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

[Shiranui117]

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

Are you ignorant of the fact that, when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into the Greek Septuagint, the Jews translated Hebrew "Sheol" into Greek "Hades"?

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.

Your failure to understand Trinitarian theology is not a refutation of why we believe Jesus died for our sins.

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

No.

If the Son limited himself then he limited God. You are applying separation.

Distinction, not separation.

Either God is God or it is 3 Gods. Make a decision.

We cannot continue this debate unless otherwise.

Understand the Trinity (or at least go along with the concept) or don't.

We cannot continue this debate otherwise.

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

Your failure to understand Christology is not my problem.

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

So IOW, you choose to completely ignore my explanation of the original Christian teaching about why/how Jesus died for our sins, which is the entire point of this topic?

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

Did you even read the two massive paragraphs and the four links I gave, or are you just being deliberately obstinate?

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

Clearly not, otherwise you would have at least attempted an educated response to what I posted about the Orthodox view, which Shabir Ally completely fails to address, and so far, you have also failed to address.

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.

The biggest fallacy of the post-Enlightenment world is the idea that, somehow, finite beings with finite minds can fully understand an infinite God.

If you wish to elevate logic above God, be my guest.

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?

Because God loved us enough to become one of us. This is the concept that completely baffles atheists and Muslims--the concept that God actually loves us and cares about us.

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

So what, God is beholden to human logic?

If this is the case, then... To quote the Hulk, "Puny God."

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

Thats all great. However you still haven't provided any evidence for it. Its all assumptions based on assumptions. There still would be recorded evidence if something like that had happened.

 

[Sleeppy]

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

No definitive reasoning, whatsoever. One opinion.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

No definitive reasoning, whatsoever. One opinion.

I challenge you to find one source that says the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses... It's not even a matter that's disputed anymore.

 

[Sleeppy]

Thats all great. However you still haven't provided any evidence for it. Its all assumptions based on assumptions. There still would be recorded evidence if something like that had happened.

Not really. Evidence is erased all day, everyday. But, around 30 or so years later, there is evidence. Testimony. Where is the history from that time that refutes the information being presented 30 years later? Why didn't anyone speak up and say 'that didn't happen, this did?'

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

The author of Luke specifically says he wasn't an eyewitness, but gathered his information from statements made by early Christians.
Luke 1:1-4

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

 

[Sleeppy]

I challenge you to find one source that says the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses... It's not even a matter that's disputed anymore.

I'm not done challenging your only source. Where's the reasoning behind all that speculation?

 

[Sleeppy]

The author of Luke specifically says he wasn't an eyewitness, but gathered his information from statements made by early Christians.
Luke 1:1-4

Did you read over that part saying, 'fulfilled among us'? It looks to me like 'Luke' was verifying earlier prophets.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I'm not done challenging your only source. Where's the reasoning behind all that speculation?

How are 3 separate people (all of whom are Biblical scholars, by the way) seen as one source?

The reasoning is:
-The Gospels were written in Greek, not Aramaic.
-the author of Luke clearly says he wasn't an eyewitness
-Mark was written about 35 years after the story in question. There would not have been a large number of eyewitnesses left. Luke and Matthew were about 50 years after. John was written 65+ years after the supposed death of Jesus, when the vast majority, if not all, of the eyewitnesses would have been dead (Life expectancy was pretty low in the 1st Century).
-The Gospel of Mark contains 661 verses. Of those 661, the book of Matthew repeats 607 almost word for word. Why would an eyewitness to the actual events need to copy about 90% of an earlier author's work?
-The language used by the author of Mark suggests he was not a Jew. The disciple of Jesus named Mark was a Jew.
Mark 7:10

For Moses said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'

Note that he says "For Moses said" rather than "for God said", as a Jew of the time would have put it, because they believed the Ten Commandments to be the literal word of God, as evidenced by Matthew 15:4(Written by a Jew)

For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'

