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

[Sleeppy]

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.

The Talmud. Josephus.

 

[Sleeppy]

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.



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.

What would qualify as being at the time? And how do you know there was no eyewitness? Or that the author of Mark was not an eyewitness?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The Talmud. Josephus.

The Talmund I've heard of. I just went to Wikipedia and this is the first paragraph on the page dedicated to its relation to Jesus.

The Talmud contains passages that some scholars have concluded are references to Christian traditions about Jesus. The history of textual transmission of these passages is complex and scholars are not agreed concerning which passages are original, and which were added later or removed later in reaction to the actions of Christians. Scholars are also divided on the relationship of the passages, if any, to the historical Jesus, though most modern scholarship views the passages as reaction to Christian proselytism rather than having any meaningful trace of a historical Jesus

Seems like a vague at best mentioning of Jesus and not even his specific miracles or unbelievable acts of miraculous works. It is not a clear referral to Jesus. Especially since its a Jewish book I doubt it has anything that tells us he was the son of god.


Josephus's accounts have been refuted and it seems to be that the scholars are mostly in agreement that it has some basis in fact but some of it has been forged. And again both of the references that he has (real or not) do not actually have any record of his miracles or Resurrection. But rather as a political figure. I don't necessarily agree that there was no such person as Jesus but simply he did none of what he was accredited to in terms of his divinity or miracles.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

What would qualify as being at the time? And how do you know there was no eyewitness? Or that the author of Mark was not an eyewitness?

At the time, meaning while it was happening or directly afterwards (such as a morning after news article). I'm not saying there were no eyewitnesses to these events (although I don't believe there are because I don't think any of it happened); I'm saying nobody wrote about it. It's not even up for dispute that the author of Mark wasn't an eyewitness. Not even the most fanatical Bible supporters that have any education on the matter will say he was.

 

[Sculelos]

What would qualify as being at the time? And how do you know there was no eyewitness? Or that the author of Mark was not an eyewitness?

Most of the New Testament was written by eyewitnesses with the exception of Saul who was not an eyewitness but was a very strong Jewish believer who persecuted Christians but later met Jesus on the road to Damascus and later repented and changed his name to Paul and became one of the most outspoken Christians of all time. Revelations was the Final book and it was written about 88 AD and it was the final book of the Bible and Yes it was written by the last Apostle to die.

 

[Sleeppy]

At the time, meaning while it was happening or directly afterwards (such as a morning after news article). I'm not saying there were no eyewitnesses to these events (although I don't believe there are because I don't think any of it happened); I'm saying nobody wrote about it. It's not even up for dispute that the author of Mark wasn't an eyewitness.

Good thing there are methods of preservation. Otherwise, we'd be questioning George Washington as well.

I'm disputing it now. Tell me why Mark isn't considered eyewitness testimony.

 

[Shiranui117]

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.

"Hell" originally meant "Hades," but over the years somehow came to be equated with the Lake of Fire mentioned in Revelation. Hades within the Christian context is equivalent to Hebrew Sheol.

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

It does if you understand the terms.

God became human?

Specifically, God the Son did, yes. One of the Trinity became human, ergo, God became human.

Then where was God?

The Father was still in Heaven, and the Holy Spirit was still doing His thing. You still had God while Jesus was on earth.

Was God not omnipresent?

Yes He was, though the Son probably limited Himself in that regard for a time. The Father and the Spirit were still fully omnipresent.

God cannot cease being God.

Nor did He.

Why would God require a needless sacrifice of himself which would mean nothing?

What do you mean? Did you read what I wrote to Monk of Reason? Let me quote:

"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."

How can god be human if he still has the option to became god again.

He became fully human, while remaining fully God. Does this mean that Jesus never needed to learn anything and was completely independent right after birth? No. He Who is omniscient had to be potty-trained, He had to learn how to walk, read, write and talk. The omnipotent, eternal God (that is, God the Son, not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit) became a helpless human infant. Is it beneath God the Son to limit His omnipotence and omniscience in such a way as to really get down on our level? Yes, it is. But this is the length which He went to in order to redeem us. This is the depth of the love of God.

So God/Jesus never suffered or felt what it is like to be purely human.

