Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[Veritas_Vincit]

---

I think that Jesus meant that he had come to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies and thus validate the law, rather than refuting the law and replacing it with a new doctrine.

Nope. His death fulfilled the requirements of the law. The law could never ever be fully followed and was therefore a reminder that we do not measure up to God (never righteous before God). His death provided a way that we could be righteous before God. Heaven and earth did not pass away before it was fulfilled (his death).

Steve I have faith in you that you have enough sense between your ears to look at what you have just written about 'the Law' and notice how absurd it is, how bizare and pointlessly nonsensical this law that the Biblical God has supposedly created, how completely detached it is from any sane notion of morality or righteousness. I know that you have the capacity to consider the contradictions in this contrived load of codswallop to potentially extricate yourself from its confusing clutches. Maybe Jesus did mean he was there to be a human sacrifice, so stop - think what you have just admitted, that your religion is a cult of humam sacrifice. You worship a God who demands that people be executed in order to achieve vicarious redemption and forgiveness. This is happening so far out from the realms of moral accountability, the idea that you can be forgiven and absolved of guilt by a human sacrifice. This is nonsensical, illogical, unethical, unthinkable except for in the minds of backward barbaric Bronze Age goat herders who had a world view so narrow they would make Miss Teen Arizona from 2007 look like Noam Chompsky. Check out the YouTube clip if you haven't seen it, it's hilarious. I pay you the compliment of assuming you don't really, deep down, believe this ancient tribal mythology to be in any way morally acceptable, let alone morally admirable or authoritative.