The fallacy of Jesus dying for our sins (By Shabir Ally)

[Sleeppy]

He didn't know was gonna be killed according to the author of the story. Good stories have twists and turns and the Jesus story writer ended it with dinner and a movie. (The Passion of the Christ).

Whenever you reread, look for the instances He tells His disciples that He will be taken away from them. Not to mention what He told Judas to do.

 

[Awoon]

Whenever you reread, look for the instances He tells His disciples that He will be taken away from them. Not to mention what He told Judas to do.

The story writer created that. No one parties with their friends knowing death is tomorrow and says we gonna be drinking wine again soon.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Actually it does. Testimony. Is the evidence reliable? It depends on credentials and credibility ratings. And that was my point, you can deny Jesus existence, but the outcome- the end result, which is Christianity, remains.

Testimony is only admissible as evidence if it is reliable. The existence of people that say Jesus died for us on the cross (Christianity) has no bearing on whether or not it actually happened. Your argument that everything Christians believe is true because they believe it is nonsense at best. I never argued about the existence of Christianity; I said their beliefs aren't based on any actual evidence, to which you replied "Christianity is evidence".

I mentioned X before his latter years, really only to open you up. I'm curious as to what the difference in approach would have been, at that point.

Malcolm X wouldn't have told innocent people getting abused with clubs, dogs, and water hoses not to fight back. MLK's naive approach was "maybe if we let them abuse us enough without any retaliation, the whole world will rally behind us out of pity, or God will reward our righteousness". Pure crap. And don't even get me started on the March on Washington... Either way, that's neither here nor there in regards to the subject. If you want to continue discussing MLK with me, open another thread or PM me. I

 

[Sleeppy]

The story writer created that. No one parties with their friends knowing death is tomorrow and says we gonna be drinking wine again soon.

You accept some of what the 'story writer' says, deny the rest, and become your own 'story writer'?

 

[Awoon]

You accept some of what the 'story writer' says, deny the rest, and become your own 'story writer'?

Sure I do. The story is like The Wizard of Oz. Just a story.

 

[Shiranui117]

The man does a good job of debunking the common Protestant idea of why Jesus died for our sins, and I use many of those same arguments myself. I'd like to see him try to actually tackle the original Christian teaching on the subject.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The man does a good job of debunking the common Protestant idea of why Jesus died for our sins, and I use many of those same arguments myself. I'd like to see him try to actually tackle the original Christian teaching on the subject.

Please provide the specifics behind the Eastern Orthodox ideology. Its not actually common knowledge. I have only breifly studied Eastern Orthodox during 2 of my classes and I still wouldn't really claim to know what you mean by the difference between the way they view Jesus's Crucifixion as set apart from the general Protestant view.

 

[Sleeppy]

Testimony is only admissible as evidence if it is reliable. The existence of people that say Jesus died for us on the cross (Christianity) has no bearing on whether or not it actually happened. Your argument that everything Christians believe is true because they believe it is nonsense at best. I never argued about the existence of Christianity; I said their beliefs aren't based on any actual evidence, to which you replied "Christianity is evidence".

You've been misunderstanding my argument.

Testimony is evidence. What determines reliability of testimony? Credentials and/or credibility ratings. And other evidence. Is testimony always true? No. Evidence does not always affirm a theory unequivocally. This is the reasoning behind collecting what is called a 'body of evidence.' And usually, the 'body' is then aligned with the theory.

I'm correcting your statements, but really my only point was that it doesn't matter if you deny Christianity, the evidence, as pointing to Jesus' existence. Even if you dismiss Jesus' existence, the evidence of His supposed existence still exists.

Is there evidence to say He didn't exist? Sure. But there's a greater 'body of evidence' for His existence, that you seem to have overlooked.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You've been misunderstanding my argument.

Testimony is evidence. What determines reliability of testimony? Credentials and/or credibility ratings. And other evidence. Is testimony always true? No. Evidence does not always affirm a theory unequivocally. This is the reasoning behind collecting what is called a 'body of evidence.' And usually, the 'body' is then aligned with the theory.

I'm correcting your statements, but really my only point was that it doesn't matter if you deny Christianity, the evidence, as pointing to Jesus' existence. Even if you dismiss Jesus' existence, the evidence of His supposed existence still exists.

Is there evidence to say He didn't exist? Sure. But there's a greater 'body of evidence' for His existence, that you seem to have overlooked.

What is the evidence for his existence other than the bible? Specifically.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You've been misunderstanding my argument.

Testimony is evidence. What determines reliability of testimony? Credentials and/or credibility ratings. Is testimony always true? No. Evidence does not always affirm a theory unequivocally. This is the reasoning behind collecting what is called a 'body of evidence.' And usually, the 'body' is then aligned with the theory.

I'm correcting your statements, but really my only point was that it doesn't matter if you deny Christianity, the evidence, as pointing to Jesus' existence. Even if you dismiss Jesus' existence, the evidence of His supposed existence still exists.

Is there evidence to say He didn't exist? Sure. But there's a greater 'body of evidence' for His existence, that you seem to have overlooked.

Not all testimony is evidence; only that which is deemed reliable. The only testimony for Jesus' existence has no known primary source. Hearsay is not admitted as evidence anywhere. When you can cite eyewitness testimony that supports the existence of Jesus, you'll have your evidence. Changing the definition of evidence to conveniently fit your position doesn't change facts.

