The Central Flaw of Christianity (another article)

[gmcbroom]

Naidamar,

Another way that points to it is when God, speaks to Moses through the burning bush he says I AM the God of his father, the God of Abraham, The God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. There is no past tense for God.


Grace Seeker did a job in answering your 2 questions at least from a christian standpoint its understandable. The fact the you can't understand it just illustrates a sad point that MIA made earlier. That my way leads to seperation and indeed it does. For to accept Christianity is to reject Islam. It is in essence death for depending on where you live rejecting Islam is a death sentence. Yet, Jesus promises us life even saying its better to lose ones life for his sake. Oh he'll raise ALL on the last day even you for we are all sinners to face the judgement.

Peace be with you

I have marriage prep to go to I got engaged over the weekend. so I'll check in later.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Believe it or not, Sol, I'm not even terribly interested on whether or not original sin is the foundation for anything. I just don't like to have words put in my mouth.

Let's say that you're right and it's the thinking of sin like it's a debt that is the foundation instead (although why without original sin this debt is automatically there is another question entirely). I have explained every which way what's wrong with thinking of sin like a debt in the first place and I really don't know what else there is to say on the matter. People are allowed to pay other people's literal, monetary debts for them because for people money is a necessity. The only reason why a multi-billionaire would demand that five dollars owed by someone be paid, even if it's by someone else who doesn't have anything to do with it, is simple greed. Justice does not work the same way because justice demands that everyone be responsible for his own actions and no one else's, and that therefore either the one owed must pay the "debt" or, if the debtor excuses him of the burden (which he has every right to do and therefore no injustice is taking place), no one pay anything. There's a reason why people being given the death penalty aren't allowed to let their fathers volunteer to be executed in their place: it's not ethical. There is simply no way for one person being punished for what another person did to ever be right in any universe. I'm sure that you're aware of this and that if you were not blinded by closed-minded adherence to Christian dogma then you would not have any reason to disagree. I have never had any hope of you letting yourself see, of course; the only reason I ever argue with evangelists is to present the truth so as to counteract their lies so that there will theoretically be less chance of impartial readers being misled, and I think I have done that. I asked for any non-Christians to voice any disagreement; no one has spoken up. I predict that they will not in the future, either. Neither my fingers nor my mind is up to the task of going around in circles with you for twenty more thread pages; experience teaches that to be the only possible outcome whenever this debate occurs, which has happened so many times I was sick of it before we started this time. It's always the same. I think that brother Hamza and I have effectively been convincing enough so that casual readers of the thread will be able to see it, and therefore my work here is done. I am not in a mood to repeat myself and spend endless hours correcting misquotes and misrepresentations. You were caught in one lie (which you were foolish enough to repeat even after I exposed it, as though nothing had happened) and that should be enough. Good day and goodbye.

 

[YusufNoor]

Wow, Grace was right in asking the question "are you being obtuse?". The question was answered but apparently you really can't understand a full and detailed answer which I even highlighted the most relevant point.

It's a lost cause.

Peace out

P.S.: I know you don't worship Muhammad but you do know the highlights of his life. Stop putting words in my mouth as you seem to like it. We worship God, not Jesus, but we do acknowledge the works and life of Jesus. Stop making assumptions.

We worship God, not Jesus, but we do acknowledge the works and life of Jesus.

^o)

ya, i don't think Grace Seeker will agree with that point. 90% plus of Christians DO worship Jesus. and actually worship him as a god, or one of the gods.

folks should understand that the reason we don't seem to understand your explanations is because they make absolutely no sense to us. you have "bought into it" so to speak so you can shrug off anything that doesn't "make sense" as a mystery or whatever. or that "god" is beyond understanding.

for us, it makes no sense what so ever. it violates Tawheed, which is shirk and therefore is THE major sin. our natural disposition is to avoid it like the plague, while you want to relish in it like an elephant who has reached a watering-hole after a 2 week trek.

you DESIRE it, we are repulsed by it. we KNOW it's wrong, there's NO doubt about it.

so while it may APPEAR to you that we are being thick-headed, we are simply ASTOUNDED that you keep trying to make sense of something that TRULY AND SURELY LEADS TO THE HELLFIRE!

it's a little like watching lemmings stroll off the cliff...

 

[Ramadhan]

Another way that points to it is when God, speaks to Moses through the burning bush he says I AM the God of his father, the God of Abraham, The God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. There is no past tense for God.

