Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2014, 11:11 AM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
Jesus didn't die for our sins. Jesus died because Jackson the Gof-Slayer was tired of his shit.

“You see… sometimes life gives you lemons. And when that happens… you need to find some spell that makes lemons explode, because lemons are terrible. I only ate them once and I can say with certainty they are the worst fruit. If life gave me lemons, I would view it as nothing short of a declaration of war."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 11:16 AM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
(03-11-2014 10:28 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 10:25 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rce-thread

Scroll down to post #3.

See where it says #3 ? That's also a link. Click on it and you get

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid674774

AWESOME! I like learning stuff, thank you thank you. Yes

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
03-11-2014, 11:19 AM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
When we're talking about Jesus dying while being strapped to a cross, I just need to ask, how exactly did he die? We aren't referring to 'La petite mort' are we? Being penetrated by a spear will do that I find.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
03-11-2014, 11:19 AM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
(03-11-2014 10:30 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 02:20 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  What about the witnesses to His resurrection? They all lied??

You mean all 500-600 of them? I find it quite interesting that Jesus would do this supposedly great thing for us - namely die to save us - and then rise from the dead - and why would he rise? Of course, to prove to us that he is a deity. Without that, he's just another man claiming to be the messiah who was full of crap. So, if Jesus wanted any believers, he had to prove he was more than that. And when he supposedly did so by becoming undead, he hid it. He appeared to just a handful of people. I mean, if you're going to prove something, then prove it. What's with a deity who obviously should know better, appearing only to a mere 500-600 people?

We don't have 500 - 600 eye witnesses. We have one guy who wrote down that we have over 500 witnesses. This same guy includes himself as a witness, but his own encounter with Christ was in a vision, so there is no reason to believe the 500 saw anything other than a hallucination either. The account also doesn't coincide with the Gospel post resurrection appearances.

Imagine that...a contradiction in the Bible. Dodgy

(03-11-2014 10:31 AM)natachan Wrote:  I beginning to think that god is, in fact, a vampire.

Vampire? Don't be silly. Jesus was a lich.

[Image: wpid-Photo-Oct-26-2013-1127-PM.jpg]

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Can_of_Beans's post
03-11-2014, 11:27 AM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2014 12:12 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
(03-11-2014 05:59 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 05:53 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Humans, based upon that idiotic story of Adam and Eve, didn't willfully sell themselves into slavery to Satan. They were duped by the greatest of all tricksters who was allowed to enter Eden by your bumbling ball of infallibility. I repeat, humans did not sell themselves to Satan.

Yup... like I said every time you open your mouth you show you know nothing about Christian doctrine... Don't presume to teach me anything until you know a bit yourself Smile

Yes... humans DID sell themselves to satan... you've watched too much tv and trying to envision this as a black arts ritual.

Man chose rebellion... man gave his dominion to satan including dominion over man... just handed it to him Smile

Read a theology book or a bible or something sheesh lmao

LEARN something Smile

Well what do we have here? Did someone come into the lair who claims they know something about Xtine doctrine? Awesome, where did you get your degree from? Mine is in religious studies, majoring in Christianity from Saint Leo University. Usually, I now link people to my resource library to a specific paper or research I have already done on said subject, but I will make the exception in your case since you want to come stomping in pretending to know something.

I love to read theology books, I have literally hundreds, I will cite my work at the bottom, care to do the same? Don't make the mistake in thinking because we are atheists we don't speak religion fluently. I have never found any believer who knows the bible as well as I do, or Xtian doctrine.

Come learn something

--------------------------------------
Eric ##########
Professor ######## #######
Christian Spirituality Vision REL 123
##########

The relationship between incarnation and atonement

To contemplate the relationship between incarnation and atonement, with special emphasis on Anselm’s idea of satisfaction, we must first look at what incarnation and atonement means to those of the Christian faith. Incarnation is continual in that our redemption depends on the reality that the eternal son of God came to us as a man. If he did not come fully down, then we are not fully saved (Dawson 5-6). Since Jesus became what we are, accepting our very humanity and God crossed the gap between human and deity, and he overcame our sin and came to live on our behalf. He chose to leave a faithful life that was beyond our capacity, but required by the Father.