-Mark 5:1 specifies that on the eastern side of the lake of Galilee is the country of the Gerasenes . This place was more than 30 miles away from any lake. Matthew changed Mark's Gerasenes to Gadarenes in Matthew 8:28. Gadara was a well-known spa only eight miles from the lake. Either one of them was not an eyewitness, or neither of them were, and the author of Matthew changed the location to a closer spot in order to sound more credible.
-Mark 12:42 explains that a lepton, a coin used in Palestine, was worth half a quadrans. "Quadrans" is a word borrowed from Latin. A Jewish follower of Jesus from Palestine would not have spoken Latin.
-Mark 10:12 forbids women to divorce their husbands and remarry. Jewish law already forbade that. The teaching would have seemed redundant to a Jew from Palestine, but was an appropriate expansion for those of pagan background.
-Throughout Mark 6, the disciples are told to preach and perform miracles in the name of Jesus. However, Jesus did not tell the disciples that he was the Messiah until Mark 8:29-30. Why would Jesus tell people to perform miracles in his name rather than that of God without telling them he was the Messiah sent by God?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Did you read over that part saying, 'fulfilled among us'? It looks to me like 'Luke' was verifying earlier prophets.

Even Christians who believe the Bible to be factual would disagree with you there. They don't believe the author was an eyewitness, but rather that he based his Gospel on the testimony of eyewitnesses.
http://bible.org/seriespage/eyewitness-testimony-luke’s-gospel

Luke was very much concerned to base his Gospel on the earliest and best eyewitnesses who went back all the way to the beginning of Jesus' ministry.

By comparison with Luke, Mark uses this strategy to show that Peter is the principal eyewitness. In Luke, Simon (Peter) is the first disciple named, and with the repetition of the same name, Simon, not Peter (Luke 4:38). This chapter and verse (4:38) is quite a suitable point from which to begin material indebted to Peter's witness. Before then, Luke has the birth and temptation and baptism narratives. But as soon as possible Luke mentions the lead disciple who is the principal eyewitness.

 

[rusra02]

Jesus supposed death for our sins makes no sense to me. If Jesus died for our sins, he sacrificed nothing because he lost nothing. Pain and suffering become trivial when you're immortal. So really what did Jesus lose when he died? The christian god really couldn't come up with a better way to forgive himself than to sacrifice his son(or himself, depending on which denomination) to himself?

Jesus ransom sacrifice is the greatest expression of God's love for mankind. I believe that had this perfect human life not been sacrificed, we would have no hope for everlasting life, Why? Romans 3:25 reads: “This showed that God always does what is right and fair.” (New Century Version) God always acts in a perfectly just and righteous way, never acting contrary to his own laws.
When Adam sinned, he sold himself and all his offspring into slavery to sin and death. God's law requires an equivalent life, a perfect life, to buy back, or pay off the debt Adam incurred by sinning; a corresponding ransom. (Deuteronomy 19:21, 1 Timothy 2:6) God was under no obligation to help us, but love moved him to do so. By providing the perfect human life of his dearest Son, God gave a legal, just, and righteous way to forgive sin and buy back our right to life. Jesus willingly did God's will in being born as a perfect man who "takes away the sins of the world." (John 1:29) This cost God and his Son a great deal. Even though the harm caused by his Son's death was not permanent, the pain this caused God was intense. (John 3:16)

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Jesus ransom sacrifice is the greatest expression of God's love for mankind. I believe that had this perfect human life not been sacrificed, we would have no hope for everlasting life, Why? Romans 3:25 reads: &#8220;This showed that God always does what is right and fair.&#8221; (New Century Version) God always acts in a perfectly just and righteous way, never acting contrary to his own laws.
When Adam sinned, he sold himself and all his offspring into slavery to sin and death. God's law requires an equivalent life, a perfect life, to buy back, or pay off the debt Adam incurred by sinning; a corresponding ransom. (Deuteronomy 19:21, 1 Timothy 2:6) God was under no obligation to help us, but love moved him to do so. By providing the perfect human life of his dearest Son, God gave a legal, just, and righteous way to forgive sin and buy back our right to life. Jesus willingly did God's will in being born as a perfect man who "takes away the sins of the world." (John 1:29) This cost God and his Son a great deal. Even though the harm caused by his Son's death was not permanent, the pain this caused God was intense. (John 3:16)

God was also under no obligation to make up the law about a perfect life having to replace a perfect life... It is "God's law" after all, isn't it?

If God is the ruler of all things, who exactly did he sell our "right to life" to that he had to "buy it back"? Your explanation is just riddled with contradictions.

 

[Philomath]

Jesus ransom sacrifice is the greatest expression of God's love for mankind. I believe that had this perfect human life not been sacrificed, we would have no hope for everlasting life, Why? Romans 3:25 reads: “This showed that God always does what is right and fair.” (New Century Version) God always acts in a perfectly just and righteous way, never acting contrary to his own laws.

