/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

From the description

“One of the basic concepts in Christianity is the Original Sin. Christians claim that Jesus died for the sins of others. But the entire Crucifixion story of Jesus Christ makes no sense at all. How can we inherit original sin from Adam? Why blame us for something we didn't do? That's not justice, and the Bible agrees: Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin (Deut. 24:16). So the story of Jesus Christ contradicts the Christian God itself!!!”

>>787358

We don't inherit guilt, just the inclination to sin.

God didn't just send his son to die on the cross, he sent Himself to die be tortured and die on it

Jesus is God

He died to conquer death. For all of us btw. We will all be raised at the last day, whether you like it or not.

>>787365

>he sent Himself to die be tortured and die on it

Better said, he sent himself to be tortured and die on it

>>787368

But, why? Why couldn’t He save himself the torture?

>>787374

So the scriptures could be fulfilled. "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." Everything Jesus did was to fulfill the scriptures.

>>787378

But why were the scriptures made to be fulfilled, if they could’ve been supposedly better?

>>787379

The prophecies part doesn’t make sense, but the sacrifice does.

Were the prophecies based around the sacrifice Christ knew he had to eventually make?

>>787380

The bible consists of 66 books made by 40 authors created over 1500 years (iirc)

The scriptures were hundreds of years old when Jesus fulfilled them at mount golgotha and elsewhere

>>787356

Jesus had to become Sin, so that Sin, through him, would be destroyed.

>>787395

I thought that Jesus were supposed to be of no sin

How did Jesus become sin?

>>787398

He is God. He voluntarily became sin. He then descended to Hell and paid the full price for your sins, because he is God.

Ultimately, our salvation is from our total faith in God. And that faith is made manifest is Jesus’ sacrifice. We believe he covered for our sins because that’s what God told us.

>>787356

Well, first off, it's Dawkins so opinion discarded. He's always picking on low hanging fruit like that evangelical in the clip.

>>787364

Is relevant

Finally, why do you think free will, exercised poorly, is not a bad thing? It seems to follow from what you've said is that free will is always good. So is theft good? No.

>>787374

>Why couldn't He have saved Himself?

>>787380

>Why couldn't scripture be better?

Let's think for a moment of Cain and Abel. Abel, the shepherd, was killed by Cain, Cain went on to produce all the generations down to Noah. Now I know the Bible is a narrative story, so maybe it's somewhat unbelievable, but there's a reason the writers wrote the story of Cain and Abel; it's because they saw that people have this innate savagery, like Cain did. The Jews showed themselves to be no different in the New Testament, a "new Abel" if you like, the Good Shepherd, came to them and they crucified Him. God could have saved Himself, but how then was He supposed to save us, except by allowing us to destroy Him and forgiving us even as we did? His blood is upon our heads (Matthew 27:25), this much is true, but He did so to show us the extent of His forgiveness.

Also consider other antecedents in Greek literature; the Spartans at Thermopylae and Socrates all allowed themselves to die out of obedience to a principle. Nobody ever asks why the 300 had to die, or why Socrates had to die, because the history of those men tells us that they believed that they were the servants of their own people and principles.

Jesus, being as He is God, likewise had principled reasons for dying; to show us the extent of God's forgiveness, to serve those who mistreated Him, to be an example of pure love, to wipe out our sins as a sacrificial lamb, and also to be resurrected. All the varied theories of atonement just cast different light upon the same event and all are equally valid.

>>787385

I know a guy who debunks all that with what he calls the "hindsight implausibility theory". It basically states that someone who writes about someone who came after an event and writes predictions after the event cannot be taken seriously.

For example: If I had read Psalm 22:16 and knew the Messiah would be crucified, then the character I create in my own writing would obviously have to be crucified. The question posed is - How does John 20:27 fulfill Psalms 22:16 when John was writing AFTER both Psalms was written and Jesus died? It's like if I wrote a story today about a made-up man who predicted the events of 9/11/2001. I have the power of hindsight and, thus, cannot be believed.

>>787429

Well, fair enough, but I think we all knew it had to be taken on faith in the first place

>>787429

Also I don't think that applies to the broader narrative, all you have to believe when it comes to narrative points is that the Bible gives a very solid account of human behaviour albeit in a storied format.

>>787429

Think of it this way: just use common sense. My religion professor said that Jews thought Cyrus the Great was the Messiah after reading Isaiah. Then I just thought, “wow, that’s retarded… don’t recall Cyrus ever having his hands and feet pierced…”

Just read the Bible, the prophets specifically. There’s no other option as to who the Messiah would be other than Jesus Christ.