The very obedience of Jesus led him to die on the cross as penalty for human sin. Not only did he die for us, but he gave us new life for salvation, and salvation depends on our continuing union with him. The Incarnation is basically a fundamental theological teaching of Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The Incarnation represents the Christian belief that Jesus, who is the second part of the triune, God, took on a human body and became both man and deity. This can be seen in the Bible in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (Bible – King James version – John). The Christians worldview is rooted in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the belief that Jesus is God in human in one person (Mueller 141).

Atonement is a theological theory which describes human being’s reconciliation with God. This atonement is basically the forgiveness of sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus. This voluntary sacrifice by Jesus made possible the reconciliation between man and God. “God so loved the world, and gave his only begotten son” (Bible – King James version – John 3:16). This Scripture verse highlights the source of atonement by the very provision of God’s love. It is the love of God the father that Paul has in view when he speaks of him who “spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all” (Bible – King James version – Romans 8:32). Surely God could have saved man by other means then allowing his only son to die, since God is all-powerful, other ways of forgiving sin were available to him. Some view the very necessity of his great self-sacrifice magnified his glory and enhanced the precise character of the salvation bestowed (Murray 12). Salvation requires not only the forgiveness of sin but also justification. Sin is the contradiction of God he must react against it with holy wrath demonstration of Christ on the cross is the ultimate demonstration of the love of God. The very nature of the atonement requires that it contains obedience, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption.

Obedience is a compilation of motive, purpose, direction and intention, of which Christ was the epitome of obedience and discharge of God’s will in its increasing demands leading up to his inevitable sacrificial death. Sacrifice is the removal of sin liability via the transference of liability itself. Propitiation; to pacify, and Christ’s propitiation to God was to deal with the wrath so that those loved would no longer be the objects of wrath, and God’s love would be eternal. Reconciliation is concerned with our alienation from God, and the inherent need to have that alienation removed. Redemption by Jesus’ blood, “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Bible – King James version – revelations 5:9).

This atonement can be broken down into various theories, one of which is the satisfaction theory of atonement, developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109). Anselm posited that sin unbalanced the order of justice in the universe. Once a sin has been performed, something good must be done in order to restore the balance. For example, a sin is incurrence of debt to God, the source of order, and that debt must be paid through true repentance (Albl 271). The work of Christ is to repair the breach human sin introduced into the relationship between humanity and God. Anselm argued in Cur Deus Homo that this work can be accomplished only by a God-man; one person equally divine and human. This doctrine of Christ is commonly called “Chalcedonian Christology” because it was created by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE (Visser 213).

One cannot explain the incarnation by appeal to any supposed obligation on God’s part to respect the devil’s rights over humanity. Since the devil had no such rights, so it appears that God would not have been acting unjustly if he had just delivered human beings the power of the devil by fiat. What reason did God have to redeemed mankind and the way he did, given that he was not under any obligation to do so? Anselm suggests that since we know God’s will is never irrational, we can be confident that God had some reason for doing what he did, even if we do not see or understand what the reason is (Visser 214).

Anselm believed he could prove, by unavoidable logical steps, that Christ was removed from the case, as if there had never existed anything to do with him, is it possible that without him mankind could have been saved (Anselm 261 – 262). A foundation of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins (Bible – King James version –1 Cor 15:3). In this way he fulfilled the old covenant sacrificial system, reconciled us to God, and changed our lives forever. This is the doctrine of the atonement (Mattison 1). At this point the author makes a faith claim, or commonly known as a knowledge claim, by positing “its reality is not in dispute”. I must interject here the whole subject is in dispute, and has been the center of debate for centuries. The author’s mere assertion in a knowledge claim that the atonement “reality” is not in dispute does not make it true. It does however assert that the atonement theory is an essential foundation of Christian religious belief. The author goes on to say, “we know that the atonement works; but how it works is not as clear.” Again, a knowledge claim is made; we have zero proof that the atonement works, at best it is a comforting theory for the faithful to cling to in order to validate their faith to themselves.

