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

[Philomath]

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)

He saves them from the penalty that he himself created.

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.

So instead of punishing the people responsible he instead blames all of humanity for their actions. Allowing Adam and Eve to have children that are essentially "cursed" with sin is not merciful at all.

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."

The christian God could have come up with a much simpler plan and way to rescue humanity from what he already knew that they were going to do...but he didn't. Instead he came up with a convoluted plan that required his son to be sacrficed to him to forgive humans for something that happened centuries earlier.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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?'

There doesn't have to be refuting information for something that doesn't have a specific basis. The bible is inadmissible for evidence of Jesus's miracles. Why? Because it is a religious text whose core purpose is not historical but theological. This idea that there is a massive conspiracy that other evidence was erased is cute but you have to provided evidence for it.

I could say that jesus was actually teaching Satanism and write a book about it. However it wouldn't be true now would it? The Jesus Christ legend is exactly what it is. A legend. All of the evidence from the chronological view of when things were written in the bible to the lack of historical evidence on anything Jesus did points to there probably being a real "Jesus" but he contracted a legend that grew much after his death.

There is another thread dedicated to explaining this I think.

 

[Sleeppy]

There doesn't have to be refuting information for something that doesn't have a specific basis. The bible is inadmissible for evidence of Jesus's miracles. Why? Because it is a religious text whose core purpose is not historical but theological. This idea that there is a massive conspiracy that other evidence was erased is cute but you have to provided evidence for it.

I could say that jesus was actually teaching Satanism and write a book about it. However it wouldn't be true now would it? The Jesus Christ legend is exactly what it is. A legend. All of the evidence from the chronological view of when things were written in the bible to the lack of historical evidence on anything Jesus did points to there probably being a real "Jesus" but he contracted a legend that grew much after his death.

There is another thread dedicated to explaining this I think.

List of book-burning incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You say it's not historical, but provide no alternative history from that time?

 

[rusra02]

He saves them from the penalty that he himself created.



So instead of punishing the people responsible he instead blames all of humanity for their actions. Allowing Adam and Eve to have children that are essentially "cursed" with sin is not merciful at all.





The christian God could have come up with a much simpler plan and way to rescue humanity from what he already knew that they were going to do...but he didn't. Instead he came up with a convoluted plan that required his son to be sacrficed to him to forgive humans for something that happened centuries earlier.

God did punish the people responsible. They lost everlasting life and have now ceased to exist. God does not choose to foreknow everything a person will do, according to the Bible. (Genesis 22:12, James 1:13) Rather, he allows us the dignity to decide how we will respond to his love, or if we will respond. (Deuteronomy 20:19,20) I believe it is immodest, to say the least, to pit our limited knowledge against the wisdom of the one who created all life. Not only God's love but also his wisdom is manifest in his dealings with mankind. There is much more at stake than our salvation in how God handled matters. Perhaps you should investigate further?

 

[Philomath]

God did punish the people responsible. They lost everlasting life and have now ceased to exist. God does not choose to foreknow everything a person will do, according to the Bible. (Genesis 22:12, James 1:13)

So the christian god is not omniscient then?

Rather, he allows us the dignity to decide how we will respond to his love, or if we will respond. (Deuteronomy 20:19,20) I believe it is immodest, to say the least, to pit our limited knowledge against the wisdom of the one who created all life. Not only God's love but also his wisdom is manifest in his dealings with mankind. There is much more at stake than our salvation in how God handled matters. Perhaps you should investigate further?

What love are you speaking of? The christian god's love is based on variables or requirements. That is not love to me. The christian god's dealings with humanity is not wise to me. Investigate into what? I'm a former christian.

 

[McBell]

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).
​

You are still merely chasing your tail.

 

[McBell]

Well that's convenient...

Not really.
When you break it down it is nothing more than double talk.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

And Biblical, too.

Why tout something being biblical, as if that's supposed to matter? The Bible says a man lived inside a fish...

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Not really.
When you break it down it is nothing more than double talk.

I know that and you know that, but....

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

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.

