a bias comes in, and obviously affects how unbelievers approach the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

I was talking about this very issue in Christian Ed on Sunday. There comes a point when all the archaeology, all the history, all the socialogical studies fail us. There comes a point when we just have to decide that we're going to trust each other. The earliest Christians obviously believed very deeply in what they told as truth -- as fact. Do we trust them, or don't we? Do we trust what our friends tell us, or don't we? Do we trust what our families tell us, or don't we? Do we tend to trust them more when they are truly passionate about what they're saying? Why should we trust the apostles and disciples any less than we would trust our best friend?

Regardless of the evidence, we have always trusted the witness of our friends -- the witness of the Church -- whether it's written, or spoken, or performed as an act of faith. What, exactly, is that witness? We can't just look in the Bible. We can't just look to the extra-Biblical sources. We can't just look to the Tradition. We can't just look to the praxis. We have to look at all of it together to see what makes sense. Otherwise we're just poking around in one corner of a dim library.

When we look at all of them together, I just don't see that they add up to a substitutionary atonement. When I look at Christ on the cross, I see a grain of wheat, fallen to the ground of its own volition, cracked and broken open in order to bring new life. Christ came to fill the world with wheat so that we would never be hungry again. In order to do that, the seed had to be planted. When we dig in the tomb, where the seed was planted, we don't find the seed there, for it has gone, transformed into the root of new life that now reaches up past the soil toward heaven.

 

[joeboonda]

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10Yet 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.
11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

According to this, Christ was: wounded for our transgressions (sins), bruised for our iniquities (sins), chastised for our peace, whipped for our healing. the Lord laid our iniquities (sins) upon him, he was as a lamb to the slaughter (for our sins). He was cut off from the land of the living (killed) for our transgressions (sins), he bore our sins, etc. God does not pour out his wrath toward sinners, but toward sins. Christ endured God's full wrath of all the sin of all the world of all time. The offer is very simple, believe in Christ to have paid for your sins, or do not believe and pay for them yourself in Hell forever. This is the absolute clear teaching of the Bible.

 

[Hope]

Regardless of the evidence, we have always trusted the witness of our friends -- the witness of the Church -- whether it's written, or spoken, or performed as an act of faith. What, exactly, is that witness? We can't just look in the Bible. We can't just look to the extra-Biblical sources. We can't just look to the Tradition. We can't just look to the praxis. We have to look at all of it together to see what makes sense. Otherwise we're just poking around in one corner of a dim library.

When we look at all of them together, I just don't see that they add up to a substitutionary atonement.

Well, your version of what makes sense is just that: your version. I try to look at everything together too, and I still can't see how such a conclusion in regards to substitutionary atonement can be arrived at.

 

[joeboonda]

See what I've emboldened? That's a significant statement. God will not always strive with us. One day, we will all recognize that we have been reconciled to God. And God will remain patient with us until that time.

What I said was that if we think God stands by helplessly while we are thrown into Hell, then God is not omnipotent, nor powerful to save. Either God saves, or God does not. I believe that God saves.

The context of the verse about God not always striving with us was in Genesis:

"3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years...
God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

God warns us not to harden our hearts and turn from him in disobedience. He warns of those whose ears have become dull of hearing, who's eyes have become dim, and their hearts heardened. This is the result of continued disobedience and disbelief and the continued ignoring of the striving of the Holy Spirit of God. This is what the Bible teaches, not that by striving with the Spirit one will recognize they are reconcilled to God, but that because of ignoring the Spirit and continuing in disbelief and disobedience--SIN--they will find themselves condemned:

John 3

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

 

[joeboonda]

So, you're saying that God only speaks to us through the Bible? I don't think you can support that POV.

Are you saying that the Church, itself, is not "god-breathed?" I don't think you can support that POV, either.

Yes, the Bible is authoritative, and is used as a measure for doctrine and faith. That's why it's been canonized. But doctrine and faith are built upon scripture, tradition, and reason, like a stool. If all three legs are not utilized, the stool will topple. Too many heresies have been instigated without a balance of the three. We must also rely on the authority of the Church, and the authority of our sense of reason.

Relying on only one leg of the stool permits the stool to be blown over by the wind of doctrine. It can only stand solid on all its legs.

God's word does not change, but our understanding of it certainly does.

I will rest on the Authority of the Word of God and where a church or someone's "sense of reason" disagrees with the clear teaching of the Bible, I will go with the Bible, the inspired Word of God profitable for all, well, here it is:

2 Tim. 3:15-17

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[logician]

I just find that argument silly. Why would historians concern themselves with a humble Jewish rabbi from an obscure town in Judea in the first place? During most of His life He was a "nobody." It was only His death and resurrection that spread His fame around the world. And rightly so.

.

This is certainly untrue - feeding the multitudes, healing the sick, raising the dead, these are the kinds of things people take note of. If that's a "nobody" you have strange standards.

 

[madhatter85]

He wore humble clothes, he worked as a carpenter, he fished alongside his fellow men. He worked for what he had, he didn't sit around waving to people in fancy robes with a fancy hat. he didn't seek to be poular, he helped those in need who truely believed in the father. And he even asked heavenly father for help many times, There was none other self-less enough to take his place in the plan of salvation, none who would stand up to the task. He never asked for anything except that ye repent and have faith in him, and having faith in him means that you will live his teachings and follow his words so that we can all return to live with our heavely father again. otherwise the atonement would be in vain.

 

[logician]

He wore humble clothes, he worked as a carpenter, he fished alongside his fellow men. He worked for what he had, he didn't sit around waving to people in fancy robes with a fancy hat. he didn't seek to be poular, he helped those in need who truely believed in the father. And he even asked heavenly father for help many times, There was none other self-less enough to take his place in the plan of salvation, none who would stand up to the task. He never asked for anything except that ye repent and have faith in him, and having faith in him means that you will live his teachings and follow his words so that we can all return to live with our heavely father again. otherwise the atonement would be in vain.

Any source besides the gospels for this statement?

 

[madhatter85]

Any source besides the gospels for this statement?

ah, i just read the question right.

why should i debate this with an athiest? you don;t believe in an form of divine Diety, hence why should you even worry about what we are discussing here?

 

[Hope]

This is certainly untrue - feeding the multitudes, healing the sick, raising the dead, these are the kinds of things people take note of. If that's a "nobody" you have strange standards.

Not strange standards at all.

Jesus never traveled outside of Israel. Regardless of His miracles, He was still a poor, humble, Jewish rabbi who was of no interest to the outside world. If He had traveled to say, modern-day Turkey, or other surrounding nations, and performed His miracles, then undoubtedly His fame would have spread. But no respecting historian during His day would have given Him a second thought, if indeed they had even heard of Him. And within Israel, He was unpopular amongst the educated elite, so it's no surprise that they wouldn't write about him. Keep in mind too, that He only performed these miracles for 3 years....most of His life was spent in total obscurity.

The only miracle He did that made the world sit up and notice was His resurrection, because not only was that something unheard of, but because it gave birth to a multitude of followers who rapidly spread around the known world.

So, in light of all this, you still have little to base your argument upon.

 

[wizanda]

Personally like what Yeshua had to say.....find this sort of discussion sickening.....
Luk 6:25

(25) Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.