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Bible –King James version – Matthew 20:28). The statement suggests that Jesus gave his life as an extreme expression of love for mankind. Iranaeus of Lyons argued that Jesus was paid as the ransom to the devil free people’s souls. This view was known as the ransom or classic theory. The ransom theory was the dominant theological theory for centuries until dismantled by Anselm of Canterbury. He pointed out that this theory empowered the devil too much, and he posited that Jesus’s life was ransom paid to God, not the devil. Anselm viewed sin as dishonorable conduct that went against God. Since God cannot ignore this conduct, a debt or “satisfaction” is required. Since mankind is unable to make the requisite level of satisfaction, God became human to do it on our behalf. Thus, Jesus was payment to God, not the devil. But since Jesus was part of the triune god, did god merely appease himself?

The church leaders developed doctrine to reflect Jesus Christ’s fulfilling of God’s will through active obedience, vice his passive obedience through death. Basically, God requires mankind to obey and live a life of perpetual obedience (Mattison 1). This endless cycle of perpetual intellectual and spiritual slavery upon birth, where we continuously strive to bow and scrape in deference to our alleged creator’s self-centered will and ego, is hardly what a thinking person would presume a deity of such universe and life creating power, would be so obsessed with. What kind of immature supreme being would create all of this, create life, destroy life, send part of his own “body” down in the form of a man through immaculate conception, so he can die on our behalf to satisfy God’s ego requirement for sacrifice. I don’t purport to understand the consciousness of this alleged magical creature, but it is hard to conceive such childish, disingenuous manipulation of life for the entertainment of itself. This dramatic, over thought, contrite, anthropocentric theory must be the creation of man’s imagination. How could it be anything else?

In summary, this complex, dramatic Christian theological concept is obviously a fabrication of much thought, and introspective philosophy. Perhaps they could have put all that time and effort into something more constructive. Creating a subservient, subjugative crutch for people with low mental resilience, apparent inability to use reason and logic to comprehend the world around them, and wild imaginations seems unnecessary. In my opinion, religion and faith block the believer’s ability to utilize appropriate epistemological methods to process and gain knowledge. As apparent by the fact that a recent study showed that one fourth of America believed the sun revolved around the earth. This is the perfect example of how religious thought handicaps a person’s ability to learn.


Works Cited:

Mattison, Mark. “The Meaning of the Atonement.” Mark Mattison. 1987. Web. Retrieved from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html

Anselm, Evans, G. R., The Major Works. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 1998. Print.

Visser, Sandra and Williams, Thomas, Anselm. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2009. Print.

Murray, John, The Atonement. Evansville: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1976. Print.

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Dawson, Gerrit S. Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation. New Jersey: P&R publishing, 2004. Print.

[Image: 2dsimie.gif]

Smartass

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
03-11-2014, 11:27 AM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
Do you mean Jesus Navas? I'm pretty sure he's still alive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2014, 11:30 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2014 12:59 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
(03-11-2014 05:30 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 05:27 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  In your scenario God is the buyer, the seller and Liam Neeson's character from Taken. He holds all the cards and made all the rules. He also doesn't exist which is why the need for blood is senseless, as was the flood, and every other cruel act this amalgamation of Gods thrown together in the Christian melting pot of stupidity that he brought down over those he so loves.

Was that a run on sentence?

Its really too bad the majority of you have nothing above a single little childish quip every time you post and never have anything intelligent on the subject.. A debate against those unarmed with intellectually inclined comments and credible source material is pretty boring. Its like... winning by default
Laughat

dude.....lol...don't make me drag you around the knowledge tree. Smartass

WOLFBITN: "Then where do you suppose His body went to, and why weren't the Romans and the Priestly guards able to produce His body?"

Whose body? The mythical jesus? By the way, you do know what Pseudepigrapha, interpolations, parables and allegorical writings are right? *whispers* "the bible".

WOLFBITN: "What about the witnesses to His resurrection? They all lied??"