1)The link you posted only helps to prove my point. The conclusion of the article was that the Gospels were not originally written in any language besides Greek.
2)It has long been the consensus of Biblical scholars that Luke was not an eyewitness and said so himself. You are alone in interpreting it differently, and can take it up with them if you feel you have to. Ehrman has a blog where you can do just that.
3)By "certain events" do you mean 90% of the first Gospel almost word for word, as if it were a plagiarized college paper? Seems a little excessive for someone who was supposed to be an eyewitness. Not to mention the various contradictions throughout, which would imply either one or both authors were lying if both were in fact eyewitnesses.
4)Read closer. Divorce was permitted for men. A woman could not divorce her husband and remarry, which is what I said. A Jew would already know that. I take it you're not Jewish, and have just proven my point for me.
5)Jesus didn't do any of those things in his own name. Again, I ask you to read with more comprehension.

 

[Sleeppy]

1)The link you posted only helps to prove my point. The conclusion of the article was that the Gospels were not originally written in any language besides Greek.
2)It has long been the consensus of Biblical scholars that Luke was not an eyewitness and said so himself. You are alone in interpreting it differently, and can take it up with them if you feel you have to. Ehrman has a blog where you can do just that.
3)By "certain events" do you mean 90% of the first Gospel almost word for word, as if it were a plagiarized college paper? Seems a little excessive for someone who was supposed to be an eyewitness. Not to mention the various contradictions throughout, which would imply either one or both authors were lying if both were in fact eyewitnesses.
4)Read closer. Divorce was permitted for men. A woman could not divorce her husband and remarry, which is what I said. A Jew would already know that. I take it you're not Jewish, and have just proven my point for me.
5)Jesus didn't do any of those things in his own name. Again, I ask you to read with more comprehension.

You obviously didn't read much from the link. More nonsensical speculation.

1) Israel was not a place of one language. Jesus and His disciples travelled that entire region (past that region). Add those together.

2) A consensus based on what? You believe them. You stand by the 'consensus'. Support that consensus opinion.

3) Another example of illogical thought. So, he copied almost all of it only to contradict part of it? I wonder how that happened? Sounds like a characteristic of common testimony. You can go to a concert and find that among the crowd. A concert doesn't last several years though.

4) Actually, you're proving yourself a very dishonest person. You say Jesus permitted divorce, when in reality, when He was asked about marriage, He referred to Moses.

5) Who's name did He do them with?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You obviously didn't read much from the link. More nonsensical speculation.

1) Israel was not a place of one language. Jesus and His disciples travelled that entire region (past that region). Add those together.

I read the whole thing. To believe that everyone in the area spoke Greek and Latin is retarded though. Common people certainly wouldn't have.

2) A consensus based on what? You believe them. You stand by the 'consensus'. Support that consensus opinion.

I've already supported the opinion in my other post. You just chose to go :ignore:

3) Another example of illogical thought. So, he copied almost all of it only to contradict part of it? I wonder how that happened? Sounds like a characteristic of common testimony. You can go to a concert and find that among the crowd. A concert doesn't last several years though.

Most of the sentence structure and minor details were copied. Some major ones were completely different though, such as the "demon-possessed man" in Mark becoming "two demon-possessed men" in Matthew. You mean to tell me they were both physically there but one eye-witness only remembered one man possessed by a demon? I feel like that's something you wouldn't be quick to forget. This is a common characteristic of secondhand testimony; you're claiming the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses.

4) Actually, you're proving yourself a very dishonest person. You say Jesus permitted divorce, when in reality, when He was asked about marriage, He referred to Moses.

I said Jesus prohibited divorce initiated by women, which is exactly what the law of Moses says. How exactly am I being dishonest? I never said Jesus permitted divorce. I said Jewish law permitted men to divorce but not women.

5) Who's name did He do them with?

God's...

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

-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.

Please tell me how this is a dishonest statement...

 

[Sleeppy]

M

I read the whole thing. To believe that everyone in thearea spoke Greek and Latin is retarded though. Common people certainly wouldn't have.


I've already supported the opinion in my other post. You just chose to go :ignore:


Most of the sentence structure and minor details were copied. Some major ones were completely different though, such as the "demon-possessed man" in Mark becoming "two demon-possessed men" in Matthew. You mean to tell me they were both physically there but one eye-witness only remembered one man possessed by a demon? I feel like that's something you wouldn't be quick to forget. This is a common characteristic of secondhand testimony; you're claiming the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses.