That's where you're wrong. He did share in all of our frustrations, temptations, joys, hopes, and sufferings. He shared in our life and in our death. He has a human soul, human body, human mind, human will, human intellect. He just also happens to be fully divine as well. He is 100% man and 100% God, without being a chimera of the two.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I'm disputing it now. Tell me why Mark isn't considered eyewitness testimony.

Because the author didn't witness any of the events he wrote about with his eyes...

 

[Sleeppy]

The Talmund I've heard of. I just went to Wikipedia and this is the first paragraph on the page dedicated to its relation to Jesus.


Seems like a vague at best mentioning of Jesus and not even his specific miracles or unbelievable acts of miraculous works. It is not a clear referral to Jesus. Especially since its a Jewish book I doubt it has anything that tells us he was the son of god.


Josephus's accounts have been refuted and it seems to be that the scholars are mostly in agreement that it has some basis in fact but some of it has been forged. And again both of the references that he has (real or not) do not actually have any record of his miracles or Resurrection. But rather as a political figure. I don't necessarily agree that there was no such person as Jesus but simply he did none of what he was accredited to in terms of his divinity or miracles.

Neither would you believe unless you saw for yourself.

 

[Sleeppy]

Because the author didn't witness any of the events he wrote about with his eyes...

Are you giving me hearsay?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Neither would you believe unless you saw for yourself.

No? I believe history. It has ample historical evidence from solid sources. However your sources are vague and shaky at best. However even if I took them at total face value they still don't say anything about Jesus being the son of god or doing anything that the bible claims.

 

[Sculelos]

Are you giving me hearsay?

I'd say it's either safest to throw away the entire Bible or take the entire Bible as a whole and study all of it.

Picking and choosing what you like and what you don't like is just bad creed.

 

[Sleeppy]

No? I believe history. It has ample historical evidence from solid sources. However your sources are vague and shaky at best. However even if I took them at total face value they still don't say anything about Jesus being the son of god or doing anything that the bible claims.

What history do you have of that period and region?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What history do you have of that period and region?

The Romans? We also know quite a bit of Greek history. Lets face it we have more information and historical evidence for King Leonidas than Jesus.

 

[Sleeppy]

The Romans? We also know quite a bit of Greek history. Lets face it we have more information and historical evidence for King Leonidas than Jesus.

Pertaining to Israel.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Pertaining to Israel.

I am not a historian no. But it stands to reason that if Jesus was someone who was able to do vast miracles such as healing the blind or other ailments (in mass I might add) that SOMEBODY would have written that down in a historical context. No other text has written anything of the sort except in the bible. And to add on those people all wrote it down 30-40 years after his death if not later. No where else in the bible does it even reference any of his specific miracles.

It was also a common idea that persisted for more than a thousand years after his death disease was caused by demons and thats why he was able to heal. To people ignorant of germs and the proper medical knowledge this would have seemed feesable. However we now know that demons aren't the cause of cancer or blindness or other illnesses. So casting out demons wouldn't really make sense to heal someone.

But even all of that aside the simple fact that there is zero evidence for any supernatural otherworldly powers of Jesus aside from the bible, casts doubt that it really ever happened.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Bart Ehrman sums the situation up in his widely-used intro work The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings: “…They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death by authors who did not know him, authors living in different countries who were writing at different times to different communities with different problems and concerns.”

Luke himself clearly states that he was no follower of Jesus. Nor could Matthew have been a follower of Jesus, for he depends almost entirely on Mark for the skeleton of his story. And Mark could not have been a follower of Jesus because the narrative portions of his story are made up almost entirely out of the Old Testament, while the sayings appear to be common to the Hellenistic milieu.

A good place to start is with Udo Schnelle’s The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings. Schelle, a conservative Christian and scholar of the first rank, notes that none of the Gospel writers could have been followers of Jesus (see his discussion of the authorship of the Gospel writers in each of the chapters on the particularly texts).

I do not know off hand of any atheist historian or NT scholar who accepts the Gospels as eyewitness accounts, and there are several scholars who appear to believe that Jesus was not a historical figure (Earl Doherty, G Wells, Burton Mack).
- Michael Turton

Nobody even thinks there's a chance the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

 

[Sha'irullah]

"Hell" originally meant "Hades," but over the years somehow came to be equated with the Lake of Fire mentioned in Revelation. Hades within the Christian context is equivalent to Hebrew Sheol.

You are blatantly wrong considering Hades is of HELLENIC ORIGIN. It has nothing to do with Sheol.