Witnesses? according to who? Got a name? Speaking of people who oddly DIDN'T see or report anything ...

The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history. One of the writers alive during the time of Jesus was Philo-Judaeus (sometimes known as Philo of Alexandria).

Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place – when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These amazing marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were all unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.
Philo might be considered the investigative reporter of his day. He was there on location during the early first century, talking with people who should have remembered or at least heard the stories, observed, taking notes, documenting. He reported nothing about Jesus.


Justus of Tiberius
There was also a historian named Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth century Christian scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: “he [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or other wonderful works that he did.”

Consider

WOLFBITN: "Why did the church take off like a shot all of a sudden, with thousands of people converting every day AT THAT time period? These would have been the eyewitnesses, all their friends and family... in spite of the fact they were killing Christians and did for the next almost 300 years."

Citation please. Facepalm

Hey Mr theology student, surely you know the answer to that. SO WHY is Xtianity so popular? Why did it become the worldwide delusion of choice? Ever heard of Emperor Constantine? Bishop Augustine? Come on, you are kidding me right?

Because I pity your hubris attempt to posit that you know something, I will endeavor to teach you, take notes child..

Here, a paper I wrote on this:

The impact of Emperor Constantine on the Nicene Council

Any analysis of the impact of Emperor Constantine on the councils of Nicaea is bound to be one of controversy and debate. It is my position that Emperor Constantine had an inappropriately heavy and undue influence on the various councils that strived to answer various questions of Christianity. We must begin with the immeasurable impact that Emperor Constantine had on the spread of Christianity, and his successful suppression of incumbent Roman pagan beliefs. Legend has it that Emperor Constantine saw two stars cross in the sky, in which he took to be a sign from God that Christianity was the only true faith. Eusebius, in his written work Life of Constantine, claimed that Emperor Constantine had thought long and hard about which God to ask for help in the upcoming battles.

His decision rested on honoring his father’s God alone. He claimed that in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same symbol that he saw in the sky earlier in the day, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign, and to use it as a safeguard for all future engagements with enemies (Stewart 67). While his conversion to Christianity in 312 CE was not truly the moment Christianity came to be the official religion of the Roman Empire, it definitely was one of the major contributing factors for its subsequent acceptance.

Emperor Constantine conducted a religious-based crusade against Licinius in a war to rescue Christians on the east from further persecution. In the years 312 CE to 313 CE, Emperor Constantine began a systematic policy in which he gave honors, privileges and financial donations to the Christian church and their clergy. In 324 CE, as the unchallenged controller of the East, he prohibited by Royal decree any cultic activities which until then fell under the traditional religions of the Roman Empire, and this is when the status of Christianity as the official religion of the state and its rulers was affirmed (Lieu 7).

Constantine used his imperial power to protect and support the Christian church. He was a sincere if somewhat simple believer. He knew portions of the Old Testament and perhaps the basic outline of biblical history, and he could summarize the story of the Gospels. For Constantine, God was a providential Judge who supports the righteous and destroys the wicked, and he believed that the church had to be unified if it was going to offer pleasing worship to God. Constantine expended an enormous amount of treasure on churches; it was used both on buildings and, with the emperor’s explicit encouragement, on establishing ministries of mercy to the poor, sick and the widows(Leithart 302).

Emperor Constantine also wanted to end the growing controversy between Arius, a priest in the church of Alexandria, and his Bishop Alexander. Bishop Alexander became concerned when he noticed a growing number of clergy members accepting and encouraging Arius’s views which went against the accepted teachings of the church in regards to the relationship between God and Jesus. Emperor Constantine called for the Council of Nicaea which was considered to be the first ecumenical Council of the church because bishops from both the eastern and western parts of the world would attend.