I said Jesus prohibited divorce initiated by women, which is exactly what the law of Moses says. How exactly am I being dishonest?



God's...

Alright. We can go on.

1) Still ignoring the languages of that space and period? Greek was spoken by both Jews and Gentiles in that area. What language did the Romans speak? Was it latin? Right.

2) Obviously you haven't supported anything, not even with logic. All I see are names, the word 'consensus' and assertions with no support.. Help me out here. Where are the methods used for all of those conclusions?

3) You're making progress. However, it should also be pretty obvious that each eyewitness would have seen some of the same events. It's retarded to think they all saw the same thing, all the time. Isn't it? Maybe not for you and your scholars?

4) Actually, no you didn't say that. I'll quote you here in a sec. so you might remember.

5) Jesus or Immanuel? Both?

 

[Sleeppy]

Please tell me how this is a dishonest statement...

Is it redundant because Jesus said it? Or because He redirected the question to Moses?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

M

Alright. We can go on.

1) Still ignoring the languages of that space and period? Greek was spoken by both Jews and Gentiles in that area. What language did the Romans speak? Was it latin? Right.

So your common, average person living in the area at the time spoke up to 4 languages, in an era where only the most educated could even read?

2) Obviously you haven't supported anything, not even with logic. All I see are names, the word 'consensus' and assertions with no support.. Help me out here. Where are the methods used for all of those conclusions?

I gave you a whole list of reasons the Gospels couldn't have been written by eyewitnesses. What have you done except deny it?

3) You're making progress. However, it should also be pretty obvious that each eyewitness would have seen some of the same events. It's retarded to think they all saw the same thing, all the time. Isn't it? Maybe not for you and your scholars?

1)That doesn't explain the similarities in sentence structure.
2)If they were eyewitnesses to the same events, then it wouldn't be a stretch to say they all witnessed the same thing happening, unless there were hallucinogens involved.

4) Actually, no you didn't say that. I'll quote you here in a sec. so you might remember.

I've already done that for you. Feel free to tell me how I was being dishonest. I'll even get the verses in question from both the laws of Moses and the book of Mark.

5) Jesus or Immanuel? Both?

Neither. God the father...

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Is it redundant because Jesus said it? Or because He redirected the question to Moses?

It was redundant because Jesus repeated that women shouldn't divorce their husbands. He didn't exactly redirect to Moses, because he introduced the concept that men shouldn't divorce. The former was already an established law and wouldn't have been anything new to a Jew.

 

[Sleeppy]

So your common, average person living in the area at the time spoke up to 4 languages, in an era where only the most educated could even read?


I gave you a whole list of reasons the Gospels couldn't have been written by eyewitnesses. What have you done except deny it?


1)That doesn't explain the similarities in sentence structure.
2)If they were eyewitnesses to the same events, then it wouldn't be a stretch to say they all witnessed the same thing happening, unless there were hallucinogens involved.

I've already done that for you. Feel free to tell me how I was being dishonest. I'll even get the verses in question from both the laws of Moses and the book of Mark.


Neither. God the father...

1) No. The common person would've spoken Aramaic and Greek. Some of those would have understood Hebrew and/or Latin. Again, these were the languages of that region. If you didn't understand one of these languages, someone you knew did. Not to mention that teaching was common bridge. Someone stood up and read/translated.

2) A list of reasons that have since been shown insupportable and illogical.. By both you and I.

3) 3+ years of events. Everybody saw everything? Check your consensus, maybe they can help.

4) God saves.. God with us. Sounds about right.

 

[Sleeppy]

It was redundant because Jesus repeated that women shouldn't divorce their husbands. He didn't exactly redirect to Moses, because he introduced the concept that men shouldn't divorce. The former was already an established law and wouldn't have been anything new to a Jew.

Perhaps you should reread the entire beginning of Mark 10? Who wrote Genesis?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Perhaps you should reread the entire beginning of Mark 10? Who wrote Genesis?

I did read from the beginning of Mark 10; I'm not sure what you're getting at... And what does Genesis have to do with anything?