So it was baby Jesus who spoke to Moses?

race Seeker did a job in answering your 2 questions at least from a christian standpoint its understandable.

Please point out to me where in those long winded sentences that GS answered my question: is baby Jesus God? (yes or no)

Oh he'll raise ALL on the last day even you for we are all sinners to face the judgement.

Oh I believe that we will all be raised during the Judgement day, all right. Except it will be God that will raise us, not a man, even if he's jesus.

I have marriage prep to go to I got engaged over the weekend.

Congrats!

By the way, I hope you watched those youtubes I sent you in the other thread about christian apostates.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Let me also get straight to the point as i have been doing throughout our discussions in this thread - THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF CHRIST IS NOT TAUGHT BY ANY PROPHET, JESUS OR THE BIBLE!

How is is possible that one of the most fundamental teachings of Christianity was not explicitly taught by Jesus or ANYWHERE in the Bible?

oh dear, hamza. the above clearly shows what kind of character you possess. after having been repeatedly shown explicit statements by graceseeker and myself where the bible says that christ died for the forgiveness of sin all you can do is ignore these and repeat yourself ad nauseum. what exactly do you find difficult to understand from the following?:

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” --- Luke 24:40-49 NIV

what exactly is vague concerning the above, i really don't know. christ himself is saying that all the prophets preached concerning his death and resurrection and that forgiveness of sin was to be gained from his saving-blood. seriously, who are you kidding with your attempt at obfuscating what is clearly spelt out in the bible. no one here other than yourself is buying this failing argument of yours and the more you say that you have clearly shown that the bible and christ do not speak of his atonement the more people can see that you are a dishonest individual.

The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that:

“... God is NOT the author of confusion ...”

This verse PROVES that God would NEVER confuse his people or keep such fundamental concepts a mystery only to be created by theologians hundreds of years after Jesus.

there you go again trying to make the bible say something it doesn't. can you provide us with the context for the above verse? the verse speaks concerning confusion in how a church service functions. once again your lies and b astardizatio of scripture is brought to light. furthermore, i'm glad that you are quoting from the words of paul to prove your point seeing as you thus implicitly admit to teh truth of his position. now let's see what paul says concerning the matter of christ's saving-blood:

"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith." --- Romans 3:25

now will you suddenly claim that the above does not speak of christ's atonement and saving blood? hamza, your character has been exposed and members in this very thread have called you out on it.

So therefore the one verse you keep using to try and prove your position has failed EVERYTIME as has been proven consistantly and therefore it CANNOT be used to prove your point at all for the verse does NOT state nor does it even imply that Jesus taught or said anything about the fact that his blood was necessery for the atonement of the "inherited sin of mankind".

inherited sin of mankind deals with original sin. how did you bring it back into the discussion? it seems that you do not know the difference between the atonement and original sin?

The above is the first part of your argument in post 95 in which the crux of your argument being that "sin is a debt whose only method of payment is death".

This is CLEARLY pointing towards the fact that the death of Christ is necessery for the atonement of the original sin.

arguments such as the above are why you have repeatedly failed to make a point in this discussion. how does the atonement predicate original sin. seriously, we'd like to get this answer from you. yahya has made the very same mistake so perhaps it'd be easier for the both of you if you could discuss this amongst yourself so that you could come up with a credible response. seriously we'll wait for your response on this one because surely it'll be entertaining to see the lengths that you'll go to in order to salvage such a failing argument. death is necessary for the atonement of sin. even the jews believed this and yet both muslims and present-day jews claim that they didn't believe in original sin. so then, if they believed in atonement through blood and yet not in original sin, then original sin cannot be the basis for the atonement.

edit: given yahya's latest response it would seem that you'll have to do this by yourself. take your time.

WHERE in the teachings of Jesus and the Bible does it state that the death of Christ was "necessery" in order for the "inherited debt" of mankind to be wiped away?

scripture is quite clear that christ's death was necessary for the forgiveness of sin. but more importantly, where have i said that christ's death was necessary for the inherited debt of mankind to be paid. inherited debt once again refers to original sin and i had expressly asked you to prove how my post relied on the premise of original sin and you have repeatedly been unable to do so. once again you're simply making up claims out of thin air.

Where does Jesus and the Bible teach of this debt? and how it can be wiped away? Where does it teach that this "inherited sin can ONLY be wiped away by the sacrifice of God himself who slaughtered himself in order to forgive the sin of his very own creations? After you have provided me proof of your position then we can take things from there.

once again where do i speak concerning inherited debt? it is quite clear that at this time you aren't even dealing with my words at all but merely pretending ignorance so that you won't have to deal with my argument. please attack my argument that sinning results in debt instead of engaging in this vain attempt at ignorance so that you won't have to deal with my argument. what is it concerning my post that you're trying to avoid answering it so badly?

now, as it relates to all your old testament quotes (mainly in your response to graceseeker), can you tell us when the jews ceased with animal sacrifices? the fact that this practise continued to the very time of christ proves that personal responsibility is not set against the practise of atonement by blood. history quite simply disproves your argument (unless you would now claim that the jews never engaged in animal sacrifices either).

 

[Grace Seeker]

Funnily, and expected of course, knowing how fundies always obfuscate the matter when it comes to identity of God, for all the words that you wrote there, you didn't give me not one single answer to my simple questions. Actually from what I read, you re-define a lot of the meanings of words and you turn logic upside down.

Ok, let me ask you again in simple sentences:

1. Was baby Jesus already God?

2. Why do you not worship baby Jesus if it was already God? I've seen plenty of half naked crucified Jesus, the Last Supper Jesus in your churches, but never baby Jesus being worshiped.

I did answer those questions in the above.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Believe it or not, Sol, I'm not even terribly interested on whether or not original sin is the foundation for anything. I just don't like to have words put in my mouth.

greetings yahya. funny how you now move away from proving that the atonement is predicated on original sin when you were clearly saying this a few moments ago until i asked you to prove this. once again you have been shown to be completely ignorant of the christian doctrine and you even implicitly admit this by not showing how your view was at all correct.

Let's say that you're right and it's the thinking of sin like it's a debt that is the foundation instead (although why without original sin this debt is automatically there is another question entirely).

where have i claimed that the debt is already there. please quote my words instead of making things up out of thin air. my claim has consistently been that sinning results in debt. please, let's stick to what i have actually said instead of what has only been said in your imagination. if however what you say is true, please prove this---quote my words.

I have explained every which way what's wrong with thinking of sin like a debt in the first place and I really don't know what else there is to say on the matter.

yes, when you agreed with the fact that "sin results in a debt of sorts" you were really saying that sin did not result in a debt. right. who are you fooling yahya? if you really did explain this then please quote this post of yours where you denied that sin functioned as a debt. the only thing you denied was that it functioned as a monetary debt and yet where did i claim that it functioned as a monetary debt? my definition of debt was fairly all-encompassing so please start to actually refute it before you make claims that you are wholly unable to prove.

People are allowed to pay other people's literal, monetary debts for them because for people money is a necessity. The only reason why a multi-billionaire would demand that five dollars owed by someone be paid, even if it's by someone else who doesn't have anything to do with it, is simple greed.

huh, are you saying that if it came down to standing before a court over this matter then the court would not have the man's money be returned to him? so justice is not consistent? justice is justice irrespective of whether or not one could do without what has been taken from them. even if i were to steal from you even a single dollar, it would be unjust not to return this amount. no, it's not greed but rather principles. your example is as ridiculous as the belief which propagated it.

Justice does not work the same way because justice demands that everyone be responsible for his own actions and no one else's, and that therefore either the one owed must pay the "debt" or, if the debtor excuses him of the burden (which he has every right to do and therefore no injustice is taking place), no one pay anything. There's a reason why people being given the death penalty aren't allowed to let their fathers volunteer to be executed in their place: it's not ethical. There is simply no way for one person being punished for what another person did to ever be right in any universe.

please actually start attacking my claims instead of giving your opinion. you might want to start off with my definition of debt, and my conception of justice and move on from there. why have you consistently refused to quote my argument and show how it is in fact faulty? as it regards the father dying for the son example, i had already refuted such thinking when i enlightened you as to the distinction within sin and what christ actually paid for. you have not given a response to this refutation and in the above simply pretend that my refutation doesn't exist.

Neither my fingers nor my mind is up to the task of going around in circles with you for twenty more thread pages; experience teaches that to be the only possible outcome whenever this debate occurs, which has happened so many times I was sick of it before we started this time. It's always the same. I think that brother Hamza and I have effectively been convincing enough so that casual readers of the thread will be able to see it, and therefore my work here is done. I am not in a mood to repeat myself and spend endless hours correcting misquotes and misrepresentations. You were caught in one lie (which you were foolish enough to repeat even after I exposed it, as though nothing had happened) and that should be enough. Good day and goodbye.

it's sad to see you leave us so soon yahya. i had really hoped to see you salvage your argument and back up your successive claims which did little other than to show that you did not grasp the matter that you were attacking. i must say that i'm glad that you actually started this discussion because it gave me the opportunity to engage in a discussion that i probably would not have started myself. in so doing, i not only refuted your post but actually showed how your conception of justice and forgiveness is incredibly faulty and no one has yet to even touch these points.

You were caught in one lie (which you were foolish enough to repeat even after I exposed it, as though nothing had happened) and that should be enough. Good day and goodbye.

quote my post please. once again i'm simply asking you to back up your claims. i've noticed that whenever i ask for proof from you, you suddenly drop the matter entirely (as we have once again seen on the subject of whether the atonement is predicated on original sin). what is it about proof that is so antithetical to your character?

 

[Sol Invictus]

Maybe a quick idea for you Sol: break your points in smaller posts and just ask to be answered to one point, then maybe people will stop picking only the points to which they have answers.

i was thinking about this but decided against it. it's more of a pain than anything else and the fact that there seems to be an unspoken agreement to not actually engage my argument only furthers the fact that i have indeed refuted the article. it certainly is of no concern to me whether i prove my interlocutors wrong through an actual engagement of my argument, or i prove them wrong by their own aversion to my argument---either way, the results are the same.

that said, thanks for the encouragement and advice.

 

[Grace Seeker]

i can understand the trinity but to say that god is and always was a tri-personal being makes me question it on another level.
i cant believe that, im sorry..
its like using the monogenes argument to remove doubt about the worldly definition of trinity and then imposing misinterpretation on another level.

if i can ask a question,

is the preincarnate self of jesus pbuh the same as the character of the man jesus pbuh?

if yes, then are we not all our preincarnate self's?

it would show the majesty of the power of god.. the creator of all things.
it would allow god to remain external to the system.
it would further reduce the human concept of time to exactly that, something imposed upon creation.

and most noteworthy, it would reinforce the teachings of the quran as exactly the truth.
better to have achieved sincerity and faithfulness to god before you realise who you are.

maybe that last line applies to all the prophets pbut.

..some of whom have been rejected

The pre-incarnate Son is the person who becomes incarnate (God in the flesh) in Jesus. I don't understand what you mean by character, so I can't answer that part of the question. I can say that we believe that Jesus was both fully God and fully human, possessing both natures.

I also don't understand what you mean when you say, "if yes, then are we not all our preincarnate self's?" I think you may be thinking in Islamic terms of each person having already been created in God's world before being placed in our world. If this is behind your question, then I would have to remind you that generally Christianity doesn't conceive of the world that way (though I know a few do). We don't believe that humans exist in a pre-incarnate state. Although God may have foreknowledge of us and therefore see our entire life before we are ever conceived, we believe our life actually begins at the time of conception. This is one of the things that makes Jesus unique, that he (or at least his divine nature) did have an eternally begotten (see previous post) pre-incarnate existence which was joined to a time-bound and created human nature when he was incarnated in Mary's womb. But such things are not true of us who have only a human nature.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Greetings Grace Seeker,

I am glad you joined the discussion seeing as Sol was clearly out of his depth and really needed some help in order to prove his position in accordance with the teachings of God and Christ as he kept failing to do so and his frustration was quite apparent.

Looking at both of your posts what is apparent for ALL to see is that you have NOT proved your position in the slightest but actually weakened it further.

WRONG!!
What is actually apparent for ALL to see is that you enjoy moving the goalposts.

I did indeed answer this post:

Greetings Sol,

Let me also get straight to the point as i have been doing throughout our discussions in this thread - THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF CHRIST IS NOT TAUGHT BY ANY PROPHET, JESUS OR THE BIBLE!

How is is possible that one of the most fundamental teachings of Christianity was not explicitly taught by Jesus or ANYWHERE in the Bible?

</p>
Now you want to make it this:

You have NOT quoted a single word or teaching from ANY previous Prophet, the Christian deity, Jesus or God but what you have done to desperatley try and prove your weak position is to quote the one person who actually brought in this false concept in the first place - PAUL.

It's a fun game I'm sure, but you can play it by yourself.

Oh, and btw, for those who actually read, you will notice that I posted the following non-Pauline passages:"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10)

That Jesus is called "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29) specfically refers to his role as the perfect Passover lamb whose blood causes the spirit of death to bypass all under its protection, and we are told that as this lamb he "takes away the sin of the world" (again John 1:29). This act sets us right with God, which is exactly what atonement is all about.

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 28:28).

"Since the children have flesh and blood, he [Jesus] too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death — that is, the devil — and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death" (Hebrews 2:14-15).

"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world." (1 Peter 1:18-20a)

Yes, there is personal responsibility for sins. But only the self-blinded would fail to see that the Bible teaches that there is also a corporate dimension to sin. The old covenants recorded in the Tanakh allow for an atonement for the sins of the people (again not just individually, but also corporately) by the sacrifice of animals. However, it is something that needs to be repeated because sin itself is not done away with: "those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:3-4).

Indeed, over half of my quotes and my most extensive quote came from non-Pauline material. Plus, though you claim otherwise, I also did quote Jesus himself. Thus the facts are that whether out of ignorance or intent, I'll leave that for others to decide, your statement as to what I provided is a fabrication, a fallacy, an untruth. So, let me provide you with another non-Pauline quote that I think applies here: "Cover not truth with falesehood, nor conceal the truth when you know." I won't cite the reference, for you should know it even if you fail to practice it.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Cover not truth with falesehood, nor conceal the truth when you know." I won't cite the reference, for you should know it even if you fail to practice it.

I can hardly think of a more blatant and offensive example I've ever seen in my life of the pot calling the kettle black. In fact, I wonder if deep down inside you aren't very well aware of how evasive and deceptive you are and are simply projecting. He specified (at least on one occasion, anyway) "previous prophets" and to get around the fact that he's right you make believe that he said "any other prophets, even if they came afterward, just like Sol Invictus had no choice but to continually pretend, even after I had already exposed him for it, that I was talking about an entirely different subject than I was. Your hypocrisy is staggering and infuriating. Is there no depth to which an evangelist will not stoop?!

Everyone consider: if Christianity were the real truth or even anything other than embarrassingly false, there would not be such universal deception in its promotion. Its evangelists and missionaries and apologists would not need to constantly lie, fabricate, and misrepresent. But they always do, as I have repeatedly demonstrated you guys have here, and off the top of my head I can think of no other religion in the world where dishonesty is so ubiquitous and universal in its promotion, except maybe Scientology. I find it difficult to come to any other conclusion than that the religion is so evidently false that such immorality is literally absolutely necessary.

 

[Sol Invictus]

but graceseeker, arguing with hamza is almost futile. he is particularly adept at ignoring anything that quite clearly contradicts him. this is why even though one may quote the words of christ and give passages from the rest of the bible, he still has the audacity to claim that christ never tought such a thing nor that such a thing even came from the bible (which leads one to wonder where we have gotten our citations from--or rather, might hamza have procured his own jefferson bible?). once having done the above, he starts quoting passages which have to deal with personal responsibility as if the atonement is against such a thing. he also fails to realize that the very books he quotes from espouse animal sacrifices! ezekiel, jeremiah, david etc. they all performed blood atonement and this would not at all make sense if what he claimed was true. clearly, this is not even a matter of not being able to authenticate our beliefs through the bible but rather that hamza in his deceit is quite willing to ignore any passage where the god of israel, where christ and where the bible as a whole espouse blood atonement because it is necessary for his point to ignore everything that refutes it.

 

[Grace Seeker]

greetings yahya. funny how you now move away from proving that the atonement is predicated on original sin when you were clearly saying this a few moments ago until i asked you to prove this. once again you have been shown to be completely ignorant of the christian doctrine and you even implicitly admit this by not showing how your view was at all correct.

Sol, you might be surprised, but I'm with Yahya to the extent that I don't believe the atonement is predicated on original sin. That's about as far as I'm willing to go with him because I do believe in original sin, and I do believe that the atonement reconciles us with God from the consequences of it, and I do believe this destroying of the power of sin to be the biggest benefit of the atonement. But as to what predicated it, I believe that is found in the all-encompassing nature of God to love his creation. And thus, even apart from the reality of a sin nature, God would have acted to save us and make at one with himself any single individual who might have slipped into sin, even apart from there being a sin nature.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Sol, you might be surprised, but I'm with Yahya to the extent that I don't believe the atonement is predicated on original sin.

hmm, i think that there's been a slight misunderstanding here. yahya claimed that the atonement was predicated on original sin and i denied this and proved how it wasn't. i then asked him to prove his position (that the atonement is predicated on original sin) and he has consistently failed to do so.

i do indeed believe that the atonement destroys the sin nature but not that it is predicated on original sin (i did say that it might emphasize the point of the atonement but you can't get from original sin to the atonement). sinning (and the debt thereof) forms the basis for the atonement. original sin might very well add credence to this but simply positing original sin, you could not get to teh atonement. in order to get to the atonement sin must be seen as a debt and that sin ends in death. the debt of sin and it leading to death is not predicated on original sin for any sin does this. it is only from sin being a debt which is paid through blood that one can get to the atonement. hope that clarifies what i'm saying.

edit: but i am quite glad that you possess enough decency to be there to correct me should it be the case that i am simply wrong or am willfully misrepresenting christianity. it's quite nice to know that even were i to wish so, i could not get away with lying seeing as other christians are quite ready to hold me accountable to the truth of christianity.

 

[Sol Invictus]

just like Sol Invictus had no choice but to continually pretend, even after I had already exposed him for it, that I was talking about an entirely different subject than I was.

proof please (and by this i mean my whole post). why is it that you keep bringing this up but consistently fail to quote this post where i supposedly lied?

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

WRONG!!
What is actually apparent for ALL to see is that you enjoy moving the goalposts.

I did indeed answer this post:</p>
Now you want to make it this:It's a fun game I'm sure, but you can play it by yourself.

Oh, and btw, for those who actually read, you will notice that I posted the following non-Pauline passages:"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10)

That Jesus is called "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29) specfically refers to his role as the perfect Passover lamb whose blood causes the spirit of death to bypass all under its protection, and we are told that as this lamb he "takes away the sin of the world" (again John 1:29). This act sets us right with God, which is exactly what atonement is all about.

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 28:28).

"Since the children have flesh and blood, he [Jesus] too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death — that is, the devil — and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death" (Hebrews 2:14-15).

"For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world." (1 Peter 1:18-20a)

Yes, there is personal responsibility for sins. But only the self-blinded would fail to see that the Bible teaches that there is also a corporate dimension to sin. The old covenants recorded in the Tanakh allow for an atonement for the sins of the people (again not just individually, but also corporately) by the sacrifice of animals. However, it is something that needs to be repeated because sin itself is not done away with: "those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:3-4).

Indeed, over half of my quotes and my most extensive quote came from non-Pauline material. Plus, though you claim otherwise, I also did quote Jesus himself. Thus the facts are that whether out of ignorance or intent, I'll leave that for others to decide, your statement as to what I provided is a fabrication, a fallacy, an untruth. So, let me provide you with another non-Pauline quote that I think applies here: "Cover not truth with falesehood, nor conceal the truth when you know." I won't cite the reference, for you should know it even if you fail to practice it.

Greetings Grace Seeker,

What is clear for ALL to see is that when you take out all the passages from Paul who is actually the creator of the paganistic concept of the blood atonement then there is NOTHING in the verses you have quoted which even in the slightest proves your position at all but what you continue to do is ONLY strengthen my position and argument that NO Prophet of God, Nor the Christian deity, Nor Jesus or ANYWHERE in the Bible is the concept of blood atonement explicitly taught!

All you have continue to do is quote vague verses (NONE from the actual words of God or Jesus) and try to assert that the verses talk refer to the blood atonement. All you continue to do is deceptively try to change and twist its meanings to what you want the verses to refer to.

But tell us Grace Seeker HOW can a concept so fundamental to Christianity NOT be taught ANYWHERE in the central Christian doctrine? Why would such a fundamental concept be so shrouded in mystery and hidden until well after the departure of Jesus from this earth?

All you have been able to do is provide passages which prove NOTHING at all to do with the concept of blood atonement but verses which only strengthen my own position which is the fact that the concept of the blood atonement of Christ was created after Jesus and is NOT a concept which was EVER taught by Jesus or God.


So Grace Seeker please act upon your own advice and please STOP twisting and changing the words and meanings of the verses in the Bible to what you want them to refer to because this concept was NEVER taught by Jesus or God and you know that but are still trying to prove otherwise and in doing so have lost all credibility in this forum.

So please Grace Seeker practise what you preach: "Cover NOT the truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth when you know."

 

[Grace Seeker]

I can hardly think of a more blatant and offensive example I've ever seen in my life of the pot calling the kettle black. In fact, I wonder if deep down inside you aren't very well aware of how evasive and deceptive you are and are simply projecting. He specified (at least on one occasion, anyway) "previous prophets" and to get around the fact that he's right you make believe that he said "any other prophets, even if they came afterward, just like Sol Invictus had no choice but to continually pretend, even after I had already exposed him for it, that I was talking about an entirely different subject than I was. Your hypocrisy is staggering and infuriating. Is there no depth to which an evangelist will not stoop?!

Everyone consider: if Christianity were the real truth or even anything other than embarrassingly false, there would not be such universal deception in its promotion. Its evangelists and missionaries and apologists would not need to constantly lie, fabricate, and misrepresent. But they always do, as I have repeatedly demonstrated you guys have here, and off the top of my head I can think of no other religion in the world where dishonesty is so ubiquitous and universal in its promotion, except maybe Scientology. I find it difficult to come to any other conclusion than that the religion is so evidently false that such immorality is literally absolutely necessary.

I can appreciate that you may feel like I overstepped in what I said. I even respect you for defending one whom I assume you consider a friend -- at least an internet friend. But I am not apologetic. I truly feel as if Hamza moved the goalposts. He may have intended to ask that the "proof" of the concept of blood atonement came from prophets who preceeded Jesus. But in those post to which I responded what he asked for was from "ANYWHERE in the Bible." His words and his emphasis; not mine. So to then object to my lists on the grounds that it contain Pauline material is to raise unwarranted objections.

Futher, he goes on to assert "what you have done to desperatley try and prove your weak position is to quote the one person who actually brought in this false concept in the first place - PAUL." Well, I did quote Paul, but his statement is only a half truth. For Paul was not "the one person" I quoted, but one among many. And whatever you may think of me, it doesn't make that which I have said of Hamza any less true. He did indeed speak falsely. The record is plain for all to see.

 

[Sol Invictus]

But tell us Grace Seeker HOW can a concept so fundamental to Christianity NOT be taught ANYWHERE in the central Christian doctrine? Why would such a fundamental concept be so shrouded in mystery and hidden until well after the departure of Jesus from this earth?

yes, quite clearly christ did not speak concerning his saving-blood at all:

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” --- Luke 24:40-49 NIV

and it's quite ironic that you would now disparage paul when you had used his corinthians passage to try and prove your argument not so long ago. inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

i do indeed believe that the atonement destroys the sin nature but not that it is predicated on original sin (i did say that it might emphasize the point of the atonement but you can't get from original sin to the atonement). sinning (and the debt thereof) forms the basis for the atonement. original sin might very well add credence to this but simply positing original sin, you could not get to teh atonement. in order to get to the atonement sin must be seen as a debt and that sin ends in death. the debt of sin and it leading to death is not predicated on original sin for any sin does this. it is only from sin being a debt which is paid through blood that one can get to the atonement. hope that clarifies what i'm saying.

Greetings Sol,

Now prove your position that "sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood" by giving us the explicit teachings and words of Jesus or God and NOT the words of those after Jesus or other than God. Do NOT provide the vague verses you have provided which prove NOTHING but only strengthen the fact that this teaching is NOT taught ANYWHERE by any Prophet, Jesus or God.

Surely if this teaching is so fundamental and central to Christianity then its teaching must be EXPLICITLY taught by Jesus or God and NOT by those after Jesus.

I await your answer regarding this. If Grace Seeker wants to help you then he should do as you clearly seem to be out of your depth here.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Now prove your position that "sin is a debt which leads to death whose ONLY atonement is paid by blood" by giving us the explicit teachings and words of Jesus or God and NOT the words of those after Jesus or other than God. Do NOT provide the vague verses you have provided which prove NOTHING but only strengthen the fact that this teaching is NOT taught ANYWHERE by any Prophet, Jesus or God.

there we go with explicit statements etc. "when i tell you that you owe me such and such a thing" will you then exclaim "no way, i'm not indebted to you at all because you have not said the words 'you are indebted to me'"? such argumentation is simply pathetic.

go back and try to disprove my argument concerning debt motifs.