Sacrficing another person life's so the christian god could forgive himself is the greatest expression of his love for mankind?

When Adam sinned, he sold himself and all his offspring into slavery to sin and death. God's law requires an equivalent life, a perfect life, to buy back, or pay off the debt Adam incurred by sinning; a corresponding ransom.

This supposedly loving God holds all of humanity responsible for the actions of two people. How "loving' is that?

(Deuteronomy 19:21, 1 Timothy 2:6) God was under no obligation to help us, but love moved him to do so. By providing the perfect human life of his dearest Son, God gave a legal, just, and righteous way to forgive sin and buy back our right to life. Jesus willingly did God's will in being born as a perfect man who "takes away the sins of the world." (John 1:29) This cost God and his Son a great deal. Even though the harm caused by his Son's death was not permanent, the pain this caused God was intense. (John 3:16)

Your just telling me everything I just said with bible verses. The christian god had to sacrifice his son to himself so he could forgive himself. I don't understand how that makes any sense. This once again shows how unjust the christian god is. He holds all of humanity responsible for the actions of two people but then sacrfices one person to clear his debt. How can God feel pain?

 

[Shiranui117]

God was also under no obligation to make up the law about a perfect life having to replace a perfect life... It is "God's law" after all, isn't it?

If God is the ruler of all things, who exactly did he sell our "right to life" to that he had to "buy it back"? Your explanation is just riddled with contradictions.

We sold ourselves into slavery to sin and death. God had no part in that.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

We sold ourselves into slavery to sin and death. God had no part in that.

God had every part in that when he made his "laws" and made a creation he knew would break them.

 

[Shiranui117]

Sacrficing another person life's so the christian god could forgive himself is the greatest expression of his love for mankind?

This is a good argument against the common Protestant understanding of penal substitution and substitutionary atonement, but what you describe is completely different from how the original Christians viewed it.

This supposedly loving God holds all of humanity responsible for the actions of two people. How "loving' is that?

It isn't, which is why the Roman Catholic understanding of the "guilt of original sin" is wrong. Only Adam and Eve are guilty for the sins of Adam and Eve. They just happened to mess life up for everyone following them.

Your just telling me everything I just said with bible verses. The christian god had to sacrifice his son to himself so he could forgive himself. I don't understand how that makes any sense. This once again shows how unjust the christian god is. He holds all of humanity responsible for the actions of two people but then sacrfices one person to clear his debt. How can God feel pain?

Again, this is the Protestant God, not the God of the Orthodox.

 

[Shiranui117]

God had every part in that when he made his "laws" and made a creation he knew would break them.

God didn't intend to screw us over. We had every potential to not eat from that tree. It wasn't like He told Adam and Eve to not hit the ground as they were mid-air from plunging off of a cliff.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

God didn't intend to screw us over. We had every potential to not eat from that tree. It wasn't like He told Adam and Eve to not hit the ground as they were mid-air from plunging off of a cliff.

He designs naturally curious beings, places a tree conspicuously in the middle of a garden, and says "you better not eat from that tree", then turns around and goes about his business... Anyone that has kids or has been around kids knows what the logical next step is. It doesn't exactly take a god to figure it out.

Furthermore, why put the knowledge of good and evil into a fruit of all places? You're an all-powerful, all-knowing being, yet somehow you have nowhere to store the knowledge that will destroy your creation except inside of a bunch of fruit? How does that even make sense?

 

[McBell]

God didn't intend to screw us over. We had every potential to not eat from that tree. It wasn't like He told Adam and Eve to not hit the ground as they were mid-air from plunging off of a cliff.

So, you do not hold the belief that God is all knowing?

 

[Philomath]

This is a good argument against the common Protestant understanding of penal substitution and substitutionary atonement, but what you describe is completely different from how the original Christians viewed it.

The original Christians?

It isn't, which is why the Roman Catholic understanding of the "guilt of original sin" is wrong. Only Adam and Eve are guilty for the sins of Adam and Eve. They just happened to mess life up for everyone following them.

How did it mess life for everyone following them?

Again, this is the Protestant God, not the God of the Orthodox.

My questions were originally aimed at rusra02. I don't know what denomination he follows but I assume it's not Orthodoxy.