It does if you understand the terms.

As I said before, this is irrelevant considering that where Jesus went to is not overly important

Specifically, God the Son did, yes. One of the Trinity became human, ergo, God became human.

]So there are 3 Gods? If one of the parts became human then you are ceasing to use logic which would come with basic mathematical skills.
3 is not 1, period. So God sent his "Son". There is no unity in this nor does any Greek text say otherwise.

The Father was still in Heaven, and the Holy Spirit was still doing His thing. You still had God while Jesus was on earth.

Polytheism again. So God tortures and murders his own son?

Yes He was, though the Son probably limited Himself in that regard for a time. The Father and the Spirit were still fully omnipresent.

If the Son limited himself then he limited God. You are applying separation. Either God is God or it is 3 Gods. Make a decision.

We cannot continue this debate unless otherwise.

Nor did He.

So God did not cease being God meaning he was not human when on earth.

What do you mean? Did you read what I wrote to Monk of Reason? Let me quote:

I have no idea what Monk_of_Reason said and it is of little concern to me.

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.

Then what are you left with in regards to Jesus's death?

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."

I do not care about either view and I know plenty enough about them.

He became fully human, while remaining fully God. Does this mean that Jesus never needed to learn anything and was completely independent right after birth? No. He Who is omniscient had to be potty-trained, He had to learn how to walk, read, write and talk. The omnipotent, eternal God (that is, God the Son, not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit) became a helpless human infant. Is it beneath God the Son to limit His omnipotence and omniscience in such a way as to really get down on our level? Yes, it is. But this is the length which He went to in order to redeem us. This is the depth of the love of God.

Logical absurdity. You cannot be 200% of anything or else you would end up with 2 nor can you be 300% or you would end up with 3. The very definition of separation or a triune being would imply automatic compliance within the boundaries of existence.

Jesus/God played human? He was changed and grew up as a baby? What sort of god is this?
How can you say that god had his diaper changed?

That's where you're wrong. He did share in all of our frustrations, temptations, joys, hopes, and sufferings. He shared in our life and in our death. He has a human soul, human body, human mind, human will, human intellect. He just also happens to be fully divine as well. He is 100% man and 100% God, without being a chimera of the two.

Again logical fallacy. God could only be 2 separates if you make a 2x (x=100%<y).

 

[Sleeppy]

I am not a historian no. But it stands to reason that if Jesus was someone who was able to do vast miracles such as healing the blind or other ailments (in mass I might add) that SOMEBODY would have written that down in a historical context. No other text has written anything of the sort except in the bible. And to add on those people all wrote it down 30-40 years after his death if not later. No where else in the bible does it even reference any of his specific miracles.

It was also a common idea that persisted for more than a thousand years after his death disease was caused by demons and thats why he was able to heal. To people ignorant of germs and the proper medical knowledge this would have seemed feesable. However we now know that demons aren't the cause of cancer or blindness or other illnesses. So casting out demons wouldn't really make sense to heal someone.

But even all of that aside the simple fact that there is zero evidence for any supernatural otherworldly powers of Jesus aside from the bible, casts doubt that it really ever happened.

30 years isn't that long, considering the circumstances. Major social dysfunction and separation. Roman conquest. He was murdered. Who's to say His mention wasn't prohibited? And in more than one way? They destroyed quite a bit from that time. Much of the culture is destroyed to this day. No ones going to the temple with offerings anymore. Israel is only recently being restored, a couple thousand years later.

The Romans wouldn't have tolerated someone who could cause their end. Jews would've offered Him up, out of fear, especially considering He blatantly acknowledged that He would not do anything about the Romans, and instead planned to die.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

30 years isn't that long, considering the circumstances. Major social dysfunction and separation. Roman conquest. He was murdered. Who's to say His mention wasn't prohibited? And in more than one way? They destroyed quite a bit from that time. Much of the culture is destroyed to this day. No ones going to the temple with offerings anymore. Israel is only recently being restored, a couple thousand years later.

The Romans wouldn't have tolerated someone who could cause their end. Jews would've offered Him up, out of fear, especially considering He blatantly acknowledged that He would not do anything about the Romans, and instead planned to die.

The Bible itself says the Romans wanted nothing to do with killing Jesus. I highly doubt there was a massive Roman conspiracy to cover it all up. Just saying...