What Sacrifice ?

[Drich]

For the sake of argument, lets pretend the following:

Jesus Christ actually existed and he was indeed the only son of the god, Yahweh.
The Bible, with all of its contradictions, is somehow true and the story of the crucifixion happened just as the Bible professes.
The god Yahweh, created Jesus by miraculously inseminating a young girl named Mary somewhere around 2000 years ago (give or take), with the specific intent to see him die on a cross for the sins of the world.
The god Yahweh required himself to accept a sacrifice from himself, of himself, in order to forgive the sinful nature of man that he created himself.


So obviously I'm puzzled.


Who is the sacrifice? Where is the sacrifice? What sacrifice? Cause it's certainly not Jesus.

A man who has the ability to walk on water, turn water into wine, pull loaves of bread and fish out of thin air, heal roman-soldier's missing ears, raise the dead back to life and cure leprosy among many other acts, "sacrificed" HOW exactly??? I mean the man wasn't even in the tomb for a full 72 hours.
Not only does the death of a man who can come back to life not count as any kind of a sacrifice but even his supposed suffering can easily be disregarded. It sure stands to reason that a man with those kind of powers could easily block the pain receptors of his own body, and with no active nerves, his crucifixion would've been more like an uncomfortable afternoon rather than the purported day of excruciating pain.


I see no sacrifice whatsoever. Again, assuming only for the sake of argument that it actually happened - it seems more likely that Yahweh just needed to use the event as a cosmic shotgun to extort the hearts and minds of 100 billion people ... and counting.

What Christ paid on the Cross was for you to pay. The torment and pain He felt was meant for you. (and still could be that is for Him to decide) What Christ did was suffer and die on the behalf of those who do not suffer and 'die' in Hell.

[Minimalist]

Are you scared that the Christian story makes sense?

No chance of that, pal.

[CleanShavenJesus]

I certainly cannot! In fact, that is one of the reasons I finally de-converted from Christianity.

Then why say it? Strawman?

...who am I strawmanning? That's the only reason to believe Jesus and all the things he did. The Bible. So I said it to make a point.

I know that you are one of the Christians on here who does not take the Bible literally. You think Jesus never existed, and was simply an metaphor for something?

Not even close...

Thank you for such a great response. When I asked that question, I assumed you would correct me.

[catfish]

Then why say it? Strawman?

...who am I strawmanning? That's the only reason to believe Jesus and all the things he did. The Bible. So I said it to make a point.

You are strawmanning Christians. You asked a question, then asserted the answer. Exactly what point could be made for setting up the question and response?
My point is that you made the error of calling the Bible the word of God so I asked to see proof of that claim which you admitted you couldn't provide.

Not even close...

Thank you for such a great response. When I asked that question, I assumed you would correct me.

You're welcome... I was going to correct you, but I didn't want you feel pressured for that strawman/question too.

[CleanShavenJesus]

...who am I strawmanning? That's the only reason to believe Jesus and all the things he did. The Bible. So I said it to make a point.

You are strawmanning Christians. You asked a question, then asserted the answer. Exactly what point could be made for setting up the question and response?
My point is that you made the error of calling the Bible the word of God so I asked to see proof of that claim which you admitted you couldn't provide.

Because the Bible is the only proof that the stories told about Jesus occurred, correct? It's a strawman to say that?

Because if the Bible isn't the word of God, then how can it be trusted? If it's not the word of God, then it's simply stories written down according to oral accounts decades earlier by normal men, translated, re-translated, re-written, re-translated, given to kings to take their favorite part out, and then re-translated. Not a very reliable source.

So it's either:

A) Jesus Christ existed, and did all the things mentioned in the Bible, because the Bible is the word of God

or

B) Jesus Christ may/may not have existed, but did not do the things mentioned in the Bible because the Bible is not a reliable source due to its massive susceptibility to human error. There's no reason to believe anything written in the Bible or, at the very least, no reason to take any of it literally.

Which is it?

And if not one of these choices, what would your Option C be?

[catfish]

You are strawmanning Christians. You asked a question, then asserted the answer. Exactly what point could be made for setting up the question and response?
My point is that you made the error of calling the Bible the word of God so I asked to see proof of that claim which you admitted you couldn't provide.

Because the Bible is the only proof that the stories told about Jesus occurred, correct? It's a strawman to say that?

Really??? (read above)
You made the claim of the Bible being the word of God, not I. The burden of proof is on you for something which you already conceded you couldn't provide.
The rest of your fluff is just fluff until you address the strawman scenario.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Because the Bible is the only proof that the stories told about Jesus occurred, correct? It's a strawman to say that?

Really??? (read above)
You made the claim of the Bible being the word of God, not I. The burden of proof is on you for something which you already conceded you couldn't provide.
The rest of your fluff is just fluff until you address the strawman scenario.

I don't actually BELIEVE it's the word of God. But some do. But IF THEY DON'T....you know, the rest of my post actually isn't fluff, because it might answer your question.

[catfish]

I don't actually BELIEVE it's the word of God. But some do. But IF THEY DON'T....you know, the rest of my post actually isn't fluff, because it might answer your question.

There's the qualifier for that strawman I was looking for... "But some do."

So I suppose that makes it alright to say Christians when you really mean "some Christians"...

Thanks for playing...

[Tonus]

There are Christians who don't believe that the Bible is the word of god?

[catfish]

That depends on who you ask.