One question for Christians

[downbeatplumb]

3. The Christians themselves have never told a coherent story in the first place, let alone provided any reason to believe it.

This seems to be a poorly worded attempt at poisoning the well. Christianity is remarkably united on their Christology, so apparently the New Testament does present a coherent picture of the Christ.

Statler

Your statement here shows either a profound lack of knowledge of the early church or it is a deliberate lie.

Marcionism.

Marcion believed Jesus Christ was the savior sent by God, and Paul of Tarsus was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.

Valesians

The Valesians were a Christian sect that advocated self-castration. The sect was founded by Valens (not to be confused with the Roman Emperor of the same name), an Arabian philosopher who established the sect sometime in the second century AD.[1] They were notorious for forcibly castrating travelers whom they encountered and guests who visited them.

Angelici

The Angelici were a heretical sect of the 3rd century. St. Augustine supposes them thus called from their yielding an extravagant worship of angels, and such as tended to idolatry. However, Epiphanius derives the name from their holding that the world was created by angels.

Arabici

The Arabici believed the soul was to perish with the body, though both soul and body would be revived again on Judgement Day. The Arabici theorized this from their study of I Tim., vi, 16, "Who only hath immortality." This passage, they held, ascribes immortality to God alone, and therefore prevents its possession by man.

Elcesaites

Hippolytus of Rome (Philosophumena, IX, 8-13) records that in the time of Pope Callixtus I (217-222) a Jewish Christian called Alcibiades of Apamea, came to Rome, bringing a book which he said had been received from Parthia by a just man named Elchasai.[2] According to Alcibiades the book had been revealed by an angel ninety-six miles high, sixteen miles broad and twenty-four across the shoulders, whose footprints were fourteen miles long and four miles wide by two miles deep. This giant angel was the Son of God, who was accompanied by His Sister, the Holy Ghost, of the same dimensions.[3] Alcibiades announced that a new remission of sins had been proclaimed in the third year of Trajan (A.D. 100), and he described a baptism which should impart this forgiveness even to the grossest sinners.

Cathars

Catharism had its roots in the Paulician movement in Armenia and the Bogomils of Bulgaria, which took influences from the Paulicians. Though the term "Cathar" (/ˈkæθɑːr/) has been used for centuries to identify the movement, whether the movement identified itself with this name is debatable.[3] In Cathar texts, the terms "Good Men" (Bons Hommes) or "Good Christians" are the common terms of self-identification.[4] The idea of two Gods or principles, one being good the other evil, was central to Cathar beliefs. The good God was the God of the New Testament and the creator of the spiritual realm as opposed to the bad God who many Cathars identified as Satan creator of the physical world of the Old Testament

All these are on the wikipedia pages.

Very consistent views aren't they.

[DeistPaladin]

Your statement here shows either a profound lack of knowledge of the early church or it is a deliberate lie.

Sorry, I never did get around to spoon-feeding SW after he refused to watch my video series on the subject. I didn't even touch the "heterodox" Christianities in history. I stuck to the canonical sources in the Bible!

Jesus' birth:

Matthew:
Jesus' family lived in Bethlehem. Jesus was born before 4 BCE (during the reign of Herod the Great) and they were visited in their house by "wise men". Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt with baby Jesus and later came back to settle in Nazareth. They did so because Joseph wanted to avoid his home town because Herod's son Archelaus was ruling Judea and he was just as bad as his father.

Luke:
Jesus' family lived in Nazareth. Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 4 BCE). Jesus was born after 6 CE (during the administration of Quirinius), meaning Mary had a 10 year pregnancy (hey, those sons of god take longer to bake in the oven). Joseph had to take his family to Bethlehem for some incredibly unlikely census where Mary gave birth in a manger, not a house. JC was visited by shepherds. They then returned directly to Nazareth.

Yeah, no contradictions so far...

The start of JC's ministry

The Synoptics (Matt, Mark, Luke):
JC was baptized by John the Baptist. What the booming voice in the sky said and who booming voice addressed depends on which account you read. Then JC was "immediately" wisked by The Holy Spirit into the wilderness for 40 days where he was alone and tended to by angels and tempted by Satan. Then he returned to Galilee upon hearing that JtB had been arrested and began to preach.

John:
JC was not baptized by John the Baptist. Booming voice in the sky said something completely different than what was heard in the Synoptic versions. JC "the next day" and "on the second day" gathered followers (no wilderness adventure) and then attended a wedding on the "third day". He then had his temple tantrum (something that happens at the end of his ministry in the Synoptics). Then he opened a rival baptizing franchise to compete with JtB and, needless to say, JC beat JtB at his own game by delegating the baptizing to his disciples (what a business innovator). No need for JtB to get out of the way because JtB was JC's bitch-boy!

The Ministry
I'm currently making my next video series on "The Jesus Itinerary" but having re-read the Gospel accounts closely it doesn't look good. The Synoptics are mostly similar in their timeline of events (some discrepancies as to when Jesus went to his home town) but they really differ with the account of John. JC seems to circle about Capernum the Sea of Galilee in the Synoptics, eventually making his way to Jerusalem when he makes his triumphant entry. In John, JC's ministry is based in Jerusalem.

The Crucifixion and Resurrection:
Oh boy, this one is a mess! Did Jesus fly up into the clouds on the same day of his resurrection (Luke) or did he drop by to show Thomas (John) or did he terry about for 40 days (Acts)? Or was the entire sighting of the resurrected Jesus a later add-on to the story (Mark)? Was the stone rolled away before Mary got there or was it rolled away by an angel? Was there one angel or two? Were they outside the tomb or inside it?

And far from being "reliable eye-witnesses", even if we take the Christian claims of authorship at face value, they are clearly not.

Mark: Gospel based on the preaching of Peter. Not an eye-witness.
Matthew: Lies repeatedly in his account of what the OT says. Not credible.
Luke: Companion of Paul. Not a witness.
John: "Advanced" theology and the fact that "the Jews" are an adversarial religion indicate a late date of authorship.

Some of Matthew's lies include:

• Claiming Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the messiah. This is not true. Reading Isaiah 7 in its entirety clearly indicates he was speaking about current events, not a prophecy of a future messiah.
  
• The massacre of the innocents by Herod the Great is supposedly a fulfillment of Jeremiah but reading Jeremiah shows us that Jerry was speaking of the Babylonian Captivity.
  
• He claims "out of Egypt..." in Hosea was a prophecy of the future Son of God but in fact refers to Israel and the Exodus.
  

Three whoppers and we're only in chapter 2.

So, yeah, there's no rational reason to think the Gospels are historical documents.

[Beta Ray Bill]

You do know the resident Christians won't give an ounce of credit to what you wrote, right?

They'll say you have no evidence, took it out of context or their faith is stronger than a need for "biblical perfection." I've only been a member of this club for 2 months and I've heard it all.

Christians reject our evidence, yet provide almost none of their own. Very redundant and shallow-minded (just watch, they hate that term).

[Minimalist]

You are learning fast, Billy. They are dumb as a 5 pound bag of rocks.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Just one.

That's all.

Why does blood sacrifice make anything better?



Just to clarify the question, Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. How's that work exactly? What's the cause and effect between a godman bleeding on a cross and my being forgiven by the same god for the sins I've committed? Why does the blood he shed somehow atone for my sins?

Frankly the disconnect between my sins and Jesus need to bleed on a cross to set it right seems a bit like Monte Python's Mattress Sketch, where if someone says "mattress" to Mr. Lambert, he puts a bag over his head and then men have to make it better by getting into a box and sing.

God is holy and must punish sin.

The Bible says that:
"the wages of sin is death" (Romans 3:23)

After death, comes judgment before God.

The sacrifice of blood represents that death penalty.

So the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is to pay for our sins, so those that trust Him as Saviour have all their sins, paid for and forgiven.

Jesus is a substitue to take our place. He pays fro our sins and gives everlasting life to those that believe.

[Tonus]

God is holy and must punish sin.

The Bible says that:
"the wages of sin is death" (Romans 3:23)

After death, comes judgment before God.

If the wages of sin is death, then why is there a need for judgment after one has paid for their sins? Wouldn't that be double jeopardy?

So the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is to pay for our sins, so those that trust Him as Saviour have all their sins, paid for and forgiven.

Jesus is a substitue to take our place. He pays fro our sins and gives everlasting life to those that believe.

That sounds like cheating. Christ doesn't sacrifice his life, he sacrifices a human body that he wore as a shell for a period of time that isn't even the blink of an eye for him compared to his time spent as a spirit being. Yet this cheap little "sacrifice" is sufficient to save every single soul that sins, if those humans (who stand to lose much more than a temporary throwaway existence) bend their knees to him.

And it's all because god "must" punish sin, apparently by passing judgment on the souls of people who already received their punishment for sin by dying. That doesn't make sense.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

God is holy and must punish sin.

The Bible says that:
"the wages of sin is death" (Romans 3:23)

After death, comes judgment before God.

If the wages of sin is death, then why is there a need for judgment after one has paid for their sins? Wouldn't that be double jeopardy?

So the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is to pay for our sins, so those that trust Him as Saviour have all their sins, paid for and forgiven.

Jesus is a substitue to take our place. He pays fro our sins and gives everlasting life to those that believe.

That sounds like cheating. Christ doesn't sacrifice his life, he sacrifices a human body that he wore as a shell for a period of time that isn't even the blink of an eye for him compared to his time spent as a spirit being. Yet this cheap little "sacrifice" is sufficient to save every single soul that sins, if those humans (who stand to lose much more than a temporary throwaway existence) bend their knees to him.

And it's all because god "must" punish sin, apparently by passing judgment on the souls of people who already received their punishment for sin by dying. That doesn't make sense.

The punishment for sin is death.
But after death comes the judgment of where that person.
If saved then that person goes to heaven to be with Jesus Christ.

As to the crucifixion, it is hardly a small penalty.

Jesus, who never sinned, was beaten, mocked, spat upon, and the hairs of His beard pulled out. They put a crown of thorns on Him and beat it onto His head. His back was scourged repeatedly, tearing open His flesh. He carried a rough wooden cross to Calvary. They drove metal spikes into both of Christ’s hands and feet, crushing bone and into nerve tissue. Jesus then hung on that torturous cross for six hours. Our sins cost Christ that punishment. Yet Jesus endured all that unto death because of how much He loves you. Jesus had to endure all that to the end to save you.

But Jesus Christ, who never sinned and never had the guilt of sin, actually bore all sins and the guilt of all sins during the crucifixion. So this part may have been worse than the actual crucifixion. That is a tremendous amount of sin.

[Tonus]

The punishment for sin is death.
But after death comes the judgment of where that person.
If saved then that person goes to heaven to be with Jesus Christ.

You are saying that we are punished for sin, then judged for our sins, then punished or rewarded for our sin. If the wages of sin is death, then that is paid upon death. Any additional reward or punishment is arbitrary. If acceptance of Christ's sacrifice cleanses a person of sin, then they need not die at all and are unfairly punished with death, in which case the sacrifice of Jesus is superfluous-- god would owe them something anyway. It still doesn't make sense.

As to the crucifixion, it is hardly a small penalty.

It is, to a being who has existed for infinite time both before and after. Thirty three years? Three days? Six hours? None of those matter to a being who has always existed. Think of the biggest number you can. Say a trillion trillion trillion years. God is older than that, and will exist for longer than that going forward. The amount of time he suffered compared to the amount of time he has been alive is so short it may as well not even have happened.

Suffering the most hideous torture for a few hours isn't pleasant, but knowing that you're just a few hours from returning to your position as the most powerful being in all of existence probably took just a bit of the edge off of it. Especially knowing that you could return the treatment to your tormentors an infinity-fold. Good thing Yahweh isn't a vengeful god!

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

The punishment for sin is death.
But after death comes the judgment of where that person.
If saved then that person goes to heaven to be with Jesus Christ.

You are saying that we are punished for sin, then judged for our sins, then punished or rewarded for our sin. If the wages of sin is death, then that is paid upon death. Any additional reward or punishment is arbitrary. If acceptance of Christ's sacrifice cleanses a person of sin, then they need not die at all and are unfairly punished with death, in which case the sacrifice of Jesus is superfluous-- god would owe them something anyway. It still doesn't make sense.

As to the crucifixion, it is hardly a small penalty.

It is, to a being who has existed for infinite time both before and after. Thirty three years? Three days? Six hours? None of those matter to a being who has always existed. Think of the biggest number you can. Say a trillion trillion trillion years. God is older than that, and will exist for longer than that going forward. The amount of time he suffered compared to the amount of time he has been alive is so short it may as well not even have happened.

Suffering the most hideous torture for a few hours isn't pleasant, but knowing that you're just a few hours from returning to your position as the most powerful being in all of existence probably took just a bit of the edge off of it. Especially knowing that you could return the treatment to your tormentors an infinity-fold. Good thing Yahweh isn't a vengeful god!

Only God could do it.

But Jesus Christ is not only fully God, but fully man.

Still never sinned for 33 years.
Went through a very tough death.
Bore the penalty and guilt of all sins.
None of it is His punishment, but our punishment.

[The Reality Salesman01]

But Jesus Christ is not only fully God, but fully man.

But that's like 200%!??