Jesus' Supposed Sacrifice

Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Jesus' Supposed Sacrifice

This is actually from the www.infidelguy.com message boards. Another atheist and I were having a conversation, but I felt the contradictions therein are something that should be considered and discussed.

todangst wrote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Interestingly enough I was questioning a theist in a conversation about a similar subject. How can the death of Jesus' flesh, even if Jesus was supposedly God, save us from sin? Sacrifices, although a gesture of great purportions, do not affect anything. If I sacrifice a lamb to make it rain, and it rains...is it because I sacrificed the lamb? Similarly, religionists in general like to somehow basterdize the word "sacrifice" to mean something it doesn't.

And how was it a sacrifice, anyway? Is jesus dead? Is it preferable to be in human form, or in spiritual form in heaven?

Exactly. Jesus killed himself...to be resurrected later. I mean...that isn't a sacrifice that's 3 days of tanning. He's GOD supposedly, so how can he really die to begin with? Further he ended up in Heaven, supposedly, and that isn't really torment.

Quote:
What does paul say about the nature of flesh?

"For I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing...." (Rom 7:18) which contradicts: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me...." (Gal. 2:20).

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor. 15:50)

Which of course contradicts Luke 3:6, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God." See also: 2 Kings 2:11, Heb. 11:5, and Gen. 5:24 directly, as well as Jesus going to Heaven in the flesh.

And as well, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine...." (Rom. 14:21) Which puts a damper on the whole "flesh and blood of Christ" thing the Catholics like to tote around.

Quote:
Where's the sacrifice?

There is none. And lest we forget that in order to be free from sin, we have to do something to get it. Well...that sort of defeats the purpose of Jesus having abolished our sins, if we still have sin that wasn't abolished.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:

Sara wrote:

O.k....

So, you're right. I'm wrong. I have no rebuttal. This is the first time I've encountered a biblical difficulty that didn't have a plausible explanation. My response was delayed because I was awaiting some information from a professor versed in Biblical Greek at the University of Washington in the Department of Classics. He seemed to think that the Donkey in Matthew 21:5 was indeed female and this does refute my argument. So I concede.

Thanks for your honesty. You've just displayed a scholarly trait.

Quote:
I do appreciate the time I spent on here in this debate as it has helped me to learn a great deal.

That's good.

Quote:

Though some of you would do well to lose your vulgar language, overall it was quite an educational experience.

Being off drugs for 40 days after an 8 year drug addiction tends to make one act like an onos. I was pretty harsh to you. I apologize. I need to light up...I mean lighten up.


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
...I guess I'll just dive

...I guess I'll just dive right in here.

Upon receiving further information, it seems that I may have been right after all (I'm sure that statement makes you both very happy, I know I am Eye-wink ).

I posted this question about the donkey in Matthew 21:5 being a female on a different message board that is reserved for scholars and students of biblical Greek. The initial response that I received was from a professor emeritus at the University of Washington who did believe the donkey was a female, but I failed to see that another poster responded as well. Iver Larsen has a MA in linguistics and works for SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics) as an International Translation Consultant and Translation Coordinator of Bible Translation and Literacy. You may view more of his credentials here: www.sil.org/sil/roster/larsen%5Fiver.htm#Current%20positions
He gave me permission to post his response on this message board to clarify this issue. Here is his answer:

Quote:
The text is often misunderstood because it is analyzed without adequate reference to the purpose of the author, Greek discourse patterns and Hebrew style. The confusion is made worse by literal English translations that render the KAI with "and" - as well as misleading paintings. Even the NET has mistakenly put an "and" in Matt 21:5 despite the fact that they have no "and" in Zech 9:9 where the Hebrew has a waw and LXX a KAI. I would also consider it a misunderstanding to translate it as "even". It is simply a Semitic KAI that is often best left untranslated, because its only function is to link two clauses to indicate that both clauses must be interpreted together, one enlightening the other.

Matthew has the more detailed account. Luke has followed Mark. Only Matthew mentions the young, male colt as well as its mother. Both are brought to Jesus (7a), because a young colt that has never been ridden will follow its mother. One cannot without a lot of effort make a young untrained donkey walk alone, away from its mother. Donkeys can be very stubborn. Mark only mentions the colt, leaving the mother implied, probably because the mother donkey does not take part in the narrative and is not essential for it. It is like a spectator, which only function is to appease the young colt by being present.

In Greek discourse pattern, participants who are present, but inactive, are often not mentioned. That they are not mentioned, does not mean that they are not present. This is common when Jesus walks around with his disciples. The disciples are always assumed to be present, but rarely mentioned unless they do or say something.

Matthew includes the quote from Zechariah to indicate to his Jewish audience that Jesus was in fact the prophesied-about Messiah. He is referred to as a king, but a humble one who does not come on a war horse (nor a royal mule as in 1 Kings 1:33), but on a young (male) donkey. The ONOS in 21:5 is not co-referential to the mother donkey in verses 2 and 7. It is the general word for a donkey (male or female, young or old), and in normal Hebrew style we see a general reference followed by a clarifying, specific reference. (The KAI here is sometimes called an epexegetical or explicative KAI. BAGD says "oft. explicative; i.e., a word or clause is connected by means of KAI w. another word or clause, for the purpose of explaining what goes before it - and so, that is, namely)).

It is not just any general donkey that the Messiah will be riding on, but a young (male) donkey. Therefore, the ONOS in v. 5 refers to the colt, not the mother. My common sense and respect for the author blocks me from accepting the suggestion that the text says that Jesus rode both on the mother and the colt at the same time. He rode on the young colt, and it is likely that the mother went ahead of the young colt despite so many paintings to the contrary.

21:7 EPEQHKAN EP[ANW] AUTW[N] TA hIMATIA [AUTWN] KAI EPEKAQISEN EPANW AUTWN.

The textual tradition is uncertain, but apparently the disciples decorated both donkeys (AUTWN) with their garments - TA hIMATIA AUTWN -, but if we read AUTWi, it could be just the colt. Jesus then sat down on top of those garments. The last AUTWN must of necessity refer to the plural HIMATIA, not the donkey(s), and the fact that it is the garments on the colt he sat on, is clear enough from context and common sense. Because of the quote, the reader already knows that Jesus would be riding on the colt, not the mother.

Iver Larsen

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Oct 8 13:00:57 EDT 2006

Regarding the Greek "tagging" of the donkey in Matthew 21:5 as being in the Accusative Singular Feminine, Mr. Larsen states that this is an error on the part of the translators who used the Friberg Tagging system. Here is his response:

Quote:
On Oct 8, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:

I have the Friberg grammatical tags on my computer file, and they have wrongly tagged ONON in 21:5 as accusative, singular feminine. As has already been said the word ONOS is not specified for gender. So, it is an interpretation whether the word refers to a masculine or feminine donkey. Since it is clear from the OT quote and Hebrew style that this ONON is co-referential with the PWLON, the correct marking of ONON is either "no gender" or masculine gender from context. It is a problem with these tags that they do not allow for "no gender". The Friberg tags had exatly the same
problem with PARQENOS as we discussed earlier for 1 Cor 7:25. They wrongly tagged PARQENWN as feminine, although it should be "no gender specified".

So it appears that I conceded too quickly (a mistake I hope not to repeat in the future Eye-wink ).

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Who knew that religious

Who knew that religious fundamentalism and post-modern literary deconstruction could come together so well?

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Insidium Profundis wrote:Who

Insidium Profundis wrote:
Who knew that religious fundamentalism and post-modern literary deconstruction could come together so well?

I've always been fascinated watching fundamentalists invoke post modernism in their apologetics.......

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:...I guess I'll

Sara wrote:
...I guess I'll just dive right in here.

Upon receiving further information, it seems that I may have been right after all (I'm sure that statement makes you both very happy, I know I am Eye-wink ).

Good for you.

I'm sure you really don't need me to repeat the same point, that this is all ad hoc, that it begs the question...(i.e that something left out is merely 'unmentioned') yadda yadda yadda.... perhaps Bill will chime in too.... but I think it's pretty clear that the zechariah passage points to one animal, the matthew 21:1-5 to 2....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The error remains: the

Quote:
The error remains: the original zechariah passage refers to one animal, while the matthew author misinterprets the passage.... your responses are ad hoc.

Technically, Zechariah does mention two animals, the colt and the donkey that would bare the colt (i.e. "a colt, the foal of a donkey"). Zechariah simply states that the King would ride the colt alone.

Mr. Larsen did an excellent job of explaining how Matthew did not imply that Jesus rode both animals. Seeing that he does have an in depth understanding of Biblical Greek it seems somewhat arrogant for you to dismiss his opinion as being "ad hoc".

I must admit that I really didn't expect anything less, though. I just wanted it on the record that a scholar versed in Biblical Greek did not find any part of Matthew's account of the triumphal entry to be contradictory.

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:Quote:The error

Sara wrote:
Quote:
The error remains: the original zechariah passage refers to one animal, while the matthew author misinterprets the passage.... your responses are ad hoc.

Technically, Zechariah does mention two animals, the colt and the donkey that would bare the colt (i.e. "a colt, the foal of a donkey"). Zechariah simply states that the King would ride the colt alone.

Then even given what you would accept, and going no farther, you're refuted, seeing as Zechariah has the 'king' only riding one animal.

Quote:

Mr. Larsen did an excellent job of explaining how Matthew did not imply that Jesus rode both animals. Seeing that he does have an in depth understanding of Biblical Greek it seems somewhat arrogant for you to dismiss his opinion as being "ad hoc".

Arrogant? We're getting along so well, why fall to this?

I don't merely dismiss it as ad hoc, I point out that the claim is in fact ad hoc, as it is based on a presumption - as matthew's account also contradicts the other gospel accounts.

It is ad hoc seeing as the passages 21:1-5 plainly have "jesus" calling for two animals, and 21:7 has 'jesus' riding upon the garments laid across them both.

Quote:

I must admit that I really didn't expect anything less, though.

I'm giving you a logical argument, even you were ready to concede the argument a few days ago....

Quote:

I just wanted it on the record that a scholar versed in Biblical Greek did not find any part of Matthew's account of the triumphal entry to be contradictory.

Wasn't a biblical scholar versed in biblical greek responsible for original translation? The 'erroneous' misreading that your scholar is complaining about?

So aren't you, yourself, writing off one biblical scholar, simply because you don't like what this scholar, the original translator, wrote?

Think about it.... you're ready to toss the translator under the bus just because his translation gives you a problem. You're ready to accept the other 'scholar' because his argument helps you.

All of this is entirely ad hoc.

What matters is the argument, not the status of the arguer.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Bill Johnson wrote:todangst

Bill Johnson wrote:
todangst wrote:

Bill Johnson wrote:
Anyway, I only want to focus on one thing to show the absurdity of your position; show that the basis for your position is ad hoc. How do you know the other authors omitted a donkey?

We both know the answer to this one: because otherwise, the gospels include a clear translation error.... So the others must have ommited them!

In other words, the fallacy of adverse consequences because there is no evidence that a mother donkey was omitted in Zec 9, and those falling to the "Zechariah omitted a mother donkey" charge cannot have insight into the mind of a writer who wrote over 2500 years ago.


Yes. But even more importantly, the sole motivating factor for searching for the 'second' beast is because, otherwise, the matthew passages are in error.

So it is the errror itself that motivates the search.

Quote:

Of course, Robert Turkel aka J.P. Holding, being the hack apologist that he is, falls to the omission charge as well. He commits the fallacy of begging the question within the first few sentences of his article on this very subject.

Yes, the old game of 'if X says 1, and Y says 2", there's not contradiction, just an omission....

But this is the very heart of ad hocism.

J.P. Holding wrote:

Matthew 21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Matthew's variation from the other Gospels on this point raises two questions -- was there one donkey or two, and did Jesus ride one or two?

Strictly speaking, one could point out for the first question that there is no technical, logical contradiction, since the other Gospels do not say there was only the colt there -- they merely don't bother mentioning the mother. Yet her presence is likely in this context, even if it is not mentioned. Keener [Matthew commentary, 491] notes that an unbroken colt "might require the mother's presence to keep it calm amid shouting crowds" -- we know well enough from American rodeos what chaos an unbroken animal might cause.

[snip]

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/twodonkeys.html

Quote:

One would first need evidence that a mother donkey was omitted in Zec 9 to conclude that Zechariah didn't bother mentioning a mother donkey. Turkel also begs another question: that the colt in Zec 9:9 was "unbroken." Zechariah does not speak of the colt's condition.

Interesting.

Quote:

Thanks for your comments, Bill.

Quote:

Back at you.

Hehheh....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Then even given what

Quote:

Then even given what you would accept, and going no farther, you're refuted, seeing as Zechariah has the 'king' only riding one animal.

Yes, and Matthew quotes Zechariah showing that Jesus only rode the colt. It's important that you understand exactly what this implies. If Matthew quotes Zechariah which clearly shows the King only rode the colt, then Matthew isn't stating that Jesus rode both animals, only the colt. That's what Mr. Larsen was trying to get across.