 

[Sleeppy]

Not all testimony is evidence; only that which is deemed reliable. The only testimony for Jesus' existence has no known primary source. Hearsay is not admitted as evidence anywhere. When you can cite eyewitness testimony that supports the existence of Jesus, you'll have your evidence. Changing the definition of evidence to conveniently fit your position doesn't change facts.

His existence actually has several primary sources.

As far as changing definitions? I'm curious to see your evidence.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

His existence actually has several primary sources.

Name one...

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

As far as changing definitions? I'm curious to see your evidence.

The fact that you define hearsay as evidence...

 

[Sleeppy]

The fact that you define hearsay as evidence...

Well then.. provide the definitions of 'hearsay', 'testimony', and 'evidence.'

 

[Monk Of Reason]

His existence actually has several primary sources.

I think you missed my post last page. Can you provide some evidence other than the bible for Jesus's existence?

 

[Straw Dog]

What's the problem? Personally, I always require ritualistic torture and sacrifice before I'm even capable of forgiving anybody that's done me wrong. It's only fair, right? I mean, what am I supposed to do? Forgive people out of the goodness of my heart? Without gratuitous violence and bloodshed? I don't know about all that! It just conflicts too much with my highly developed bronze-age sense of justice.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Well then.. provide the definitions of 'hearsay', 'testimony', and 'evidence.'

hear·say [heer-sey] Show IPA
noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2.
an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
adjective
3.
of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.

tes·ti·mo·ny [tes-tuh-moh-nee, or, esp. British, -muh-nee] Show IPA
noun, plural tes·ti·mo·nies.
1.
Law. the statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation, usually in court.

2.
open declaration or profession, as of faith.


ev·i·dence [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
2.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

 

[Shiranui117]

Please provide the specifics behind the Eastern Orthodox ideology. Its not actually common knowledge. I have only breifly studied Eastern Orthodox during 2 of my classes and I still wouldn't really claim to know what you mean by the difference between the way they view Jesus's Crucifixion as set apart from the general Protestant view.

Sure, I'm not too surprised that you're not familiar with it, given that the West has become increasingly alienated from the original Christian teaching on the matter ever since Anselm of Canterbury and John Calvin invented the current Protestant understanding.

The Orthodox understanding of Christ's death and Resurrection (the two are always understood in one context) is multifaceted.

God didn't sacrifice His Son to Himself. Jesus' death was like a sting operation. He died to destroy Death from the inside, and to break its hold over mankind. He freed us from slavery to sin and death, and also redeemed all the dead who would accept Him--Adam and Eve, those who died in the Flood, the Israelites, you name it. Jesus' ransom wasn't paid to God (God isn't the one with the problem, we are) and He didn't pay it to the devil (why would God pay a ransom to the devil?), but He paid it to the reality of death itself, since it was death that we were in bondage to. In our icons of the Resurrection, you will see Jesus busting open the gates of Hades, pulling up Adam and Eve out of their graves. This is sort of a composite view of Christus Victor and Ransom theory.

A good illustration of this is to be found in the Paschal Sermon of St. John Chrysostom, recited yearly at the Matins service of Pascha:

Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shown forth from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Savior’s death has set us free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it. By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry: Hell, said he, was embittered, when it encountered Thee in the lower regions. It was embittered, for it was abolished. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was overthrown. It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains. It took a body, and met God face to face. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen. O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen.


Another vital part of the Orthodox understanding of Christ's Crucifixion is what is called Recapitulation theory. This states that Jesus became man, lived and died to fully take on every aspect of our humanity--and so bring it back and redeem it to His Divinity, healing our humanity. His death on the Cross is the ultimate sharing in our human experience--we say that one of the Trinity suffered and died in the flesh. After Christ rose from the dead and broke the power of death over humanity, Jesus fully reconciled us to God, and reopened to us the gates of Paradise which had been closed since the Fall. Jesus made atonement between us and God--and atonement literally means at-one-ment. Being fully God and fully man, Jesus bridged the gap between us and God, the gap that is the result of sin. Jesus' very Incarnation, life, death and Resurrection were all acts of salvation.


The final part of Orthodox understanding in this area is what we call the Moral Influence theory. This states that Jesus taught and died to actually teach us something. Jesus gave His teachings--and backed it up by example. His death on the Cross is a demonstration of His overwhelming love for mankind, in that He willingly died for us on the Cross.


Now, the two things that Shabir Ally successfully dismantles (and which we Orthodox condemn as being flat-out wrong at best, and heretical at worst) are Satisfactionary atonement and substitutionary atonement.


If you'd like, I can provide Scripture and logical defenses for all of what I posted about the Orthodox view, and explain the difference between the Orthodox and Calvinist Protestant views.

 

[Sleeppy]

Name one...

The gospels, both in the canon and without (Dead Sea scrolls, etc.)

Josephus.

The Talmud.

 

[Sleeppy]

hear·say [heer-sey] Show IPA
noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2.
an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
adjective
3.
of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.

tes·ti·mo·ny [tes-tuh-moh-nee, or, esp. British, -muh-nee] Show IPA
noun, plural tes·ti·mo·nies.
1.
Law. the statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation, usually in court.

2.
open declaration or profession, as of faith.


ev·i·dence [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
2.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

And where did I change any of these?