Emperor Constantine attempted to give the Council of Nicaea an inspiring opening speech designed to bring the 300 bishops in attendance to a focused unity. He even reminded them that Christ had instructed them to forgive one another. “… As soon as I heard that intelligence which I had least expected to receive, I mean the news of your dissension, I judged it to be of no secondary importance, but with the earnest desire that a remedy for this evil also might be found through my means, I immediately sent to require your presence. And now I rejoice in beholding your assembly; but I feel that my desires will be most completely fulfilled when I can see you all united in one judgment, and that common spirit of peace and concord prevailing amongst you all, which becomes you, as consecrated to the service of God, to commend to others” (Stewart 73).

Arius and his followers were in the minority against their counterparts from the West. Both groups presented arguments from Scripture, essentially canceling each other out. Part of the problem was that the scriptural terms used in the debate (such as father and son) were too ambiguous. The Arians exploited this ambiguity, insisting that it is only logical that he father must exist prior to his son. The Orthodox countered that the Arians were taking the analogy too literally (Albl 154). Then the debate began on the specific terminology for the Creed that they were trying to promulgate. They needed to be able to define the son’s relationship with the father in a philosophically precise term.

In the end however, the two sides refused to come to a common agreement over the term Homoousios, which means “of the same substance,” meaning that God the father and the son are not just alike in some way, but that they actually share the same divinity. The Arians wanted to make a small change by adding a letter to make the word homoiousios, which means “of similar substance”. When it was time to finish business and sign the Creed, 17 bishops remained opposed. Emperor Constantine threatened to depose these bishops and send them into exile. Two of the 17 bishops stood their ground and were subsequently deposed and exiled for their efforts (Stewart 73).

How is it possible to affirm that Jesus is somehow God while avoiding the undesirable conclusion that there are two gods? If they adopt John’s language, namely that Jesus is the logos become flesh, is this logos to be thought of as God properly speaking or some lesser divinity? How is it possible, if at all, for Christians to affirm that God “becomes” something when Christians also affirm that God is eternal and unchanging? These questions created conflict and confusion within the Christian movement as it spread across the Mediterranean world and increasingly interactive with Greco Roman culture and thought. Such confusion ultimately led to the need for Christian theologians and bishops to provide a conceptual framework in which to speak properly and consistently about Jesus’ identity (Mueller 121).

Some religious scholars concede that Emperor Constantine not only convened important council’s sessions, but also either presided over them, or appointed a Royal official to preside in his place. This reduced the very role of bishops and councils such as Nicaea and Tyre to utter insignificance by assimilating them to members of the Imperial consilium, whose advice was not binding on the Emperor. All decisions taken at the Nicene Council were made by Emperor Constantine alone, since he could completely disregard the advisory opinions of the bishops whom he had summoned to the Council (Lieu 8).

Other religious scholars contend that Emperor Constantine’s influence was minimal, and that he merely sat in on the councils out of personal interest. “He attended some of the councils and contributed to discussions but did not chair any council or determine the outcome” (Leithart 304). However, when we look at the Council of Nicaea of 359 CE, we see that Emperor Constantine again took a prominent role of control in the theological debate. Once the foundation of Christianity as a predominant religion of the Empire had been successfully established, Emperor Constantine later relinquished some of his control and influence by putting a seal of approval on the rulings of bishops declared at councils. The governors of provinces were not even allowed to rescind what they had decided, for he said the priests of God were more trustworthy than any magistrate (Lieu 10).

The first Council of Nicaea in 325 CE was called together by Emperor Constantine, and it worked to establish a settlement of the issue of the relationship between father and the son. The focus primarily was on defining Jesus Christ as a deity. Establishment of the Holy Spirit was largely unaddressed until after the father and son relationship was settled in 362 CE. After Nicaea, some bishops continued to prefer a term which had been discussed and rejected by the Council: homoiousios, in the sense of the son ‘being of like substance’ with the father. There were other bishops who were antagonistic to the term homoiousios because it was not biblical (O’Collins 184). Seven years later, the Trinitarian terminology was officially adopted after first Council Constantinople. Even Thomas Aquinas acknowledged that some words used in the churches official declarations are not biblical, but insisted that “the urgency of confuting heretics made it necessary to find new words to express the ancient faith about God” (Albl 155).

