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

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

Not really necessary. Even with this explanation I doubt I truly grasp exactly the feelings behind the EO church. But the main question I still have is if god is all powerful why did he construct this inevitability of death and why was Jesus's death required to defeat or sate it? Does this suggest a power outside of god's control or does it suggest that god made a "mistake" in his design?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

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

Josephus.

The Talmud.

Not one of those is a primary source...

Primary sources are original materials.[1] Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary, although it may be used by historians in the absence of a primary source. In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship, although different fields have somewhat different definitions.[2] In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document written by such a person.

Not one of the writers of any of those texts had DIRECT knowledge pertaining to the exist of Jesus, as there is zero eyewitness testimony. Any text about Jesus is a hearsay account, and none have cited a primary source. The bold underlined portion of the quote applies to this debate perfectly.

 

[Shiranui117]

Not really necessary. Even with this explanation I doubt I truly grasp exactly the feelings behind the EO church. But the main question I still have is if god is all powerful why did he construct this inevitability of death and why was Jesus's death required to defeat or sate it? Does this suggest a power outside of god's control or does it suggest that god made a "mistake" in his design?

God did not construct the inevitability of human death. God is Life, and when we deviate from that Life and sin against Him, we depart from Life into death--spiritually and physically. It's like humanity jumping off a boat, which is life, into an ocean, which is death. Jesus dove into the water to pull us out. God doesn't control us; He did give us free will. Humanity was created with the potential to either grow in theosis with God, or to go our own way. God told us what would happen if we chose to go against Him, but we did it anyway. There was and is no "mistake" in His design. There are mistakes in our decisions to not live up to our potential and to God's plan for us.

 

[Sleeppy]

Not one of those is a primary source...



Not one of the writers of any of those texts had DIRECT knowledge pertaining to the exist of Jesus, as there is zero eyewitness testimony. Any text about Jesus is a hearsay account, and none have cited a primary source. The bold underlined portion of the quote applies to this debate perfectly.

Did you read sentence 3? I can claim there is zero eyewitness testimony for any number of things in the past. Especially if the potential witnesses are all dead, didn't have access to any record keeping device other than humans, or if what was recorded was destroyed.

You also can't without doubt claim that none of the aforementioned were not eyewitnesses, or a result of eyewitnesses. Can you?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Did you read sentence 3? I can claim there is zero eyewitness testimony for any number of things in the past. Especially if the potential witnesses are all dead, didn't have access to any record keeping device other than humans, or if what was recorded was destroyed.

I think you need to re-read sentence 3, as it had nothing to do with what you just said. Sentence 3 said "In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study." An example of this would be a newspaper article about the 9/11 attacks written in September of 2001. Which of those sources wrote about Jesus during the supposed lifetime of Jesus?

You also can't without doubt claim that none of the aforementioned were not eyewitnesses, or a result of eyewitnesses. Can you?

I can claim without a doubt that none of the "sources" you mentioned were eyewitnesses. That much is already an established fact. Being a result of an eyewitness is hearsay, and therefore not a primary source, since none of the sources mentioned were written during the lifetime of Jesus.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

God did not construct the inevitability of human death. God is Life, and when we deviate from that Life and sin against Him, we depart from Life into death--spiritually and physically. It's like humanity jumping off a boat, which is life, into an ocean, which is death. Jesus dove into the water to pull us out. God doesn't control us; He did give us free will. Humanity was created with the potential to either grow in theosis with God, or to go our own way. God told us what would happen if we chose to go against Him, but we did it anyway. There was and is no "mistake" in His design. There are mistakes in our decisions to not live up to our potential and to God's plan for us.

So god did not create death? Then that means there is something beyond the control of god. If he created the universe then he must have created all of the concepts therein. What your god seems to be is not an all powerful being but a being that provides something in the universe rather than the designer of the whole universe.

If your willing to accept that then I don't see a specific problem with Jesus dying for our sins as god is fighting against something that isn't himself.

 

[Sleeppy]

I think you need to re-read sentence 3, as it had nothing to do with what you just said. Sentence 3 said "In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study." An example of this would be a newspaper article about the 9/11 attacks written in September of 2001. Which of those sources wrote about Jesus during the supposed lifetime of Jesus?


I can claim without a doubt that none of the "sources" you mentioned were eyewitnesses. That much is already an established fact. Being a result of an eyewitness is hearsay, and therefore not a primary source, since none of the sources mentioned were written during the lifetime of Jesus.

All of those sources are primary, written around the time of Jesus and the very beginning of Christianity. Also, testimony is hearsay. Testimony, however, is still evidence. Read your definitions.

 

[Sculelos]

Shiranui117 already posted my views on the subject so I simply will tell you to listen to this song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rh8i3OrcM0

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Did you read sentence 3? I can claim there is zero eyewitness testimony for any number of things in the past. Especially if the potential witnesses are all dead, didn't have access to any record keeping device other than humans, or if what was recorded was destroyed.

You also can't without doubt claim that none of the aforementioned were not eyewitnesses, or a result of eyewitnesses. Can you?

Is it just understood that I am going to be ignored? I have quoted you several times with a request. Is there any historical evidence for Jesus and his miracles other than the Bible or the dead sea scrolls?

And on the second part specifically the burden of proof is on you as someone who is making the claim.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

All of those sources are primary, written around the time of Jesus and the very beginning of Christianity.

They were written around the time, not AT the time. The first gospel (Mark) was written around 70 CE. Jesus is said to have died around 29-33 CE. 40 years is not close enough to be considered a primary source, unless it was written by an eyewitness.

Also, testimony is hearsay. Testimony, however, is still evidence. Read your definitions.

Testimony is not hearsay, as it comes from a person with direct knowledge. It would be hearsay if the judge told somebody what a witness said.

 

[Shiranui117]

So god did not create death? Then that means there is something beyond the control of god. If he created the universe then he must have created all of the concepts therein. What your god seems to be is not an all powerful being but a being that provides something in the universe rather than the designer of the whole universe.

If your willing to accept that then I don't see a specific problem with Jesus dying for our sins as god is fighting against something that isn't himself.

Well, think of it this way: God created the world and everything in it, and said it was all very good. I'm going to use an analogy here: Think of the universe like a computer. God created everything about the computer and tricked it out with all the good specs, the hardware checked out right, everything was put together and installed correctly, etc. But one of the programs that He put on (and He installed it correctly and in good working order, mind you), rather than doing its intended function, decided to malfunction and introduced a virus into the system. God did not create the virus itself, no, but all the virus is is a corruption and malfunction of certain parts of the system caused by the deviant program.

Death isn't its own thing, it's a malfunction, a deprivation. Just as "cold" isn't its own thing, but a lack of heat, so "death" is a lack of life.

God is indeed all-powerful, but He chooses to restrain that power so we can exert our free will, regardless of the consequences of our actions. But God does make sure to always give us a way out of the messes we make.

 

[gzusfrk]

[youtube]B4kKoV_uDts[/youtube]

This is a short 5 minute clip but it explains the major issues in the concept of Jesus being the sacrifice for mankind.

The death of Jesus to me is one of the most cruel acts one can do. To send your son and die for the sins of your previous children which were a result of the parent is truly one of the most illogical and absurd stories I have heard of.

What are your opinions on Jesus'es dying for mankind's sins?

Jesus said "I am the truth and the way, no one gets to the Father but through me". Heaven is a holy place no evil or sin of any kind can get in, since all have sinned according to the Word, no one could get in heaven. Jesus was of the flesh like you and me, thou without sin, so He was able to get into heaven, now thru him we also can get there.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Jesus said "I am the truth and the way, no one gets to the Father but through me". Heaven is a holy place no evil or sin of any kind can get in, since all have sinned according to the Word, no one could get in heaven. Jesus was of the flesh like you and me, thou without sin, so He was able to get into heaven, now thru him we also can get there.

So God needed to send himself to feel the pain and torment of hell knowing he is the one who created it and maintains it to apparently redeem mankind?

This stands at logical fallacy. How can an omnipotent being actually know what it is like to be human?

 

[Shiranui117]

So God needed to send himself to feel the pain and torment of hell knowing he is the one who created it and maintains it to apparently redeem mankind?

Who ever said that Jesus went to Hell (or more properly, Gehenna)? He went to Hades, which is something altogether different.

This stands at logical fallacy. How can an omnipotent being actually know what it is like to be human?

By becoming human Himself and limiting His power.

 

[gzusfrk]

How can an omnipotent being actually know what it is like to be human?[/quote] By becoming a human as Jesus did.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, think of it this way: God created the world and everything in it, and said it was all very good. I'm going to use an analogy here: Think of the universe like a computer. God created everything about the computer and tricked it out with all the good specs, the hardware checked out right, everything was put together and installed correctly, etc. But one of the programs that He put on (and He installed it correctly and in good working order, mind you), rather than doing its intended function, decided to malfunction and introduced a virus into the system. God did not create the virus itself, no, but all the virus is is a corruption and malfunction of certain parts of the system caused by the deviant program.

Death isn't its own thing, it's a malfunction, a deprivation. Just as "cold" isn't its own thing, but a lack of heat, so "death" is a lack of life.

God is indeed all-powerful, but He chooses to restrain that power so we can exert our free will, regardless of the consequences of our actions. But God does make sure to always give us a way out of the messes we make.

No matter what way you look at it this analogy means that god made a "mistake". Or he intentionally created a malfunction. If death was a malfunction and he sent Jesus in to fix it ....why didn't he send Jesus soon as he saw the problem? Was he waiting for the shipping material or working with Bob from tech support? According to litteralists there is like 4-6 thousand years between Jesus and Adam and Eve. What took so long?

And secondly why couldn't he fix it himself in a much less scapegoat-y way? Why didn't he try unplugging the universe and then plugging it back in? These are still questions at the core that don't seem to be answered.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Who ever said that Jesus went to Hell (or more properly, Gehenna)? He went to Hades, which is something altogether different.

So do you know any Greek at all? If you did you would know that Hades is used as hell numerous times in the Bible. The implication "bowels of the earth: suffices to this.

If different or not by your denomination then this still does not make sense

By becoming human Himself and limiting His power.

God became human? Then where was God? Was God not omnipresent? God cannot cease being God. Why would God require a needless sacrifice of himself which would mean nothing?

How can god be human if he still has the option to became god again. So God/Jesus never suffered or felt what it is like to be purely human.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

So do you know any Greek at all? If you did you would know that Hades is used as hell numerous times in the Bible. The implication "bowels of the earth: suffices to this.

If different or not by your denomination then this still does not make sense



God became human? Then where was God? Was God not omnipresent? God cannot cease being God. Why would God require a needless sacrifice of himself which would mean nothing?

How can god be human if he still has the option to became god again. So God/Jesus never suffered or felt what it is like to be purely human.

Exactly. Dressing in drag wouldn't teach me what it's like to be a woman.

 

[gzusfrk]

No matter what way you look at it this analogy means that god made a "mistake". Or he intentionally created a malfunction. If death was a malfunction and he sent Jesus in to fix it ....why didn't he send Jesus soon as he saw the problem? Was he waiting for the shipping material or working with Bob from tech support? According to litteralists there is like 4-6 thousand years between Jesus and Adam and Eve. What took so long?

And secondly why couldn't he fix it himself in a much less scapegoat-y way? Why didn't he try unplugging the universe and then plugging it back in? These are still questions at the core that don't seem to be answered.

He needed the romans to crucify Him, He also needed the donkey to ride on, There is a time for everything... 2. God has rules, You just cant unplug and replug the universe, seems your trying to think with the mind of God, and thats not possible for a human.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

He needed the romans to crucify Him, He also needed the donkey to ride on, There is a time for everything... 2. God has rules, You just cant unplug and replug the universe, seems your trying to think with the mind of God, and thats not possible for a human.

The plug unplug joke was a joke. I was continuing in the analogy that god was a computor programer experiencing a technical malfunction and he used Jesus to fix it.

God has rules? This means god has limiters ergo meaning his not all powerful.

Why was the Roman's needed to kill Jesus? Why was Jesus needed at all to begin with? I am pointing out that if an all powerful being that created the universe was experiencing technical errors then he would have a better way to fix things rather than waiting 4-6 thousand years and then sending an Avatar to be crucified to this malfunction on his computer. This all seems sketchy to me and it doesn't even make remote sense. Its a cop out to simply say that I will never understand because god is beyond my thoughts. Its another debate all together to get into which I might make a thread for but its not a constructive argument that can have a case made for it.