>>787429

That would imply the gospel writers were lying and made up the story of Jesus, no?

Or are you saying that the psalms were made after jesus died?

>>787432

>>787434

That's pretty much what I told him. Faith is essential.

>>787442

It's the implication that the Gospel writers invented Jesus and just used OT prophecy to "prove' Jesus was the Messiah.

>>787429

Jesus wasn't made up

>>787451

Jesus is a real person, not just some fable made up after the fact.

>>787451

>It's the implication that the Gospel writers invented Jesus and just used OT prophecy to "prove' Jesus was the Messiah.

So it's a retarded and bunk argument then.

>>787429

so the apostles lied about a public execution when witnesses were still living to jews who they were trying to convert?

>>787356

>Why did Jesus have to die?

Because God said so. Now go to sleep.

>>787459

Jesus rose from the dead. You're missing half the story.

>>787356

Only the sacrifice of God could save us from the eternal offense of the original sin. That is: only God sacrificing Himself for us could repair the infinite offense of original sin.

That's in the catechism of Pius X.

>>787356

I like this Orthodox priest's explanation. Starts at 18:45.

>>787358

He didn't die for the original sin, but for every sin we have commited. Why? Because sin is an offense against God, doing something against the will of the one who has created us and given us everything. God is eternal and infinite, but humans are finite. Offenses against God have infinite consequence that we cannot repay because we are finite. This is just. But God is loving and merciful, so He himself became human, so He could suffer our penalty for us, and because of His infinite nature, this was sufficient to atone for all the sins humanity has commited and will commit.

He died so that all who believe in Him could have eternal life. Because we are too imperfect to be able to merit our own salvation. It's because of this sacrifice that no matter how grievously you sin, as long as you have a genuine will to repent, all you have to do is use the sacrament of Confession to be freed, and to be able to participate in the greatest joy and only true purpose a human can have - the eternal life.

>>787429

The Watergate Seven cracked in less than a day. You expect me to believe that twelve people adamantly defended a hoax, and died for it?

>>787356

The wage of sin is death. Under the Old Testament Law, all sins had to be paid for with some kind of death, either by the execution of the sinner or by the sacrifice of animals. When we say that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament Law, we mean that Christ took the place of all the religious executions and animal sacrifices that would ever have to be paid for sins in the future. Now our sins no longer have to be paid for with death, because they already have been paid for with the most important death in history. If Christ hadn't sacrificed Himself, the Old Law wouldn't have been fulfilled, and legally we'd still be obligated to stone each other and slaughter cattle at the Temple.

>>787542

I dunno, man. There are people out there who believe all of NASA is hiding the "fact" that the Earth is flat. There are people out there who believe the entire US Government is hiding the "fact" that 9/11 was an inside job. There are people out there who believe tens of thousands of people are hiding the "fact" that the holocaust was fake.

Given that, is 12 people creating a hoax really all that difficult to believe?

>>787542

Technically, only 4 wrote it down. The other 8 are only written about, but didn't write anything of their own.

>>787456

I agree. Geeze, people, stop acting like I came up with this. Read what I wrote:

>>787429

>I know a guy who

It ain't me.

>>787614

Woul you be willing to die for a hoax?

>>787616

>only 4

Five, actually. John wrote one gospel, three epistles, as well as the book of Revelation. Peter wrote two epistles. James, son of Zebedee, wrote an epistle. James the Just wrote an epistle. Matthew wrote one gospel.

>>787619

Me? No, but a lot of people would. Look how many people die for Islam. People love to die for hoaxes.

>>787621

There is a difference. Assuming your premise that the 12 apostles that were martyred for the hoax is true which it isn't they died knowing full well they were lying to people. To what end? The Apostles never got rich or powerful from it. All they got was persecution and death.

Muhammad (piss be upon him) died of a fever and never faced persecution in fact he lived like a king like St. Peter and others did.

All the jihadists that were radicalized after the "prophet"'s death didn't know Islam was a big lie.

>>787621

The implications here is not that the resurrection is necesseraly true because they died for Jesus, the implication here is that they probably were truthful honest people, and weren't trying to deceive them. The apostle's martydom is only one of the reasons of christianity's truthfulness.

>>787621

That is not a hoax. Hoax implies you know it is false but still pretend it is true. People who die for islam don't secretly believe islam is a false religion.

Again, can you mention one person who has been willing to get tortured and killed to defend a hoax?