In its letter to Pope Damascus, a post conciliar synod confessed ‘one divinity, power, or substance’ in ‘three most perfect hypostasesin’ (O’Collins 185). At the Trinitarian level, Constantinople I reaffirmed the Nicene Council confession of faith that the son was ’of one substance’ with the father, as well as teaching the divinity of the Holy Spirit (O’Collins 186). Thus, the official establishment of Christian doctrine regarding the Trinity of the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit was initiated. If It was not for the overbearing presence of Emperor Constantine upon the proceedings, to include the threat of deposing any opposing bishops to what he considered to be the way forward, Christianity would not be what it is today.
The councils findings were that God’s very self is encountered in Christ, not just a creature of elevated status, not a proxy. Jesus is the personal manifestation of God in the world according to the Christian tradition. A good analogy would be that God is like the sun, and Jesus is like the sunlight emanating from the sun. The same substance, the same source, and yet different in form and function.

If it was not for the overwhelming presence of Emperor Constantine at the various councils, deposing of bishops with differing views, issuing of decrees banishing all other forms of religion except Christianity, and his political, military, royal and financial support of Christianity, there is a good chance that the world’s dominant religion today could’ve been Mithraism. It is hard to conceive that Christianity would be the worldwide influential religion that is today if it were not for the impact of Emperor Constantine.

Works Cited:

Leithart, Peter J., Defending Constantine. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010. Print.

Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Montserrat, Dominic, Constantine: History, Historiography, and Legend. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

O'Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

Stewart, Cynthia., The Catholic church: a brief popular history. Winona, Mn: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2008. Print.

-------------------------------

You see, Emperor Constantine made an official decree that all other forms of religion were not only illegal, but capital crimes. Get caught with a differing view; death. Now go study Bishop Augustine some more as well....

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
03-11-2014, 11:39 AM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
(03-11-2014 05:30 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 05:27 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  In your scenario God is the buyer, the seller and Liam Neeson's character from Taken. He holds all the cards and made all the rules. He also doesn't exist which is why the need for blood is senseless, as was the flood, and every other cruel act this amalgamation of Gods thrown together in the Christian melting pot of stupidity that he brought down over those he so loves.

Was that a run on sentence?

Its really too bad the majority of you have nothing above a single little childish quip every time you post and never have anything intelligent on the subject.. A debate against those unarmed with intellectually inclined comments and credible source material is pretty boring. Its like... winning by default

Right. So you just shouldn't bother.
It's really too bad the majority of your threads are boring diatribes that accomish nothing but your own desperate need to prosthelize.
Im sure you have a mission to convert people here or just chew on your ideals...but you're transparent as hell and boring beyond belief.

Geesh
Shut up already.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
03-11-2014, 11:50 AM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
(03-11-2014 11:19 AM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  We don't have 500 - 600 eye witnesses. We have one guy who wrote down that we have over 500 witnesses. This same guy includes himself as a witness, but his own encounter with Christ was in a vision, so there is no reason to believe the 500 saw anything other than a hallucination either. The account also doesn't coincide with the Gospel post resurrection appearances.

Thanks and good point. What I was trying to show is that, even on his own playing field, things don't add up.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
03-11-2014, 11:55 AM
RE: Did Jesus DIE for our sins?
(03-11-2014 02:13 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  You guys don't know very much about your theology do you?

It sounds like you know less than us.


(03-11-2014 02:13 AM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Lets say we lived in the days of legal slavery...
...
If it looked to you like your child was going to live the rest of his life in abuse and misery and then die enslaved. Would you PAY to buy back your child? Yes or no?

Is your god great or not? The problem with these analogies is they always place human limitations on your god in order for the analogy to make any sense. Let me correct your analogy for you.

Lets say your child was going to live as a slave. Now, lets say that you were all powerful and you could just free your child by will alone? Why would you pay any money to free your child?

See? Unless you think your god is far less powerful than what you would otherwise state, these analogies make no sense. Either your god is great, or he is not. If he is, then stop making God -> human analogies. If he isn't, then why call him "God"?


Learn to apologetics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: