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

[Shiranui117]

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

God is all-knowing, but the events are the cause of His foreknowledge. His foreknowledge does not cause the events.

 

[Shiranui117]

The original Christians?

i.e. The Orthodox and early Catholic understanding. You can also throw in the Assyrian Church of the East vis-a-vis soteriology.

How did it mess life for everyone following them?

They introduced death, sin, suffering, sickness and alienation from God.

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

Hah, nope. I just like to make sure it's clear that the Protestant view is not the view of all Christians, and is actually a relatively recent invention in Christian history (substitutionary atonement was invented around the year 1100 by Anselm of Canterbury, and penal substitution during the Protestant Reformation by John Calvin).

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

God is all-knowing, but the events are the cause of His foreknowledge. His foreknowledge does not cause the events.

So he's not all-knowing. If you can't know something until after you've seen it happen once, you don't know everything. You just know enough to set a precedent. An all-knowing god wouldn't learn anything.

 

[McBell]

God is all-knowing, but the events are the cause of His foreknowledge. His foreknowledge does not cause the events.

So he intentionally set Adam and Eve up to fail?

 

[Shiranui117]

So he intentionally set Adam and Eve up to fail?

No. They had every potential not to sin. The fact that they did doesn't make God guilty of it. Had Adam and Eve chosen not to sin, God's foreknowledge would have been changed.

 

[Philomath]

i.e. The Orthodox and early Catholic understanding. You can also throw in the Assyrian Church of the East vis-a-vis soteriology.

When I think of the "original Christians" I think of the christians that followed Jesus but were still a part of Judaism not the The Orthodox and early Catholic church.

They introduced death, sin, suffering, sickness and alienation from God.

They introduced sin but God doesn't hold us all accountable for their sins?

Hah, nope. I just like to make sure it's clear that the Protestant view is not the view of all Christians, and is actually a relatively recent invention in Christian history (substitutionary atonement was invented around the year 1100 by Anselm of Canterbury, and penal substitution during the Protestant Reformation by John Calvin).

Well thanks for informing me

 

[McBell]

No. They had every potential not to sin. The fact that they did doesn't make God guilty of it. Had Adam and Eve chosen not to sin, God's foreknowledge would have been changed.

Now you are merely chasing your own tail.

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

Dang, brah. This thread exploded! It is one of the most popular threads right now!

M.V.

 

[Shiranui117]

When I think of the "original Christians" I think of the christians that followed Jesus but were still a part of Judaism not the The Orthodox and early Catholic church.

The two are one and the same. When the Gentiles came in, the Church decided to not make the Mosaic Law binding on them (cf. Acts 15).

They introduced sin but God doesn't hold us all accountable for their sins?

No, God holds us accountable for our own sins. Sin in Orthodoxy is viewed as a disease, rather than a crime. Adam and Eve introduced the disease of sin into humanity. This disease is the corruption of the image of God within us, which somewhat impedes our free will by introducing a very strong tendency to sin. We do, however, commit the same sin that Adam and Eve did all the time (indifference to God). The Fathers would say that we "ratify" Adam and Eve's sin and the consequences that come from it in ourselves by sinning.

Well thanks for informing me

No problem You can check out the links I gave in a previous post to get a better idea of when certain ideas about soteriology vis-a-vis Jesus' death and Resurrection arose, and which ideas are the most ancient.

 

[Shiranui117]

Now you are merely chasing your own tail.

How, pray tell?

 

[McBell]

How, pray tell?

God knew that Adam and Eve would fail.
He went through with it any way.
Yet you claim that Adam and Eve could have done something that God already knew they would not do...

 

[ruffen]

So he intentionally set Adam and Eve up to fail?

If the story is to be taken literally, yes of course he did, whether or not he had fore-knowledge about what they would do.

Think about it. Did the forbidden trees serve any oter purpose at all except tempting Adam and Eve? Did God himself need those trees there to stay in power? Could not the almighty God have placed the trees somewhere remote guarded by barbed wire and laser turrets?

The only point of the trees' existence is to entrap Adam and Eve into sin.

 

[Shiranui117]

God knew that Adam and Eve would fail.
He went through with it any way.
Yet you claim that Adam and Eve could have done something that God already knew they would not do...

So IOW, you think that God's foreknowledge must necessarily dictate the events--not that the events dictate God's foreknowledge. In the first instance, there is no possibility of change; what God foresees will happen, and nothing will change it. In the second instance, God's foreknowledge is a mirror that reflects the events. If the event changes, so does the image in the mirror.

To quote a talk given by Bishop Elias Minatios,

Here's another example: The King Hezekiah became ill. God destines him to die and sends the prophet Isaiah to say: Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live (II Kings 20: 1). The unfortunate Hezekiah turns his face to the wall, sighs, cries, pleads. What are you doing, oh hapless king?! Has not God appointed you to death? Is it not in vain that you cry and plead? Can one whom God has ordained to die, live? Does God's decision change? Yes, brothers and sisters, this determination also changed! God had pity on the tears of Hezekiah and determined that he live. He even granted him fifteen years of life. Thus saith the Lord. I will add unto thy days fifteen years (II Kings 20:5,6).
​

 

[Shiranui117]

If the story is to be taken literally, yes of course he did, whether or not he had fore-knowledge about what they would do.

Think about it. Did the forbidden trees serve any oter purpose at all except tempting Adam and Eve? Did God himself need those trees there to stay in power? Could not the almighty God have placed the trees somewhere remote guarded by barbed wire and laser turrets?

The only point of the trees' existence is to entrap Adam and Eve into sin.

There was only one forbidden tree, out of many, many more from which they could eat. The point of forbidding Adam and Eve from eating from that one single tree was to teach them that He is the sovereign God, and that they should be obedient.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

So IOW, you think that God's foreknowledge must necessarily dictate the events--not that the events dictate God's foreknowledge. In the first instance, there is no possibility of change; what God foresees will happen, and nothing will change it. In the second instance, God's foreknowledge is a mirror that reflects the events. If the event changes, so does the image in the mirror.

Well that's convenient...

 

[Shiranui117]

Well that's convenient...

And Biblical, too.

 

[Poeticus]

There was only one forbidden tree, out of many, many more from which they could eat. The point of forbidding Adam and Eve from eating from that one single tree was to teach them that He is the sovereign God, and that they should be obedient.

Namaste,

Now, see? That sounds Abrahamic.

M.V.

 

[rusra02]

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.

I believe God's laws are based on his perfect justice. As the Lawgiver, Jehovah has revealed to us what is fair and good. His requirement of "eye for eye, soul for soul" would not be set aside or ignored by Him. (Isaiah 33:22. Exodus 21:23)

God did not sell our right to life. Adam did by sinning. He sold his right to life and that of his unborn offspring for the selfish desire to join his wife in rebellion against God. (Romans 5:12, 7:14)

 

[rusra02]

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

God does not forgive himself. I believe He forgives humans their sins and saves them from the just penalty of sin, which is death. (Romans 6:23) and he does this while keeping to his own standards of justice. (Job 34:10,11)

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

God could have destroyed the rebels as soon as they sinned, in which case we would never have lived at all. Instead, I believe God allowed Adam and Eve to bring forth children to whom God could show mercy. Thus, all of Adam's descendants can potentially benefit from God's undeserved gift of everlasting life.

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?

I believe the Bible teaches God feels emotion just as we do. For example, early in man's history, the wickedness of man made God sad. Genesis 6:6 says of God; "he felt hurt at his heart." Jehovah lovingly provided a legal basis to forgive sins and ransom mankind from sin and death. God would not and did not lower his standards to solve mankind's woeful dilemma. Instead, he gave what was needed to satisfy justice AND provide relief to mankind. However, only those who love God and accept Christ's ransom will benefit from it. As John 3:36 states; "He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; he that disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him."

 

[Sleeppy]

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

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)

-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?

The Language of the Gospel

'Luke' doesn't deny being an eyewitness, he's referring to the prophets who prophesied about the Messiah. Their prophecies were 'fulfilled among 'Luke' and the others of that period.

Simple logic tells me that no one of these people saw every event around Jesus happen. The gospels are very obviously compilations of testimony. Certain events had to be copied according to some collective consensus, details included.

Divorce was permitted by Moses. Deuteronomy 24

Jesus had already been performing miracles. Including multiplying food and walking across the sea.