Quote:
Arrogant? We're getting along so well, why fall to this?
I don't merely dismiss it as ad hoc, I point out that the claim is in fact ad hoc, as it is based on a presumption - as matthew's account also contradicts the other gospel accounts.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were so sensitive Smiling

FYI I'm not trying to be mean here. I'm just stating that you should at least consider what this man is saying seeing that he does have an in depth knowledge of biblical Greek. I am well aware that it is unlikely that you would admit that Mr. Larsen makes a good point, but to state that his argument is "ad hoc" is arrogant.

Quote:
It is ad hoc seeing as the passages 21:1-5 plainly have "jesus" calling for two animals, and 21:7 has 'jesus' riding upon the garments laid across them both.

Yes, Jesus does call for two animals and garments are placed on both, but as Mr. Larsen pointed out, since Matthew quoted Zechariah which plainly has the King riding the colt only, Matthew wasn't implying that Jesus rode both animals. I don't think the garments were being used as a saddle blanket for the donkeys, they were most likely used to adorn them in honor of the King. Just as the garments placed on the road weren't there for the donkeys to walk on, they were laid down in honor of Jesus. So it really isn't definitive that Jesus sat upon both animals just because the garments were placed on both. Mr. Larsen also addressed this point as well. He states:

Quote:
"21:7 EPEQHKAN EP[ANW] AUTW[N] TA hIMATIA [AUTWN] KAI EPEKAQISEN EPANW AUTWN.

The textual tradition is uncertain, but apparently the disciples decorated both donkeys (AUTWN) with their garments - TA
hIMATIA AUTWN -, but if we read AUTWi, it could be just the colt. Jesus then sat down on top of those garments. The last
AUTWN must of necessity refer to the plural HIMATIA, not the donkey(s), and the fact that it is the garments on the colt
he sat on, is clear enough from context and common sense. Because of the quote, the reader already knows that Jesus
would be riding on the colt, not the mother."

Iver Larsen

Quote:
I'm giving you a logical argument, even you were ready to concede the argument a few days ago....

My concession wasn't because of your argument, it was because I had seemingly refuted my own position. If the donkey mentioned in 21:5 was indeed a female donkey, then Matthew would have quoted Zechariah incorrectly which plainly referred to the donkey as a "male". Since my position was that if Matthew could read Hebrew (which he obviously could), then there would be no way that he would confuse the donkey in Zechariah with the colt's mother. If this had occurred, it would have been a major contradiction. I had no answer until Mr. Larsen pointed out that the Friberg tags were incorrect. But I will elaborate more on this below.

Quote:
Wasn't a biblical scholar versed in Biblical Greek responsible for original translation? The 'erroneous' misreading that your scholar is complaining about?

So aren't you, yourself, writing off one biblical scholar, simply because you don't like what this scholar, the original translator, wrote?

Think about it.... you're ready to toss the translator under the bus just because his translation gives you a problem. You're ready to accept the other 'scholar' because his argument helps you.

All of this is entirely ad hoc.

O.k. so the great opponent of biblical inerrancy has now become the chief proponent of translator inerrancy??? How can you support this given the fact that your position all along has been that the bible, which you suppose was written by fallible people, is full of errors? Are you now taking the position that translators do not err? Interesting.

Just to clarify though, the Friberg tags are a modern construct used to clarify the tense or form of Greek words so they were not used by the KJV translators. As Mr. Larsen pointed out, the word "and" in verse 21:5 should probably not have been translated by the KJV scholars since it was meant to be epexegetical (i.e. explanatory) not conjunctive. The fact that the translators did include it wasn't necessarily wrong since they were providing a word for word translation. But it obviously has created some confusion since we are accustomed to the word "and" having a specific meaning in English that it clearly does not have in the Greek.

So really, it's not as antagonistic as you make it. Most New Testament Scholars recognize that translations tend to have errors from time to time. While some are debated more intensely than others, I don't think that it's a matter of throwing translators "under the bus" to disagree with them.

The real issue is that you refuse to admit that Mr. Larsen may have a valid point. You dismiss his opinion out of hand because you don't want to admit that there may be a logical explanation for Matthew's inclusion of a second donkey. If you don't agree with his conclusion that's your choice, but I think that he deserves a little more respect than you have given him.

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:Quote:Then even

Sara wrote:
Quote:

Then even given what you would accept, and going no farther, you're refuted, seeing as Zechariah has the 'king' only riding one animal.

Yes, and Matthew quotes Zechariah showing that Jesus only rode the colt.

The matthew author clearly confused the passage from zechariah, holding it to refer to two animals, when in fact it only refered to one.

21:1-7 are therefore ridiculous passages... representing a confused mistranslation, not the witnessing of an actual event.

Quote:

It's important that you understand exactly what this implies.

It is important that you understand that your argument is entirely ad hoc, driven solely by your need to avoid admitting to an error in the bible.

Quote:

If Matthew quotes Zechariah which clearly shows the King only rode the colt, then Matthew isn't stating that Jesus rode both animals,

It is important that you stop fooling yourself. I've already quoted the passages in matthew you ad nauseum, which indicate that the matthew author has jesus corraling two animals to ride into town, to fit the matthew author's confused misunderstanding of zechariah.

Quote:
It is ad hoc seeing as the passages 21:1-5 plainly have "jesus" calling for two animals, and 21:7 has 'jesus' riding upon the garments laid across them both.

Quote:

Yes, Jesus does call for two animals and garments are placed on both,

Then you are refuted. As 21:6-7 has 'jesus' placed either on the garments or the animals themselves, take your pick.

Quote:

but as Mr. Larsen pointed out, since Matthew quoted Zechariah which plainly has the King riding the colt only, Matthew wasn't implying that Jesus rode both animals.

And this is precisely why his argument is ad hoc. You work from the assumption that matthew could not have been in error. That the matthew author had to know it was 'really just one animal being ridden'. But the entire point here is that matthew 21:1-7 plainly show that he misread this passage.

That's the only point, and your tired apologetics can't change that.

Quote:

I don't think the garments were being used as a saddle blanket for the donkeys, they were most likely used to adorn them in honor of the King.

Fallacy of insertionism. You insert whatever you need, based on your dogmatic ad hocism, your dogmatic insistence that there can't be a mistake. This assumption itself is unjustified, ergo your attempts to insert unsubstantiated elements to further bolster your unsupported assumption are illogical.

Quote:
I'm giving you a logical argument, even you were ready to concede the argument a few days ago....

Quote:

My concession wasn't because of your argument,

Yes, I know. The only point was that you were able to concede the argument.

Quote:
Wasn't a biblical scholar versed in Biblical Greek responsible for original translation? The 'erroneous' misreading that your scholar is complaining about?

So aren't you, yourself, writing off one biblical scholar, simply because you don't like what this scholar, the original translator, wrote?

Think about it.... you're ready to toss the translator under the bus just because his translation gives you a problem. You're ready to accept the other 'scholar' because his argument helps you.

All of this is entirely ad hoc.


Quote:

O.k. so the great opponent of biblical inerrancy has now become the chief proponent of translator inerrancy???

Such dishonesty.

The point before you is that your putative reason for holding to larson is his status as a 'biblical scholar'. This status allows you to justify overthrowing the bible passage as it reads.

However, the bible passage itself was written by a biblical scholar, so you clearly have no problem disagreeing with biblical scholars, given that they DISAGREE WITH YOU.

So what is driving your decision here, in favoring one biblical scholar over another?

Your preset, biased need to avoid the error.

See?

What's really being demonstrated is that the fact that he's a 'biblical scholar' actually means nothing to you if he disagrees with you!

Quote:

How can you support this

I don't. Its your strawman of my actual argument.

My point is that zechariah 9:9 and matthew 21:1-7 are internally inconsistent. This does not require that either passage have any actual truth to them.

If I say "santa is fat" and "santa is not fat, and never was fat" then it doesn't matter whether there even is a santa....

So tell me, did you just screw up here, or were you lying?

Quote:

given the fact that your position all along has been that the bible, which you suppose was written by fallible people, is full of errors?

Internal inconsistency is one such error. And internal consistency does not require that either statement have external consistency.

Quote:

Are you now taking the position that translators do not err? Interesting.

Either you really screwed up here, or you're lying. Which is it?

Quote:

So really, it's not as antagonistic as you make it. Most New Testament Scholars recognize that translations tend to have errors from time to time.

Of course... but what matters is the justification for their disagreement with the standard translation, and so far, the sole justification you have is that 'otherwise, I'm wrong"

See the problem yet?

Quote:

The real issue is that you refuse to admit that Mr. Larsen may have a valid point.

No, the real issue is your ad hocism.

Quote:

You dismiss his opinion out of hand because

I cut off the rest of your lie, because I'm tired of them, and because they are actually projections of your own flawed thinking. YOU dimiss things out of hand, because your position is entirely ad hoc. I am not dismissing anything out of hand... I am refuting you, based on what the passages say.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The matthew author

Quote:

The matthew author clearly confused the passage from zechariah, holding it to refer to two animals, when in fact it only refered to one.

21:1-7 are therefore ridiculous passages... representing a confused mistranslation, not the witnessing of an actual event.

Blah blah blah...so you've said a million times inspite of the fact that I've shown otherwise. But I guess it would be out of character for you to admit that you may be wrong about Matthew.

Quote:
It is important that you understand that your argument is entirely ad hoc, driven solely by your need to avoid admitting to an error in the bible.

Did you ever consider that perhaps there aren't any? Or if there seem to be, they have good explanations?

Quote:

It is important that you stop fooling yourself. I've already quoted the passages in matthew you ad nauseum, which indicate that the matthew author has jesus corraling two animals to ride into town, to fit the matthew author's confused misunderstanding of zechariah.

And I've already explained ad nauseum how that's not the case. But it appears we are at an impasse and neither one of us will budge. That's fine. Like I said, we're both free to choose our side, just keep in mind the consequences for rejecting the truth.

Quote:
Then you are refuted. As 21:6-7 has 'jesus' placed either on the garments or the animals themselves, take your pick.

I guess you missed (or ignored) Mr. Larsen's explanation. It just goes to show how much evidence you are willing to dismiss in order to avoid having to admit that your argument may not be correct.

Quote:
And this is precisely why his argument is ad hoc. You work from the assumption that matthew could not have been in error. That the matthew author had to know it was 'really just one animal being ridden'. But the entire point here is that matthew 21:1-7 plainly show that he misread this passage. That's the only point, and your tired apologetics can't change that.

And you work from the assumption that Matthew couldn't have done anything but err. The sword cuts both ways. I've posted an answer that provides a cogent explanation for the inclusion of a second donkey. You are just not willing to accept it. So you now stoop to crying "ad hoc! ad hoc!" because you don't want to consider that Matthew may not have been wrong.

Quote:
Fallacy of insertionism. You insert whatever you need, based on your dogmatic ad hocism, your dogmatic insistence that there can't be a mistake. This assumption itself is unjustified, ergo your attempts to insert unsubstantiated elements to further bolster your unsupported assumption are illogical.

Whatever. Why did you even waste your time on this thread then? If my entire premise is "dogmatic ad hocism" then why didn't you just say that from the beginning and leave it at that?

What is more likely, though, is that you don't like the fact that an answer has been found for your supposed contradiction and now you are retreating back to your tired old accusations that every argument but your own is "illogical".

Quote:
Such dishonesty.

The point before you is that your putative reason for holding to larson is his status as a 'biblical scholar'. This status allows you to justify overthrowing the bible passage as it reads.

However, the bible passage itself was written by a biblical scholar, so you clearly have no problem disagreeing with biblical scholars, given that they DISAGREE WITH YOU.

So what is driving your decision here, in favoring one biblical scholar over another?

Your preset, biased need to avoid the error.

See?

What's really being demonstrated is that the fact that he's a 'biblical scholar' actually means nothing to you if he disagrees with you!

What are you talking about? I haven't impugned any biblical scholars. All people (even biblical scholars and translators) make mistakes. I'm sure if you asked one, they would readily admit that they are fallible. This is a little thing known as humility and you could definitely take a lesson. I've listened to both sides and made my choice which is all that anyone has to rely on "experts" can do.

There are debates in academic circles over various issues. Do you accuse people who favor one position over another and in the process disagree with certain scholars of being "dishonest" or falling victim to "ad hoc" reasoning? I doubt it.

Quote:
My point is that zechariah 9:9 and matthew 21:1-7 are internally inconsistent. This does not require that either passage have any actual truth to them.

If I say "santa is fat" and "santa is not fat, and never was fat" then it doesn't matter whether there even is a santa....

So tell me, did you just screw up here, or were you lying?

Gosh, I must have missed that you are a biblical scholar yourself. How else could you know that there are "internal inconsistencies" between Matthew and Zechariah? Maybe you should reread Mr. Larsen's answers again and see that, in fact, there are none.

If you like, I can give you another reference as to how the word "and" in verse 21:5 probably shouldn't have been translated. According to Dana and Mantee in A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament:

Quote:
"Moulton finds three results of Semetic influence in the New Testament:....He cites the paratactic construction with Kai as a probable result of Semitic influence, paralleling the waw-consecutive of Hebrew" p 15.
.

Paratactic means " The juxtaposition of clauses or phrases without the use of coordinating or subordinating conjunctions, as It was cold; the snows came. [Greek, a placing side by side, from paratassein, to arrange side by side : para-, beside; see para-1 + tassein, tag-, to arrange.]. Thus the word Kai (and) in Matthew 21:5 and Waw (and) in Zechariah 9:9 should not even be translated. The fact that modern translations recognize this is evident in that they drop it from the translation. So my position is well supported not only by Mr. Larsen, but also all modern translations as well. You are therefore guilty of your own accusation because you are clinging to a translation that supports your argument while disregarding the multitude of scholars that translated the verse correctly in the NASB, NKJV, NIV, and NLT.

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:Blah blah

Sara wrote:

Blah blah blah...so you've said a million times

Because you've repeated the same errors a million times.

Quote:

inspite of the fact that I've shown otherwise.

Only in your imaginary world, where your free to redefine words and reinterpret passages until they magically agree with whatever you need them to say all along.

Here, out in the real world, your magic show doesn't play.

Quote:
It is important that you understand that your argument is entirely ad hoc, driven solely by your need to avoid admitting to an error in the bible.

Quote:

Did you ever consider that perhaps there aren't any?

Honey, you're supposed to eat your fruit loops in a bowl, with milk... not smoke them.

This is just one reason why you can't be taken seriously. There are numerous errors in the bible. Any sane person without a dogmatic need to think otherwise can see it.

What you apologists do play an ad hoc game, where you reinterpret or redefine your way out of the error. But you never realize that this leaves you with a set of non falsifiable claims.

PS: we could go over the clear error in genesis chapters 2-3, where 'god' punishes adam for the sin of disobeying..... which is illogical, considering that sin requires intent, and intent is not possible without knowledge of good and evil!

Now that one is fun!

Quote:

It is important that you stop fooling yourself. I've already quoted the passages in matthew you ad nauseum, which indicate that the matthew author has jesus corraling two animals to ride into town, to fit the matthew author's confused misunderstanding of zechariah.

Quote:

And I've already explained ad nauseum how that's not the case.

Matthew 21:1-7 has jesus running about to get TWO animals, so that he can ride TWO animals are per the matthew author's confused misreading of zechariah.

Quote:

But it appears we are at an impasse and neither one of us will budge.

The impasse is due solely to your need to cling to your beliefs, no matter the reality. There's nothing for me to budge on. I couldn't care less if jesus were riding hippos dressed like madonna.... it has no bearing at all on my beliefs.

Quote:
Then you are refuted. As 21:6-7 has 'jesus' placed either on the garments or the animals themselves, take your pick.

Quote:

I guess you missed (or ignored) Mr. Larsen's explanation.

I guess you missed where I pointed out the ad hoc flaw in his argument.

Quote:
It just goes to show how much evidence you are willing to dismiss

It just goes to show how much you are willing to lie...

Quote:
And this is precisely why his argument is ad hoc. You work from the assumption that matthew could not have been in error. That the matthew author had to know it was 'really just one animal being ridden'. But the entire point here is that matthew 21:1-7 plainly show that he misread this passage. That's the only point, and your tired apologetics can't change that.

Quote:

And you work from the assumption that Matthew couldn't have done anything but err. The sword cuts both ways.

Sigh. And I already predicted this nonsense from you, above. There's no need for me to make any ad hoc assumptions, because whether or not matthew 21:1-7 and zechariah 9:9 are consistent has NO BEARING ON MY BELIEFS.

todangst wrote:
Internal inconsistency is one such error. And internal consistency does not require that either statement have external consistency.

It can be internally consistent, it has no bearing on me if it is.

But if it is internally inconsistent, then it EFFECTS YOU.

So again, for the second time, there is no synchronicity here.

Again, you typically try to project out your own flaws onto me in these exchanges.... which shows that you have at least an implicit understanding of how wrong it is to be dogmatic....

Quote:
Fallacy of insertionism. You insert whatever you need, based on your dogmatic ad hocism, your dogmatic insistence that there can't be a mistake. This assumption itself is unjustified, ergo your attempts to insert unsubstantiated elements to further bolster your unsupported assumption are illogical.

Quote:

Whatever. Why did you even waste your time on this thread then?

Whatever. Why did you even waste my time with this response?

Quote:

If my entire premise is "dogmatic ad hocism" then why didn't you just say that from the beginning and leave it at that?

To expose your ad hocism.

Look above. In my last post, I predicted that you'd come to the nonsensical conclusion that there was synchornicity concerning our assumptions.... not only did I predict it, I went to pains to refute it before you even spoke it: by making it clear that the matter of internal consistency between these passages has no bearing on my beliefs....

But you went ahead and commited the blunder anyway.... now, who's igorning whose posts?

Quote:
Such dishonesty.

The point before you is that your putative reason for holding to larson is his status as a 'biblical scholar'. This status allows you to justify overthrowing the bible passage as it reads.

However, the bible passage itself was written by a biblical scholar, so you clearly have no problem disagreeing with biblical scholars, given that they DISAGREE WITH YOU.

So what is driving your decision here, in favoring one biblical scholar over another?

Your preset, biased need to avoid the error.

See?

What's really being demonstrated is that the fact that he's a 'biblical scholar' actually means nothing to you if he disagrees with you!

Quote:

What are you talking about? I haven't impugned any biblical scholars.

What are you talking about. I haven't said you've impugned any biblical scholars.

What I said was that you were more than happy to totally disregard the original biblical translator - without knowing anything at all about the justification for the original translation - in favor of another 'biblical scholar' IF that second scholar holds to a position that you LIKE BETTER!

So your claim that you were going on biblical scholarship is clearly nonsense..... you are citing someone because they agree with you.

That's it.

Deal with it.

Quote:
My point is that zechariah 9:9 and matthew 21:1-7 are internally inconsistent. This does not require that either passage have any actual truth to them.

If I say "santa is fat" and "santa is not fat, and never was fat" then it doesn't matter whether there even is a santa....

So tell me, did you just screw up here, or were you lying?

Quote:

Gosh, I must have missed that you are a biblical scholar yourself.

Gosh, I must have missed where you have to be a biblical scholar to work out the difference between 1 and 2.

Tell me, do you think through your posts? Why does it take a biblical scholar to note the difference between 1 and 2?

Because only a scholar will go to the trouble of dogmatically reinterpreting everything until 1=2?

Is that why?

That's why, isn't it?

Quote:

How else could you know that there are "internal inconsistencies"

Because the passages are contradictory concerning the number of animals.

Very simple. Very basic. In fact, it's so simple only a christian apologist could confuse it....

Let's look again: (and take note, once more, that it's the atheist quoting the bible!)

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

The matthew author refers to both references to the same animal here as if they are actually two animals and he uses the same terms:

21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

Bring THEM both. TWO animals.

21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them ; and straightway he will send them.

THEM. BOTH.

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

This verse claims that Jesus ordered that BOTH ANIMALS BE BROUGHT TO HIM SO THAT the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 would be fulfilled:

[B]21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

RIDE THEM BOTH, BECAUSE THEY ARE INTRODUCED AS TWO ANIMALS. BOTH.

But the 'prophet' only refers to one animal.

******The matthew author has commited an error.***********

It's inescapable, unavoidable, and all there in 21:4-5. Passages that sara dodges over and over.

Making any argument over 21:7 moot, even though sara's argument fails here anyway.

21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sara
Theist
Sara's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
O.k. I'm done haggling with

O.k. I'm done haggling with you. I just want to address a few last things before we end our debate on this subject. Not that I haven't enjoyed the sparring, but I think we have reached the point where we are doing nothing more than repeating ourselves.

You stated:

Quote:
What I said was that you were more than happy to totally disregard the original biblical translator - without knowing anything at all about the justification for the original translation - in favor of another 'biblical scholar' IF that second scholar holds to a position that you LIKE BETTER!

So your claim that you were going on biblical scholarship is clearly nonsense..... you are citing someone because they agree with you.

That's it.

Deal with it.

First, who exactly is the "original translator" you are referring to? If it's the KJV translators, then I have already addressed this and will do so more below.

Second, why do you state that I don't know "anything at all about the justification for the original translation "??? Did you miss my explanation that the KJV were providing a word for word translation?

In my last post I wrote:

Quote:
According to Dana and Mantee in A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament:
Quote:
"Moulton finds three results of Semetic influence in the New Testament:....He cites the paratactic construction with Kai as a probable result of Semitic influence, paralleling the waw-consecutive of Hebrew" p 15.

Paratactic means " The juxtaposition of clauses or phrases without the use of coordinating or subordinating conjunctions, as It was cold; the snows came. [Greek, a placing side by side, from paratassein, to arrange side by side : para-, beside; see para-1 + tassein, tag-, to arrange.]. Thus the word Kai (and) in Matthew 21:5 and Waw (and) in Zechariah 9:9 should not even be translated. The fact that modern translations recognize this is evident in that they drop it from the translation. So my position is well supported not only by Mr. Larsen, but also all modern translations as well. You are therefore guilty of your own accusation because you are clinging to a translation that supports your argument while disregarding the multitude of scholars that translated the verse correctly in the NASB, NKJV, NIV, and NLT.

Either you didn't understand this or you purposely glossed over it. I will assume the former, so here is a clarification for you. The words "kai" and "waw" are paratactic or epexigetical meaning that they are not to act as a conjunction like we would use it (i.e. not "this AND that", but "this IS that"). So when the word "kai" or "waw" is translated as "and" in Matthew 21:5 or Zechariah 9:9, it is incorrect because that is not the way the word is used in that context.

Mr. Larsen isn't the only scholar who understands the word "and" in 21:5 of Matthew and Zechariah 9:9 shouldn't have been translated. So your accusation is that I am just picking certain scholars that support my "agenda" is wrong. I've shown you twice now that there are several scholars that back up my position. All of these translations drop the word "and" from both Zechariah and Matthew. Here is how Matthew 21:5 should read:

NKJV: "Tell the daughter of Zion,
'Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.'"

NIV: “Say to the Daughter of Zion,
‘See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’ ”

NASB: "SAY TO THE DAUGHTER OF ZION, 'BEHOLD YOUR KING IS COMING TO YOU, GENTLE, AND MOUNTED ON A DONKEY, EVEN ON A COLT, THE FOAL OF A BEAST OF BURDEN.' "

NLT: "Tell the people of Israel, `Look, your King is coming to you. He is humble, riding on a donkey- even on a donkey's colt.' "

So if you read the whole event in context according to Matthew, the disciples bringing Jesus the mother donkey and the colt BUT JESUS ONLY RIDES THE COLT!!! So you are incorrect that Jesus rode both animals.

As to the last verses you accused me of "dodging". I already addressed those. Please read my response again:

Quote:
"Yes, Jesus does call for two animals and garments are placed on both, but as Mr. Larsen pointed out, since Matthew quoted Zechariah which plainly has the King riding the colt only, Matthew wasn't implying that Jesus rode both animals. I don't think the garments were being used as a saddle blanket for the donkeys, they were most likely used to adorn them in honor of the King. Just as the garments placed on the road weren't there for the donkeys to walk on, they were laid down in honor of Jesus. So it really isn't definitive that Jesus sat upon both animals just because the garments were placed on both. Mr. Larsen also addressed this point as well. He states:
"21:7 EPEQHKAN EP[ANW] AUTW[N] TA hIMATIA [AUTWN] KAI EPEKAQISEN EPANW AUTWN.

The textual tradition is uncertain, but apparently the disciples decorated both donkeys (AUTWN) with their garments - TA
hIMATIA AUTWN -, but if we read AUTWi, it could be just the colt. Jesus then sat down on top of those garments. The last
AUTWN must of necessity refer to the plural HIMATIA, not the donkey(s), and the fact that it is the garments on the colt
he sat on, is clear enough from context and common sense. Because of the quote, the reader already knows that Jesus
would be riding on the colt, not the mother."

Iver Larsen

Since Matthew quotes Zechariah correctly which states the King would ride the colt, then there is no implication that just because garments were placed on both donkeys that means both were ridden. Even the idea that both donkeys were decorated may be questionable from the text as Mr. Larsen states "decorated both donkeys (AUTWN) with their garments - TA HIMATIA AUTWN -, but if we read AUTWi, it could be just the colt ".

Finally, I think that you are being intellectually dishonest. Even I was willing to admit that I might have been wrong about the passage, yet you won't even do that. You accuse me of being dogmatist about my beliefs and the inerrancy of God's word. But I was willing to at least concede when my argument had seemingly been refuted. You won't even consider the translations and statements of several scholars, who aren't even apologists and have actually studied the languages of Hebrew and Greek. They have shown how Matthew didn't imply Jesus rode two animals, but instead of giving their arguments some consideration you accuse all of them of ad hocism.

Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." ~ Richard C. Lewontin


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Well, duh, things get

Well, duh, things get repetitive when you keep repeating the same arguments.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Sara wrote:O.k. I'm done

Sara wrote:
O.k. I'm done haggling with you. I just want to address a few last things before we end our debate on this subject. Not that I haven't enjoyed the sparring, but I think we have reached the point where we are doing nothing more than repeating ourselves.

Repeat the same error, get the same correction.

todangst wrote:
What I said was that you were more than happy to totally disregard the original biblical translator - without knowing anything at all about the justification for the original translation - in favor of another 'biblical scholar' IF that second scholar holds to a position that you LIKE BETTER!

So your claim that you were going on biblical scholarship is clearly nonsense..... you are citing someone because they agree with you.

That's it.

Deal with it.

Quote:

First, who exactly is the "original translator" you are referring to?

The point is that your willing to disregard any translator who translate the passage in a way the you don't like, based on your pre-existent needs. The arguments you all suffer from this fallacy.

Quote:

Second, why do you state that I don't know "anything at all about the justification for the original translation "?

Because you didn't disagree with the original translation because of a problem with the justification for the original translation.

You disagreed with the translation for an ad hoc reason.

How many times do I need to repeat this to you?

Whatever argument you give, you yourself could and would refute it, if you felt that you needed 'jesus' to ride two animals after all.

You pick and choose, based not on a need for sound scholarship, but on your need to be right.

You could, and would, support the translations as given, if only you felt a need for THAT version to be right.

Quote:

According to Dana and Mantee in A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament:
Quote:
"Moulton finds three results of Semetic influence in the New Testament:....He cites the paratactic construction with Kai as a probable result of Semitic influence, paralleling the waw-consecutive of Hebrew" p 15.

Paratactic means " The juxtaposition of clauses or phrases without the use of coordinating or subordinating conjunctions, as It was cold; the snows came. [Greek, a placing side by side, from paratassein, to arrange side by side : para-, beside; see para-1 + tassein, tag-, to arrange.]. Thus the word Kai (and) in Matthew 21:5 and Waw (and) in Zechariah 9:9 should not even be translated. The fact that modern translations recognize this is evident in that they drop it from the translation. So my position is well supported not only by Mr. Larsen, but also all modern translations as well

The problem is pointed out for you in 21:1-4, as well as in 21:5, an issue you ignore like the plague.

As for the rest, you merely beg the question given your ad hoc acceptance that 21:5 reports one animal. But 21:1-14 refute this, as well as 21:7.

Perhaps you'll get it this time, given that I've only cited 21:1-7 in it's entirety about 10 times now.

Quote:

Either you didn't understand this or you purposely glossed over it.

Either you didn't understand the point I made above, or you glossed over it.

Quote:

Here is how Matthew 21:5 should read:

i.e, according to your ad hoc need. If you needed it to read otherwise, it would read otherwise.

Quote:

NKJV: "Tell the daughter of Zion,
'Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.'"

You're ignoring 21:1-4, yet again.

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

The matthew author refers to both references to the same animal here as if they are actually two animals and he uses the same terms:

21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

Bring THEM both. TWO animals.

So are you going to retranslate them too?

21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them ; and straightway he will send them.

THEM. BOTH.

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

This verse claims that Jesus ordered that BOTH ANIMALS BE BROUGHT TO HIM SO THAT the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 would be fulfilled:

21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

RIDE THEM BOTH, BECAUSE THEY ARE INTRODUCED AS TWO ANIMALS. BOTH.

But the 'prophet' only refers to one animal.

******The matthew author has commited an error.***********

It's inescapable, unavoidable, and all there in 21:4-5. Not just 21:5.

21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Quote:

So if you read the whole event in context according to Matthew, the disciples bringing Jesus the mother donkey and the colt BUT JESUS ONLY RIDES THE COLT!!!

So you wish to believe.

But the chapter has jesus running about for two animals, where there should only be one, and it has him set upon them, plural. If you want to return to the argument that he's being set on the garments, the garments are on both animals.

Quote:

Since Matthew quotes Zechariah correctly

No, he misquotes zechariah, as demonstrated in 21:1-4, as well as 21:5.

But you inerrantists now need to alter reality to fit your beliefs.

Quote:

which states the King would ride the colt,

which again creates yet another problem for you, in that 'jesus' does not fit the description of the 'king' depicted in Zechariah.

You're sole response was to say 'not yet'.... which adds the Special Plead Fallacy to your ad hoc fallacy.

Quote:

then there is no implication that just because garments were placed on both donkeys that means both were ridden.

In other words, if we assume there was only one animal, based solely on your ad hoc need that there was only one animal, then there was only one animal ridden.

Quote:

Even the idea that both donkeys were decorated may be questionable from the text as Mr. Larsen states "decorated both donkeys (AUTWN) with their garments - TA HIMATIA AUTWN -, but if we read AUTWi, it could be just the colt ".

Or it could be whatever you need it to be... i.e. ad hoc.

Quote:

Finally, I think that you are being intellectually dishonest.

We'll return to that matter at the end.

Quote:

Even I was willing to admit that I might have been wrong about the passage, yet you won't even do that.

Again, I couldn't care less if there are one or two animals... it has no bearing at all on my beliefs. So there's no ad hoc need for me to disagree with you.

So, how is that intellectually dishonest if I'm not wrong in the first
place?

Quote:

You accuse me of being dogmatist about my beliefs

Um... you are an inerrantist, right?

Dogmatist. If you don't realize it yet, you might... one day.

Quote:

and the inerrancy of God's word.

All inerrantists are dogmatic. They cling to their belief no matter the reality. They turn every troublesome claim into something non falsifiable, so as to salvage it from refutation.

I pointed out the flaw in the adam and eve account previously... you might want to discuss that next. How can adam be punished for sinning, when sin requires intent, and intent requires knowledge of good and evil, and knowledge of good and evil was forbidden to adam?!

Quote:

But I was willing to at least concede when my argument had seemingly been refuted.

Kudos to you.... but then there's the word 'seemingly'....

Quote:

You won't even consider the translations and statements of several scholars,

You won't even consider the translations accepted within various versions of the bible!

You're ready to call them all wrong, for one reason, and one reason alone: you need them to be wrong.

Quote:

who areen't even apologists and have actually studied the languages of Hebrew and Greek.

Didn't the original translators that you're 'correcting' do that too?

There the scholars who translate it as two animals, not one, that you ignore. This is Ad hoc. You ignore what these scholars all say, and hold to your own scholar, based on your ad hoc need.

Matthew 21:1-7 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Matthew 21
The Triumphal Entry

1As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. [b]Untie them and bring them to me. [ 3If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away."

Matthew 21:1-7 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)

Matthew 21
The Triumphal Entry
1 Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage,[a] at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. 3 And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.”
4 All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:
5 “ Tell the daughter of Zion,

‘ Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’”[c]

6 So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. 7 [b]They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him[d] on them.

Matthew 21:1-7 (English Standard Version)
English Standard Version (ESV)

Matthew 21
The Triumphal Entry
1Now when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord needs them,' and he will send them at once." 4This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying,

5"Say to the daughter of Zion,
'Behold, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and[a] on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.'"

6The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them. 7They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them.

and so on..... .

The record is here for all to see......

Think it over for yourself, and consider what you'd cite if you wanted to argue that there were two animals....... see what you come up with... if you are intellectually honest, you'll realize that you'll have no problem at all coming up with an argument that is just as 'strong'. Then see if you can argue for 3 animals...or 50.... or even a Lamborgini.... be honest with yourself...

Think about it.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


adamgrant
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: I pointed

todangst wrote:

I pointed out the flaw in the adam and eve account previously... you might want to discuss that next. How can adam be punished for sinning, when sin requires intent, and intent requires knowledge of good and evil, and knowledge of good and evil was forbidden to adam?!

sin does not require intent.

Example: if I had sex with my fiance because I loved her and wanted intimacy and to fulfill her desires (certainly a pure intent) it would still be wrong because I unlawfully gratified those desires. I'm a lawbreaker, I'm guilty of becoming sexually immoral. No matter how good my motives may have been, I'm a sinner.

Adam and Eve weren't ignorant. The Genesis account has Adam and Eve ruling in the garden, obeying every command of God's. He gave them strict rules, and told them the consequences if they disobeyed. They knew the difference between right (obeying God) and wrong (disobeying God) even though they hadn't yet commited a disobedient act. it was when they were deceived for a brief moment through temptation that they fully "knew" and had their "eyes opened" to what disobedience is like. They knew they were disobeying him, but they did it anyway, because they desired the fruit. In this instance, their intent was wrong because they wanted to be god. However, that is not why God punished them. He punished them because they ate the fruit. And he would've punished them just the same if they had've eaten the fruit for any other reason.

there is no fault with the genesis account. if your problem is with their being a law in the first place, then you need to take that up with the lawgiver.


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
adamgrant wrote: sin does

adamgrant wrote:

sin does not require intent.

Example: if I had sex with my fiance because I loved her and wanted intimacy and to fulfill her desires (certainly a pure intent) it would still be wrong because I unlawfully gratified those desires. I'm a lawbreaker, I'm guilty of becoming sexually immoral. No matter how good my motives may have been, I'm a sinner.


Irrelevant. In order to be held accountable, one has to understand that one is sinning. This is the same argument we use to keep mentally ill and mentally handicapped people from being executed. They cannot be held responsible.

Quote:
Adam and Eve weren't ignorant. The Genesis account has Adam and Eve ruling in the garden, obeying every command of God's. He gave them strict rules, and told them the consequences if they disobeyed. They knew the difference between right (obeying God) and wrong (disobeying God) even though they hadn't yet commited a disobedient act. it was when they were deceived for a brief moment through temptation that they fully "knew" and had their "eyes opened" to what disobedience is like. They knew they were disobeying him, but they did it anyway, because they desired the fruit. In this instance, their intent was wrong because they wanted to be god. However, that is not why God punished them. He punished them because they ate the fruit. And he would've punished them just the same if they had've eaten the fruit for any other reason.

Since they were punished for eating from the tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, it stands to reason that prior to eating from the tree they lacked this knowledge. The only sane way to read it is that they were punished for doing a wrong that they did not understand. Which makes god himself guilty of a 'sin' that we civilized humans do not allow. God is uncivilized.

Quote:
there is no fault with the genesis account. if your problem is with their being a law in the first place, then you need to take that up with the lawgiver.

This is also a problem. Apparently god just willy-nilly invents laws and expects people to follow them. This is acting more like an irrational and egomaniacal dictator than a loving and caring overseer.

My conscience disallows me from following this dictator.


adamgrant
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
kmisho wrote: Since they

kmisho wrote:

Since they were punished for eating from the tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, it stands to reason that prior to eating from the tree they lacked this knowledge. The only sane way to read it is that they were punished for doing a wrong that they did not understand. Which makes god himself guilty of a 'sin' that we civilized humans do not allow. God is uncivilized.

incorrect. they did not have the knowledge of "good and evil" in the sense that prior to their disobedience, there was no evil. they had not yet committed an act to alienate themselves from god. but when they did disobey, they knew they were disobeying.

the "knowledge of good and evil" they would later receive is 1. what it was like to actually commit evil and suffering its consequences of being seperated from God. 2. that man is unable to live up to righteous standards. God is good, man is evil. and 3. if God says he's gonna do something, he's gonna do it!

however, they were able to grasp the concept of disobedience. if they couldn't, it doesnt make much sense that God would've specifically told them not to eat of the tree if it would have just been useless jibberish to them. again, they were not ignorant. Adam walked and talked with God everyday, they were rightly related to each other.

another interesting point is that Adam must've had some idea of what death was for God to have warned him, "the day you eat of the fruit you shall surely die." which is proof to me that there must've been some sort of death prior to the fall. (an idea most literal-creationist reject).

Quote:

This is also a problem. Apparently god just willy-nilly invents laws and expects people to follow them. This is acting more like an irrational and egomaniacal dictator than a loving and caring overseer.

My conscience disallows me from following this dictator.

God does not make laws 'just willy-nilly.' he has a purpose for every law he invents. And it is always for the greater good.

Do you think parents just willy-nilly invent laws and rules and expect their children to follow them? Do you think they are acting like irrational and egomaniacal dictators rather than loving, and caring parents?

Does your conscience disallow you from following any rules and restrictions set up by higher authorities such as your parents?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Most parents don't come up

Most parents don't come up with rules anywhere near as absurd as are in the babble.


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
adamgrant wrote:kmisho

adamgrant wrote:
kmisho wrote:

Since they were punished for eating from the tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, it stands to reason that prior to eating from the tree they lacked this knowledge. The only sane way to read it is that they were punished for doing a wrong that they did not understand. Which makes god himself guilty of a 'sin' that we civilized humans do not allow. God is uncivilized.

incorrect. they did not have the knowledge of "good and evil" in the sense that prior to their disobedience, there was no evil. they had not yet committed an act to alienate themselves from god. but when they did disobey, they knew they were disobeying.

the "knowledge of good and evil" they would later receive is 1. what it was like to actually commit evil and suffering its consequences of being seperated from God. 2. that man is unable to live up to righteous standards. God is good, man is evil. and 3. if God says he's gonna do something, he's gonna do it!

however, they were able to grasp the concept of disobedience. if they couldn't, it doesnt make much sense that God would've specifically told them not to eat of the tree if it would have just been useless jibberish to them. again, they were not ignorant. Adam walked and talked with God everyday, they were rightly related to each other.

another interesting point is that Adam must've had some idea of what death was for God to have warned him, "the day you eat of the fruit you shall surely die." which is proof to me that there must've been some sort of death prior to the fall. (an idea most literal-creationist reject).


But what makes disobedience bad? They could not have known that disobedience was a bad thing and therefore cannot be held responsible for being disobedient.

Quote:
Quote:

This is also a problem. Apparently god just willy-nilly invents laws and expects people to follow them. This is acting more like an irrational and egomaniacal dictator than a loving and caring overseer.

My conscience disallows me from following this dictator.

God does not make laws 'just willy-nilly.' he has a purpose for every law he invents. And it is always for the greater good.

Do you think parents just willy-nilly invent laws and rules and expect their children to follow them? Do you think they are acting like irrational and egomaniacal dictators rather than loving, and caring parents?

Does your conscience disallow you from following any rules and restrictions set up by higher authorities such as your parents?

You claim that god has reasons for making rules but no reasons are given. So your claim is just a claim. God is obligated to explain the derivation of his rules or we are under no obligation to follow them.

Strictly speaking, yes, my conscience disallows me from following ANY dictatorial command. There must be reasons for a command that are independent of the mere fact of commanding and the reasons must be known. I do not feel obligated to obey my parents if their rules make no sense either. Or if the rules do make sense but I don't understand, it is their responsibility to explain, just as it is god's responsibility. But god does not explain, he merely dictates. And as I said I will not blindly follow a dictator.

Now the story of the forbidden fruit is an example of god creating laws willy nilly so your contention that he creates rules for the greater good is contradicted by the bible. For no good reason he puts this tree in the garden (couldn't he have left out the tree?) then makes a completely arbitrary rule that adam and eve are not supposed to eat from it. This reminds me of a John Waters movie where Edith Massie was an absolute dictator and one day issued the order that all people are required to walk backwards, an equally arbitrary rule.


adamgrant
Theist
Posts: 52
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
kmisho wrote: You claim that

kmisho wrote:

You claim that god has reasons for making rules but no reasons are given. So your claim is just a claim. God is obligated to explain the derivation of his rules or we are under no obligation to follow them.

Ephesians 1:4-12: "Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory."

The things God set up and ordains (including his laws, his morals, his commands) are for the glorification of the other persons in the Trinity, and to establish a community of believers that love him so they can become members of the God-family. His ordinances are also for our better good (Romans 8:28).

Thus, reasons are given. If you are wanting to get into God's mind and find out the why's of specific details that is not our job. We cannot know the mysteries of God that he has not revealed to us. He is not obligated to give you anything. He does not owe you anything. I'm amazed at your pride of deserving such demands from someone you don't even believe exists. It is by an act of mercy that he gave you life. He is your creator, you are the one obligated to obey him.

Quote:

Strictly speaking, yes, my conscience disallows me from following ANY dictatorial command. There must be reasons for a command that are independent of the mere fact of commanding and the reasons must be known.."

"... it is their responsibility to explain, just as it is god's responsibility. But god does not explain, he merely dictates.

God has revealed to us his reasons. He has revealed his purpose. Small specifics or "why did God do this instead of that" is not our responsibility. If God is the one all-knowing, then his decisions are best.

Quote:

For no good reason he puts this tree in the garden (couldn't he have left out the tree?) then makes a completely arbitrary rule that adam and eve are not supposed to eat from it.

His reason for creating a law and permitting the fall of man was to later reveal his son and offer redemption by him through love. We've already established that God wanted a family. Now let me ask you: Would you rather have a dog that when you called it by name it ran to you and fell at your feet, or a dog that you had to pull by his collar and force to sit with you? Most people prefer a pet that loves its owner in return and willingly draws near to him. This is what God desires in us. A law had to be set in place for us to learn obedience, and develop trust in God's faithfulness.

Could God have picked another law rather than a tree? Possibly. But he didnt. For whatever reason, he chose the fruit of the tree. Maybe this seems useless and foolish to you, but "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. (1 Cor. 1:27-29)"


dchernik
Theist
Posts: 50
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Was Christ's Sacrifice Real

Was Christ's Sacrifice Real and Worthy?

I say yes, for the following reasons:

First, as I write elsewhere, "It was the supreme sacrifice, because Jesus, 'though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.' (2 Phil 2:6-8) To be sure, Jesus was rewarded by the Father amply for what He did, but this does not mean that He did not suffer. And for God to agree to suffer for our sake, given His dignity, is an enormous sacrifice."

In other words, for God to humble Himself so our of charity for us is both tremendously awful and the most glorious deed ever performed, apart from creation and sanctification of the sinners.

Second, Christ endured practically every possible type of suffering: ...

Quote:
First of all, on the part of men: for He endured something from Gentiles and from Jews; from men and from women, as is clear from the women servants who accused Peter. He suffered from the rulers, from their servants and from the mob... He suffered from friends and acquaintances, as is manifest from Judas betraying and Peter denying Him.

Secondly, the same is evident on the part of the sufferings which a man can endure. For Christ suffered from friends abandoning Him; in His reputation, from the blasphemies hurled at Him; in His honor and glory, from the mockeries and the insults heaped upon Him; in things, for He was despoiled of His garments; in His soul, from sadness, weariness, and fear; in His body, from wounds and scourgings.

Thirdly, it may be considered with regard to His bodily members. In His head He suffered from the crown of piercing thorns; in His hands and feet, from the fastening of the nails; on His face from the blows and spittle; and from the lashes over His entire body. Moreover, He suffered in all His bodily senses: in touch, by being scourged and nailed; in taste, by being given vinegar and gall to drink; in smell, by being fastened to the gibbet in a place reeking with the stench of corpses, "which is called Calvary"; in hearing, by being tormented with the cries of blasphemers and scorners; in sight, by beholding the tears of His Mother and of the disciple whom He loved. (ST, III, 46, 5)

Third, Christ's pain was greater than anyone else's:

Quote:
[T]here was true and sensible pain in the suffering of Christ, which is caused by something hurtful to the body: also, there was internal pain, which is caused from the apprehension of something hurtful, and this is termed "sadness." And in Christ each of these was the greatest in this present life.

This arose... [f]irst of all, from the sources of His pain. For the cause of the sensitive pain was the wounding of His body; and this wounding had its bitterness, both from the extent of the suffering already mentioned... and from the kind of suffering, since the death of the crucified is most bitter, because they are pierced in nervous and highly sensitive parts – to wit, the hands and feet; moreover, the weight of the suspended body intensifies the agony, and besides this there is the duration of the suffering because they do not die at once like those slain by the sword.

The cause of the interior pain was, first of all, all the sins of the human race, for which He made satisfaction by suffering; hence He ascribes them, so to speak, to Himself... Secondly, especially the fall of the Jews and of the others who sinned in His death chiefly of the apostles, who were scandalized at His Passion. Thirdly, the loss of His bodily life, which is naturally horrible to human nature. (ST, III, 46, 6)

Moreover, Christ's pain was magnified as a result of (1) the superior constitution of His body made by the Holy Spirit and hence "Christ's sense of touch, the sensitiveness of which is the reason for our feeling pain, was most acute" (Ibid.); (2) His great enjoyment of earthly life due to His perfect virtue and the proportionate distress over both losing it and the suffering He was to undergo; (3) the fact that His reason and therefore the capacity for feeling pain and sorrow was not dimmed because of the pain but retained its full powers.

Fourth, Christ's passion was voluntary due to His omnipotence and Father's love for His Son. Thus Christ could save Himself very easily but didn't, e.g., "Do you think that I cannot call upon my Father and he will not provide me at this moment with more than twelve legions of angels?" (Mt 26:53). We surmise, therefore, that the temptation to use His power to free Himself was present in Jesus as man, and so had to be "overcome" by Him.

Fifth, because of His very innocence:

Quote:
The sufferer's innocence does lessen numerically the pain of the suffering, since, when a guilty man suffers, he grieves not merely on account of the penalty, but also because of the crime, whereas the innocent man grieves only for the penalty: yet this pain is more intensified by reason of his innocence, in so far as he deems the hurt inflicted to be the more undeserved. (ST, III, 46, 6, ad 5)

This in a way rebounds towards (3), because Christ grieved for the sins of not only of His tormentors but of all human beings, for all men are responsible for Christ's suffering and death, being all in need of redemption brought about by the Incarnation.

We may ask at this point: Since the infliction of suffering of Jesus was the gravest of crimes, was the Incarnation an opportunity for men to sin still more, in addition to all the other sins they committed regardless of the event of the Incarnation? I think that the passion was, in addition to everything else, a sign of men's universal culpability and of the necessity of their taking recourse in Christ's offer of forgiveness.

Sixth, what of Christ's reward? Must not the fact that He would rise in three days have given Him comfort? Yes and no:

Quote:
But such was the dignity of Christ's life in the body, especially on account of the Godhead united with it, that its loss, even for one hour, would be a matter of greater grief than the loss of another man's life for howsoever long a time. Hence the Philosopher says... that the man of virtue loves his life all the more in proportion as he knows it to be better; and yet he exposes it for virtue's sake. And in like fashion Christ laid down His most beloved life for the good of charity, according to Jer 12:7: "I will give the one I love into the hands of her enemies." (ST, III, 46, 6, ad 4)

Since saints go to heaven, as well, and are perfectly happy there forever, are their sufferings and sacrifices in this life thereby made irrelevant? Of course not, and neither were Christ's because of His reward. The benefits outweighed the costs, but that does not mean that the costs were 0 either for Christ or for any merely human being. This line of argument is like the argument from evil for the non-existence of God turned upside down: it claims that suffering experienced by Christ is not really important, because, why, all's well that ends well. I think we can both acknowledge that for the blessed in heaven their trials on earth should seem like "one night in an inconvenient hotel," as someone put it, and at the same time justly dismiss this fact as having no weight with respect to the argument.

It might be further said that Christ was not unsure of His salvation. In this He differed from human saints who have the theological virtue of hope but who usually do not know for sure whether they will be saved. In fact, their hope is somewhat like a self-fulfilling prophesy: one is saved partly because he believes he will be saved. This doubt and uncertainty were not present in Christ; as a matter of fact, He had neither faith nor hope normally understood but the vision of God and full knowledge of the future. Were not his trials therefore easier? Indeed so, but remember that doubts of one's own salvation are essentially sins of despair. One's hope must be immovable, in which case one will never doubt. Hence a human being is not supposed, if he is virtuous, to doubt the reality of his eternal reward. And thus Christ's certainty and men's hope are made equal.

Seventh, is Christ's suffering of any more significance than that of any righteous person? Is the injustice of His passion greater than that of the sufferings of any martyr or saint?

The first answer is, according to the foregoing, yes. The second is that Christ's suffering does not detract of the suffering of the just in any way; on the contrary, it gives meaning to such suffering, viz., that patience in trials now leads to glory and life everlasting, which was not thus before, for then heaven was closed to men. Third, the question may arise why we focus on His suffering as opposed to on anyone else's. The answer is that, again, first, His dignity and therefore men's fault for which Christ suffered; second, the effects His passion wrought the chief of which is salvation.

Eighth, one of the key effects of the passion of Christ is to prevent one from uttering the following excuse during his heavenly trial: "You don't know what it's like to be human." "Actually," God can say now, "I do. I am familiar with both bodily suffering, which I experienced during the passion and spiritual suffering which I experienced during the temptation, both of the flesh ("The tempter came to him and said, 'If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.'" (Mt 4:3)), of the world ("'If you are the Son of God,' he said, 'throw yourself down. For it is written: "He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone."'" (Mt 4:6)), and of the devil ("'All this I will give you,' he said, 'if you will bow down and worship me.'" (Mt 4:9)). Yet I conquered, and therefore so could you."

Aquinas writes that "Christ resisted these temptations by quoting the authority of the Law, not by enforcing His power, 'so as to give more honor to His human nature and a greater punishment to His adversary, since the foe of the human race was vanquished, not as by God, but as by man'; as Pope Leo says." (ST, III, 41, 4)

It follows from these that Christ's passion was indeed a real and worthy sacrifice, more so, in fact, than anyone else's.


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
adamgrant wrote:kmisho

adamgrant wrote:
kmisho wrote:

You claim that god has reasons for making rules but no reasons are given. So your claim is just a claim. God is obligated to explain the derivation of his rules or we are under no obligation to follow them.

Ephesians 1:4-12: "Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory."

The things God set up and ordains (including his laws, his morals, his commands) are for the glorification of the other persons in the Trinity, and to establish a community of believers that love him so they can become members of the God-family. His ordinances are also for our better good (Romans 8:28).


I am not interested in glorification or joining the god family. So god's laws do not apply to me.

Quote:

Thus, reasons are given. If you are wanting to get into God's mind and find out the why's of specific details that is not our job. We cannot know the mysteries of God that he has not revealed to us. He is not obligated to give you anything. He does not owe you anything. I'm amazed at your pride of deserving such demands from someone you don't even believe exists. It is by an act of mercy that he gave you life. He is your creator, you are the one obligated to obey him.
It's called imminent critique, ASSUMING there is a god...etc. How does god creating me make me obligated to him? It's the other way around. Your parents owe YOU and are responsible for YOU (at least when you're young) since it was their decision to produce you. Just as I am not automatically obligated to obey my parents I am also not automatically obligated to obey god. If he explains why I should trust his decisions over my own, maybe. But until then, I will obey a morality that makes sense to me regardless of what anyone else thinks.

What you call pride I call self-defense.

Quote:
Quote:

Strictly speaking, yes, my conscience disallows me from following ANY dictatorial command. There must be reasons for a command that are independent of the mere fact of commanding and the reasons must be known.."

"... it is their responsibility to explain, just as it is god's responsibility. But god does not explain, he merely dictates.

God has revealed to us his reasons. He has revealed his purpose. Small specifics or "why did God do this instead of that" is not our responsibility. If God is the one all-knowing, then his decisions are best.


This is an appeal to the unknown and you cannot defend a position by appealing to the unknown. If his decisions are best, let him explain it to me so that I can come into agreement. Otherwise, it's just another empty claim.

Quote:
Quote:

For no good reason he puts this tree in the garden (couldn't he have left out the tree?) then makes a completely arbitrary rule that adam and eve are not supposed to eat from it.

His reason for creating a law and permitting the fall of man was to later reveal his son and offer redemption by him through love. We've already established that God wanted a family. Now let me ask you: Would you rather have a dog that when you called it by name it ran to you and fell at your feet, or a dog that you had to pull by his collar and force to sit with you? Most people prefer a pet that loves its owner in return and willingly draws near to him. This is what God desires in us. A law had to be set in place for us to learn obedience, and develop trust in God's faithfulness.


Pure evil I tell you! Pure evil. So we are just stupid puppies that are supposed to obey god no matter how stupidly he (appears to) act. I still don't understand your attachment to obedience. As I see it, obedience is earned. One should be worthy of being obeyed and this worthiness should be in evidence. But god has not earned my obedience.

Quote:
Could God have picked another law rather than a tree? Possibly. But he didnt. For whatever reason, he chose the fruit of the tree. Maybe this seems useless and foolish to you, but "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. (1 Cor. 1:27-29)"

If god acts foolish, I will conclude that he is foolish. Your rhetorical reversals will do no more than allow an evil god to manipulate you...which it appears to me has already happened.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
In response: "Jesus killed

In response:

"Jesus killed himself...to be resurrected later. I mean...that isn't a sacrifice that's 3 days of tanning."  

 Christ offered Himself to God on our behalf. In a manner of speaking, He killed Himself and offered Himself to God. But it would be wrong to say that He committed suicide or even to say "He killed Himself" if we meant by this a "direct" intending, as "submission" to death would be more appropriate. God did not will death or sin, but He accepted the consequences and gave Himself to us. His death was at the hands of the Jews and Romans in Palestine, not at "His own." The death, intrinsically an evil, was made into a good by Christ's death, and our own deaths no longer carry the "sting" they used to as a result. And I would not call the hours of agony and finally a horrendous death "tanning."

 "He's GOD supposedly, so how can he really die to begin with?"

 Jesus Christ is God and man, both truly and unmixed. It would take very long to say what needs to be said as regard the hypostatic union between Christ's divine nature and His human one, but, as my time is short, it must suffice to say for now that Christ's natures are united in His person - the person Jesus Christ is both the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and the person of the man who lived in Palestine in 1 AD or so. His human nature was killed on the Cross and His person truly experienced death. His divine nature suffered neither addition nor dimunition, but Christ died, descended into hell, and rose from the dead truly in His person. This is an old theological problem that was solved (depending which you prefer) at the ecumenical councils of Nicea or Constantinople. The classic doctrine on this was by Pope St. Leo the Great's Tome.

 "Further he ended up in Heaven, supposedly, and that isn't really torment."

What happened after death was not torment, as the sacrifice was accomplished at that point. However, yes, He did perform the harrowing of the hell of the fathers (releasing the souls of those who lived before His coming) and did enter heaven, if temporarily. However, it might even be pointed out that, as God, He "possessed" heaven from all eternity  and, as man (in the Beatific Vision), from the moment of His conception in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary until His death. Another old theological problem.

 ""For I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing...." (Rom 7:18) which contradicts: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me...." (Gal. 2:20)."

 No contradiction is found. It seems fairly obvious that in the second part when St. Paul says, "...yet not I, but Christ..." he clearly accentuates what he means: namely, as later in Romans he says,

"7:23. But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind and captivating me in the law of sin that is in my members.

7:24. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

7:25. The grace of God, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with the mind serve the law of God: but with the flesh, the law of sin

 Which is to say, that, as formulated in the classical doctrine of Original Sin, human nature is wounded and cannot adequately fulfill God's commandments except by His grace. The desires of  wounded nature lead the soul away from God. In Christ, the flesh is "crucified" and only Christ lives in its members by faith. In fact, this is another image Paul uses with the Eucharist (as will come up later).

""Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor. 15:50) Which of course contradicts Luke 3:6, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God." See also: 2 Kings 2:11, Heb. 11:5, and Gen. 5:24 directly, as well as Jesus going to Heaven in the flesh."

 I think this makes itself clear. First, that St. Paul clearly indicates that by "flesh" he means wounded nature or sinful human beings, both of which are "corruption." This is not the same sense as "flesh" in the cited passages. Second, it might be pointed out that the body of the Resurrection will be of different "flesh" than the flesh referred to by Paul in this passage. Third, Paul himself wrote this and it would be nonsensical to say that Paul was openly writing irrationally and contradicting himself within a few sentences of himself - "15:52. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall rise again incorruptible. And we shall be changed.
In momento in ictu oculi in novissima tuba canet enim et mortui resurgent incorrupti et nos inmutabimur

15:53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption: and this mortal must put on immortality.
Oportet enim corruptibile hoc induere incorruptelam et mortale hoc induere inmortalitatem "

The Latin clearly indicates that the "corruptible" must become incorruptible to inherit heaven. It is fairly obvious.

"And as well, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine...." (Rom. 14:21) Which puts a damper on the whole "flesh and blood of Christ" thing the Catholics like to tote around."

 This is clearly clipped to misrepresent St. Paul's position when he says, "14:21. It is good not to eat flesh and not to drink wine: nor any thing whereby thy brother is offended or scandalized or made weak." It does not scandal to the Catholic Mass, as it is speaking to those who would offend the Jewish converts. Also, on a sidenote, I think Paul would agree that the Eucharist does not fall into this same category and that, as the writer of both Corinthians and Romans, it would be safe to say that he was not openly contradicting his own words.  

 "There is none. And lest we forget that in order to be free from sin, we have to do something to get it. Well...that sort of defeats the purpose of Jesus having abolished our sins, if we still have sin that wasn't abolished."

There is nothing incompatible. Christ died and thus atoned for sin. He did not personally forgive each person their sins as a result of His death - Christians have never maintained that (and even radical Protestants who would acknowledge that an "act of faith" or "acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior" is necessary for salvation - if this doesn't count as a 'work,' I don't know what does). Christ Himself (at least) makes the claim that man cannot inherit heaven unless they be "born again of water and the Spirit," which would at least indicate that they have to do some thing, namely, being born again in baptism. The debt of sin is paid but that doesn't mean that I do not have to "do" anything. Saint James and Saint Paul both tell us as much, as well as Christ. Just because my boss pays me in advance doesn't mean that I do not need to get the check from him. 

 

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


shayne26
shayne26's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:
 

 Christ offered Himself to God on our behalf. In a manner of speaking, He killed Himself and offered Himself to God. But it would be wrong to say that He committed suicide or even to say "He killed Himself" if we meant by this a "direct" intending, as "submission" to death would be more appropriate. 

I would have to argue that in fact it is more like suicide than “submission” to death. If Jesus is God, He must have known Judas would betray Him and chose him to be a disciple in order to carry out His “sacrifice” at the outset. By choosing Judas He in fact committed suicide. If suicide was not His plan than He might have chosen Rufus instead (the character played by Chris Rock in the movie Dogma). You said that God did not “will death” but it seems to me that He set up a situation by which He could commit “suicide”.

Quote:
 

it must suffice to say for now that Christ's natures are united in His person - the person Jesus Christ is both the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and the person of the man who lived in Palestine in 1 AD or so.

Here you claim that: 

1.      Jesus is the Second person of the Trinity

2.      Jesus is a “man” who lived in Palestine in 1 AD 

The Doctrine of the Trinity claims: 

1.      God is One, but that three distinct "persons" constitute the one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 

Am I to believe that if Jesus is God, then in fact it was God Himself that was the “man” who lived in Palestine in 1 AD? When Jesus prayed was He in fact praying to Himself? Why the need to separate God in three parts anyway? If God and Jesus are one, why not say God himself “put on a Jesus suit” and had himself killed? It seems to me that since God cannot be killed than in fact it is the flesh of a man whose body was possessed by God that was killed. God’s spirit was never killed. Now we are back to the original question made by Rook? Where is the sacrifice? The spirit of God, which possessed a man living in Palestine, never died, and I would wager also, never felt any pain. The poor bastard nailed to the cross was the one making the sacrifice.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
 "I would have to argue

 "I would have to argue that in fact it is more like suicide than “submission” to death. If Jesus is God, He must have known Judas would betray Him and chose him to be a disciple in order to carry out His “sacrifice” at the outset." 

God is likewise omniscient and omnipotent, willing only the Good. This sets up the classical problem of evil - how can evil exist with an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God? His sacrifice on the cross can be considered as a sort of subset here. God never intended moral evil, but allowed it to exist by creature's free choice. Evil, in itself, is a privation. Privations in perfection exist in nature, and would have been such before the Fall. Moral evil, however, and some other natural evils (resulting from the Fall - death, ect.) were never intended by God but came about by the free rejection of God by creatures (angels and men. God, however, allowed evil to bring about a greater good in creation. In the same way, He used the situation of the cross for a greater good, namely, the redemption of mankind. God, then, used free agents to complete His redemption of man, both without impairing their freedom (Judas was free to not betray Christ) and without directly willing the evil to occur.

"Here you claim that: 

1.      Jesus is the Second person of the Trinity

2.      Jesus is a “man” who lived in Palestine in 1 AD 

The Doctrine of the Trinity claims: 

1.      God is One, but that three distinct "persons" constitute the one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 

Am I to believe that if Jesus is God, then in fact it was God Himself that was the “man” who lived in Palestine in 1 AD? When Jesus prayed was He in fact praying to Himself? Why the need to separate God in three parts anyway? If God and Jesus are one, why not say God himself “put on a Jesus suit” and had himself killed?"

God Himself, yes, would be the man in Palestine. They are the same person. Jesus prayed in His human nature, as He suffered, ate and drank, slept, and died in His human nature.

Christ's human soul was constantly united to God and, hence, in continual and unbroken prayer with God. His prayer on earth was made often for our sake to instruct us in how to pray. But more importantly, as Christ possessed both a divine and a human will, He lifted up His human will to union with His divine will in prayer.

The "need" to define the Blessed Trinity is because God Himself revealed Himself to be such when He sent His Son to us; otherwise, such a truth would be entirely beyond us. Only because He defined Himself as such do we believe it.

In response to the last question, you ask why we could not posit that God "put on a Jesus suit." I think the answer ought to be obvious. First, as you say, the man would not be identical with God, which would negate both what the Church teaches and what Jesus claimed in Scripture. Second, as not being God, his sacrifice would not be efficacious for salvation. And, third, Jesus would not be truly man or truly God, but something else.

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


shayne26
shayne26's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: God is

StMichael wrote:

God is likewise omniscient and omnipotent, willing only the Good. This sets up the classical problem of evil - how can evil exist with an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God? His sacrifice on the cross can be considered as a sort of subset here. God never intended moral evil, but allowed it to exist by creature's free choice. Evil, in itself, is a privation. Privations in perfection exist in nature, and would have been such before the Fall. Moral evil, however, and some other natural evils (resulting from the Fall - death, ect.) were never intended by God but came about by the free rejection of God by creatures (angels and men. God, however, allowed evil to bring about a greater good in creation. In the same way, He used the situation of the cross for a greater good, namely, the redemption of mankind. God, then, used free agents to complete His redemption of man, both without impairing their freedom (Judas was free to not betray Christ) and without directly willing the evil to occur.

You are spinning your wheels here. You are failing to realize that God knew before the creation how all this would end up and declined to create a system where there is no evil and yet free will. He wanted all of it, the fall, evil, moral evil, etc. This would set up the pins so Jesus(God) could knock them down. According to your theology then we are puppets in a sick and twisted drama put on by the Gods.

My other point was that when Jesus (the flesh) was born in palestine, I assume that Jesus the spirit(second part of the trinity) was not born at that time but instead has existed from the beginning. If that is the case I would argue that Jesus the spirit "possessed" a man(God putting on a Jesus suit) in palestine. Just like you would say a demon would possess a person. Like I said before, the poor bastard Jesus possessed was the one making the sacrifice, not Jesus the spirit.

What sounds much more plausible is that Satan possessed a man in palestine in order to get the ball rolling. Then he possessed Paul in order to get billions of souls to stop following the law and earn a ticket to hell. This theory explains a lot. If Jesus was God and not possessed by Satan, He would have known, surely, that His church would screw it up(thousands of denominations) and would have set a church up that had the clear meaning of salvation. There would have been no need for Paul. He would also have written it down so no one would be confused. The attrocities committed by the church are easily explained if Satan had masterminded the whole thing. You can see where I am going.

 

 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
"You are spinning your

"You are spinning your wheels here. You are failing to realize that God knew before the creation how all this would end up and declined to create a system where there is no evil and yet free will. He wanted all of it, the fall, evil, moral evil, etc. This would set up the pins so Jesus(God) could knock them down. According to your theology then we are puppets in a sick and twisted drama put on by the Gods."

 God created the world out of love and willed all of creation to be good. Different creatures being created, God likewise created angels and man in His own image, to reflect His goodness. As God Himself has an intellect and will with free choice, so He created man and angels to love Him and to be happy with Him forever. Happiness entails reason - robots cannot be happy. Humans and angels were made to be little "gods" that would be happy with God forever. to do this, God foreknew the consequences but nevertheless created man and angels, judging that a greater good could come from this evil. Redemption by Christ was a part of that plan. I know this is a sort-of "history of the world and everything" but I hope it explains the viewpoint in general. God willed free beings out of love, not hatred. God created free beings and this entails the possibility of evil, in any possible universe.

"My other point was that when Jesus (the flesh) was born in palestine, I assume that Jesus the spirit(second part of the trinity) was not born at that time but instead has existed from the beginning. If that is the case I would argue that Jesus the spirit "possessed" a man(God putting on a Jesus suit) in palestine. Just like you would say a demon would possess a person. Like I said before, the poor bastard Jesus possessed was the one making the sacrifice, not Jesus the spirit."

But the big mistake here is that there is no division - Jesus (flesh) and Jesus (God) are just one Jesus. There is no difference. They are one and the same. This would not be the same as a demonic possession, as a demon is not substantially one person with the possessed. A demon controls the body and influences the imagination by its powers as a spirit while God united Himself to man in a much more intimate fashion so that both are truly one. In the end, Christ offered Himself on the Cross, truly God and truly man.

"What sounds much more plausible is that Satan possessed a man in palestine in order to get the ball rolling. Then he possessed Paul in order to get billions of souls to stop following the law and earn a ticket to hell. This theory explains a lot. If Jesus was God and not possessed by Satan, He would have known, surely, that His church would screw it up(thousands of denominations) and would have set a church up that had the clear meaning of salvation. There would have been no need for Paul. He would also have written it down so no one would be confused. The attrocities committed by the church are easily explained if Satan had masterminded the whole thing. You can see where I am going."

No, I do not see where you are going. This theory is funny coming off an atheist forum! Let me analyze this a little closer, as it does have some interesting points.

"What sounds much more plausible is that Satan possessed a man in palestine in order to get the ball rolling.

First, this is highly implausible for the reason that, as Christ said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand." For Christ to preach, to perform miracles, and to cast out demons seems to really tear down Satan's kingdom.

Second, the miracles Christ performed were beyond the scope of Satan's power as a spirit - only God could perform them.

Third, Satan's work crumbles while God's will not. Christ's Church has not disappeared.

Fourth, Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Law made of the Messiah, marking Him as the anointed of God.

More things could be said, but that's all that comes to my mind at the moment. 

"Then he possessed Paul in order to get billions of souls to stop following the law and earn a ticket to hell."

That seems rather far-fetched. First, again, Paul cast out demons - that would seem to undercut Christ's work. Second, why are you prejudiced against the other apostles ( Smiling ), as they too preached Christ's message throughout the world, not just St. Paul. Third, Paul might have led many to Christianity, but I think it highly suspect to attribute the entirety of Christian doctrine to St. Paul; he received it from Christ and His Apostles (there were many places not reached by St. Paul as well - India, ect.).

"This theory explains a lot. If Jesus was God and not possessed by Satan, He would have known, surely, that His church would screw it up(thousands of denominations) and would have set a church up that had the clear meaning of salvation. There would have been no need for Paul. He would also have written it down so no one would be confused. The attrocities committed by the church are easily explained if Satan had masterminded the whole thing."

Frankly, this sheds light on why the Catholic Church thinks it was right for the past 2000-odd years. Christ came, bringing a clear doctrine and a single Church that led men to salvation. St. Paul and the other Scriptures are highly useful to salvation, as are the many other things Christ established both during His time on earth and by the Holy Ghost in the Church - the Sacraments, the sacramentals, the Magisterial functions of the Church, ect. Christ did not write a book - He founded an organization, a Church, to serve as His "kingdom" upon earth. This Church perpetuates His presence in His teaching/preaching (their doctrine) and in His salvific action (the Sacraments).  If one listened to the teaching of the Church, it would be difficult for one to be confused. It serves as a sure guide to salvation in every age.

In so far as "atrocities" go, I would point out that the Church has sinful members, and these things are not an action of the "Church," properly speaking. I would also dispute most claims to the Church committing atrocities (but that is another and really irrelevant matter to this conversation).

 

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

 

PS - Merry Christmas!!! ;P

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: In

StMichael wrote:

In response:

"Jesus killed himself...to be resurrected later. I mean...that isn't a sacrifice that's 3 days of tanning."

Christ offered Himself to God on our behalf.

 

You missed the real problem. Sacrifice involves loss. "Jesus" lost nothing, and in fact, had to know that his reward was heavenly bliss.

 

Ergo to call it a 'sacrifice' is irrational.  

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
The Passion of Christ

The Passion of Christ was a real sacrifice:

Every sacrifice is intended to give honor to God, in order to appease Him.

First, the sacrifice of the Cross honored God in that it fulfilled the precepts of the Old Law.

Second, the sacrifice was done out of obedience, rectifying the disobedience of Adam and fulfilling the precept "I desire obedience..."

Third, the voluntary enduring of the Passion, offered to God for the salvation of men was a true sacrifice coming from charity, which is most pleasing to God.

Fourth, His merit in the Passion overflowed into His members, the Church, giving us salvation and thus was a true satisfaction for sin.

Fifth, Christ truly atoned for the sins of mankind as He offered to God something more precious than the evil and offense of sin - an infinite recompense for an infinite offence, by the infinite charity with which He suffered, by the dignity of His person, and by reason of the severity of the Passion.

 

Christ did "lose" on the Cross, submitting Himself to the pain and suffering which it entailed, and allowing His human nature to experience the grief it entailed. He was not "rewarded" with heavenly bliss, as He always possessed it due to His Godhead. His suffering in charity accomplished the redemption of mankind and was a true and acceptable sacrifice.

 

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
This just in:   There is

This just in:

 

There is no God or Christ

 

Yours in reason,

 MattShizzle


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
This just in:You're

This just in:

You're wrong.

Yours In Christ Jesus, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

PS - Smiling And your post was not an argument, good rational sir.

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:The

StMichael wrote:

The Passion of Christ was a real sacrifice:

No, it was not. Nothing was lost. To sacrifice is to lose.

Quote:

First, the sacrifice of the Cross honored God in that it fulfilled the precepts of the Old Law.

What was lost?

Quote:

Second, the sacrifice was done out of obedience,

Again, nothing was sacrificed.

 

Quote:

rectifying the disobedience of Adam

Several problems arise here.

 

First: Your 'Adam' was punished for disobeying 'god' vis a vis disobeying god's demand. And then was punished. BUT sin requires intent, and adam and eve were both forbidden knowledge of good and evil, ergo they could not grasp the moral implications of their behavior. So they were innocent and not able to sin, as they could not understand the moral implications of disobeying.

Next: the idea of one person paying the moral debt of another is illogical.

Next: any human act is finite. The idea of infinite moral ramifications is incoherent.

Quote:

Third, the voluntary enduring of the Passion, offered to God for the salvation of men was a true sacrifice coming from charity, which is most pleasing to God.

You call it charity, but in reality this 'jesus' loses nothing, and goes, knowingly, to eternal bliss.

Quote:

Fourth, His merit in the Passion overflowed into His members, the Church, giving us salvation and thus was a true satisfaction for sin.

Again, this idea is morally and intellectually bankrupt.


Quote:

Fifth, Christ truly atoned for the sins of mankind as He offered to God something more precious than the evil and offense of sin - an infinite recompense for an infinite offence,

But nothing was lost.

And the idea of an infinite offense against a god would require that this god suffer infinite damage. Which is illogical.

 

Quote:

Christ did "lose" on the Cross,

What did he sacrifice? Nothing is lost.

 

Jesus could not have sacrificed anything, Even the supposed pain of the sacrifice would be mitigated by the eternal rewards of heaven. Any finite pain is zero compared to an infinite gain. A child with leukemia suffers more, everyday, without any reason, witout any promise of reward. Every human, everywhere, suffers more without any reason or any reward.

 

So your assetion is blatantly illogical. It makes no sense to state that something is a sacrifice when 1) there was no loss, and 2) the gain for the behavior was infinite.

Jesus could not suffer even as much as a normal person:

Here is why:

1) He knows he's not really going to die in the first place

Here's a purported prophecy of the crucifixion.....
Quote:

Mark 8:34 (New International Version)

34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

(By the way, this passage is self refuting... Jesus didn't 'take up the cross" until after this "event". So what meaning could his reference have for the audience he was speaking to?!)

2) He knows that he will be loved and adored for his act
3) He knows he will save billions of souls with his act.
4) He knows his reward is infinitity in bliss.
5) He knows he will not lose anything, ergo, no sacrifice.

This is not a 'sacrifice' therefore, at all. In fact, its the biggest, best deal in the world, and I challenge a theist to respond as to whether they would go on the cross. I've never seen a theist dare respond at all.

So why do theists call this a 'sacrifice'? Because they don't bother to think it through. It takes compartmentalization. You have to forget that millions die every day in doubt, for no reason. That's the real pain in the world. A child dies of starvation, with no reason, no reward, nothing.

A cancer patient watches his body whither away, in pain. He's not getting any reward, any recognition, no assurance that he will go to some heaven. He just faces death without any comfort.

How many people in the world have sacrificed real blood for others? A mother or a father dies to save their own child - no reward, no assurances. They just do it.

Every day, every person suffers more pain than this supposed savior could ever have suffered "for us". We all live in doubt, we all suffer pains. We do it because we must. Some of us even give more - we sacrifice our time, our blood, even our lives, for others.

No rewards. No guarentees.

A solidier gives up his life for his country. What reward does he get? A ribbon nailed to a wall somewhere, his name recorded in an unseen history book.

Think about it like this: imagine your child is about to be burned alive forever. And someone says to you: you can save him if you agree to go on the cross for three hours. In return, you not only save your own child, you save all children in the world. In addition, you are remembered and loved by billions. Oh, and one more thing: you go directly to heaven, in eternal bliss (after a three day tour of hell, all expenses paid!)

Would you refuse? Would ANYONE refuse? Seriously. There can be no greater gift in the world than to be offered the opportunity.

Again, I challenge a theist to answer the question: Would you go on the cross?

Watch as they continually dodge the question by stating that they 'can't do it!' But this is a hypothetical! If I ask you if you would fly if you could, saying "but I can't fly' isn't a rational response!

 

 

Quote:

submitting Himself to the pain and suffering which it entailed, and allowing His human nature to experience the grief it entailed.

A million children suffer worse pain, without any reason, and without any reward.

 

Quote:

He was not "rewarded" with heavenly bliss,as He always possessed it due to His Godhead.

You're ignoring your own words:

 

Quote:

Every sacrifice is intended to give honor to God, in order to appease Him.

 

and

 

Quote:

Second, the sacrifice was done out of obedience,

You say that this sacrifice was done to honor god, and that it was done ' out of obedience.' So, you tell me, what befalls your 'jesus' for not obeying?

 

The point is that heavenly bliss awaits an obedient jesus. It's that simple. If you don't like calling it a reward, that's fine, but it remains the case that an obedient jesus knows that heaven awaits him.

Quote:

His suffering in charity accomplished the redemption of mankind

Yet another reward then reveals itself: eternal gratitude from the billions he saves.

 

Quote:

and was a true and acceptable sacrifice.

No, it was not. To sacrifice is to lose. I find your argument tiresome in that you don't even bother to critically analyze your responses.

Please think this over:

Sacrifice involves a loss, a reliquishment. You can't sacrifice something and then get it back.

Your 'jesus' cannot be said to have sacrificed anything. Everyday people suffer far worse deaths without 'knowing' for certain that there is an afterlife (a given for 'jesus&#39Eye-wink some die in even worse pain, and all die without the comfort of 'giving' their lives to save countless billions of others, without the pleasure of knowing that they are a 'hero' and without the eternal love and accolades that such an act would bring.

When theists talk about jesus and a 'sacrifice' they do all they can to run away from the painfully obvious truth that there's no sacrifice here at all.

Now, let's give you a question to help you think this over better.

If you were offered the opportunity to go on the cross, to save billions and also go to heaven in eternal bliss, would you go?

When you answser 'no', explain why you wouldn't... not why you couldn't, it's a hypothetical.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Awesome post, todangst, as

Awesome post, todangst, as always, but:

 

todangst wrote:
Think about it like this: imagine your child is about to be burned alive forever. And someone says to you: you can save him if you agree to go on the cross for three hours.

It might help to point out that most people stayed on the cross for a lot longer than three hours -- some even suffered for days. So not only is it a mere three hours of torment in exchange for eternal bliss and the worship of billions, he was hanging around (lol pun) with people who were going to suffer for even longer than he himself was!

Also:

Quote:
In return, you not only save your own child, you save all children in the world. In addition, you are remembered and loved by billions. Oh, and one more thing: you go directly to heaven, in eternal bliss (after a three day tour of hell, all expenses paid!)

huh

Luke 23:43, NIV wrote:
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

So it's not like he even spends time in hell after his death!


Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
JeremiahSmith

JeremiahSmith wrote:

Awesome post, todangst, as always, but:

 

todangst wrote:
Think about it like this: imagine your child is about to be burned alive forever. And someone says to you: you can save him if you agree to go on the cross for three hours.

It might help to point out that most people stayed on the cross for a lot longer than three hours -- some even suffered for days. So not only is it a mere three hours of torment in exchange for eternal bliss and the worship of billions, he was hanging around (lol pun) with people who were going to suffer for even longer than he himself was!

Excellent point....

Quote:

Also:

Quote:
In return, you not only save your own child, you save all children in the world. In addition, you are remembered and loved by billions. Oh, and one more thing: you go directly to heaven, in eternal bliss (after a three day tour of hell, all expenses paid!)

huh

 

some parts of the writing of Luke (and peter) seem to imply that jesus went to hell during the time between his 'death' and his resurrection 3 days later...

Luke 23:43, NIV wrote:
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Quote:

So it's not like he even spends time in hell after his death!


 

 

It would appear that most theists deny their 'jesus' went to hell... even for a three day tour....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: some parts

todangst wrote:
some parts of the writing of Luke (and peter) seem to imply that jesus went to hell during the time between his 'death' and his resurrection 3 days later...

So Luke and Peter say Jesus was in hell, but Luke's Jesus says on the cross that that day he will be in paradise with the thief. Maybe Jesus just helped the guy move into his golden mansion before heading down to hell. What a guy, I tells ya. 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
The first problem I see

The first problem I see when you keep repeating the same points over and over again is this: Jesus Christ made no sacrifice as He was rewarded with heaven after His death on the Cross.

This is wrong, as I have said, as Christ was never "rewarded" with heaven. His soul, after death, went first to the limbo of the fathers (He descended to hell) and then to heaven. However, as I had said before, this is no "reward" as Christ's soul was always in possession of beatitude as He was God - He "was" heaven! There could be no "reward" after death, as God perfectly possesses perfect happiness constantly. On the cross, Christ allowed His human nature to feel the pain and sorrow of the agony therein inflicted, but He was never rewarded with anything He did not already possess.

Second, you define "sacrifice" as a "loss." This definition is incomplete. First, because many ancient cultures, Judaism included, did not just have holocaust offerings which annihilated the victim in the offering, but also other offerings (so-called "communion" offerings) which were not "lost." Second, because every sacrifice is intended to give honor to God, which seems to be lacking in your definition.

 Quote:

 

First, the sacrifice of the Cross honored God in that it fulfilled the precepts of the Old Law.

 

 

"What was lost?"

 

 

 

Quote:

 

Second, the sacrifice was done out of obedience,

 

 

Again, nothing was sacrificed.

 

Quote:

 

rectifying the disobedience of Adam

 

 

"Several problems arise here.

 

First: Your 'Adam' was punished for disobeying 'god' vis a vis disobeying god's demand. And then was punished. BUT sin requires intent, and adam and eve were both forbidden knowledge of good and evil, ergo they could not grasp the moral implications of their behavior. So they were innocent and not able to sin, as they could not understand the moral implications of disobeying."

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not literally a possession of moral knowledge in the sense you construe it to be. Adam and Eve possessed perfect moral knowledge, as God had created them in  a state of original justice. The knowledge indicated by the tree is interpreted as being offered as a knowledge of good and evil as a knowledge of evil as "in one's self" or as committed. It would be both out of harmony with the text to claim that Adam and Eve lacked proper knowledge of morality (as God indicates in this particular story that they had knowledge, and that Adam and Eve both had proper knowledge) and irrational for God to punish them for a crime of which they had no way of avoiding.

"Next: the idea of one person paying the moral debt of another is illogical. "

Nobody is "paying" their moral debt. Sin can have consequences involving so-to-speak extra-moral reality - murder, while a sin, also brings about the death of another person and thus has consequences outside of the individual's moral sin - so that original sin caused a defect or wounding of the nature of humanity which was inherited by our original parents' children. This weakness is not an inherited "moral debt" but a consequence of that first sin which weakened our nature in resistance to evil, as well as losing the grace in which our race was created in.

"Next: any human act is finite. The idea of infinite moral ramifications is incoherent. "

Why not? A finite act which offended an infinite power is an infinite offense. Any sin is infinite in regard to the human act but infinite in the debt owed to God as a result of the offense to His person. Which, on a side note, is why purgatory exists (while God's forgiveness of the guilt of the sin occurs by way of the Sacraments, Penance, a making up for the finite guilt remains necessary to be completed in this life or hereafter).

Quote:

 

Third, the voluntary enduring of the Passion, offered to God for the salvation of men was a true sacrifice coming from charity, which is most pleasing to God.

 

 

"You call it charity, but in reality this 'jesus' loses nothing, and goes, knowingly, to eternal bliss."

Again, no He does not. He possesses eternal bliss continually as God. 

Quote:

 

Fourth, His merit in the Passion overflowed into His members, the Church, giving us salvation and thus was a true satisfaction for sin.

 

 

"Again, this idea is morally and intellectually bankrupt. "

No reason why it is. You say "again," but I don't know what you are referencing. As Christ earned merit for His Church, this merit truly satisfies for sin and thus is a real sacrifice.

Quote:

 

Fifth, Christ truly atoned for the sins of mankind as He offered to God something more precious than the evil and offense of sin - an infinite recompense for an infinite offence,

 

 

"But nothing was lost.

And the idea of an infinite offense against a god would require that this god suffer infinite damage. Which is illogical."

An infinite offense requires an infinite damage, yes. While God Himself is not damaged (in so far as He is immaterial, bodily damage is out of the question, as well as property), but God "loses" due to the dishonor inflicted upon Him but human sin.

 

Quote:

 

Christ did "lose" on the Cross,

 

 

"What did he sacrifice? Nothing is lost.

 

Jesus could not have sacrificed anything, Even the supposed pain of the sacrifice would be mitigated by the eternal rewards of heaven. Any finite pain is zero compared to an infinite gain. A child with leukemia suffers more, everyday, without any reason, witout any promise of reward. Every human, everywhere, suffers more without any reason or any reward."

To repeat, Christ never was "rewarded" with heaven, as He already possessed it. More merit may have been earned by His human soul, but this is of a different character. Christ suffered out of obedience and charity, giving Himself to God as a sacrifice (He lay down His life voluntarily for the salvation of all men). His obedience and charity in offering Himself to God is the sacrifice. If one wants to use your previous definition that a sacrifice is a loss, consider that this even falls under your definition as Christ gave His body to be crucified, His heart to experience torment and thus lose the joy He possessed, in His soul He gave up His own freedom and handed Himself over to the Jews and Romans out of obedience. Thus, Christ "lost" many things in the Passion. However, it is the act of offering something pleasing to God in order to appease that is "sacrifice." This Christ must surely have done, as it is clear that He offered to God His obedience, His whole self, as a satisfaction for sin.

"So your assetion is blatantly illogical. It makes no sense to state that something is a sacrifice when 1) there was no loss, and 2) the gain for the behavior was infinite."

 Number 1: Christ did not have to "lose" anything in the sacrifice.

Number 2: Christ did "lose" as related above.

Number 3: Sacrifice to offer something to God that is pleasing to Him and appeases Him. This was most surely done in Christ's obedience, which pleases God more than any other offering ("I desire obedience, not sacrifice&quotEye-wink. Second, the charity with which He offered His life pleased God and fulfilled all precepts of the Old Law (This is the greatest commandment, to love God, ect.).

"Jesus could not suffer even as much as a normal person:

Here is why:

1) He knows he's not really going to die in the first place

Here's a purported prophecy of the crucifixion.....
Quote:

Mark 8:34 (New International Version)

34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

(By the way, this passage is self refuting... Jesus didn't 'take up the cross" until after this "event". So what meaning could his reference have for the audience he was speaking to?!)"

First, this is bad as it does not directly indicate His knowledge of the crucifixion (I am not denying it; there are just much more direct places where Christ says this).

Second, Christ really died. There is not a knowledge that He will not die. A knowledge He will be raised from the dead is not equivalent. Christ Himself says the Son of Man must die throughout the Gospels.

Third, the denial of self, as pointed out above, constituted the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. This passage helps to show that.

Fourth, I think it is clear from the passage that His audience had a relevant example of self-sacrifice from the analogy of crucifixion that Christ used here to indicate obedience to God. Crucifixion was not uncommon at the time. As it foretold His crucifixion, I think it clear that it serves a double purpose.

 

"2) He knows that he will be loved and adored for his act
3) He knows he will save billions of souls with his act.
4) He knows his reward is infinitity in bliss.
5) He knows he will not lose anything, ergo, no sacrifice."

First, again, Christ does not gain any bliss in the sacrifice. Second, Christ does "lose" things in His human nature. Third, the obedience and charity of His offering Himself to His Father is the essence of the sacrifice. His salvation of souls is the motive of the sacrifice. I think it furthermore unfair to make it seem like God was not adored before this act, so that God gained adoration solely as a result of this sacrifice. Anyway, does finite human adoration outweigh an infinite offense on the cross?

I suppose you could look at it that way, if it is helpful. The pain and death of Christ is likewise an infinite offense against God that God voluntarily assumes. This could also be viewed as an infinite "loss" by God.

"This is not a 'sacrifice' therefore, at all. In fact, its the biggest, best deal in the world, and I challenge a theist to respond as to whether they would go on the cross. I've never seen a theist dare respond at all."

I would hope that I would take up my cross, with God's grace. However, this is really quite irrelevant to the issue at hand. Christ never was rewarded with heaven, again.

"So why do theists call this a 'sacrifice'? Because they don't bother to think it through. It takes compartmentalization. You have to forget that millions die every day in doubt, for no reason. That's the real pain in the world. A child dies of starvation, with no reason, no reward, nothing.

A cancer patient watches his body whither away, in pain. He's not getting any reward, any recognition, no assurance that he will go to some heaven. He just faces death without any comfort."

First, many do suffer in resignation for a reward and it is no less suffering - Christians, for example. If I am dying in agony, I think there is no reason why I would not offer my agony to God, dying in resignation to His will (I pray that this is the case with myself). However, this does not mitigate anything in a human case in terms of the actuality of the suffering, even if we assume a reward. Look at the martyrs, ect.

Second, people do not die without reason. I think it to be quite a bleak picture if you do not have any idea of God, as there is no possibility for happiness at all. I think your picture quite happily matches an atheist's conception of the world. This is likewise, in a manner of speaking, the state of the world prior to the sacrifice of Christ (add hell after death and things would be complete). In Christianity, Christ's coming was an outpouring of love from God to ransom mankind from this horrid fate. His sacrifice opened the gates of heaven and gave the human race a share in divine nature (God became man so that man might become God). After Christ, our resignation to God's will and self-sacrifice becomes a means to attain eternal life - to possess God. This is the paradox of the Cross. Christ used the natural means of death and transformed it into the instrument of life - this is why it remains Good Friday and why us Catholics venerate the image of the crucifix in our homes. The Cross has become the Tree of Life. This is the Christian worldview and the only one, in my opinion, that we can reconcile with both reason/observation of the world and the fact that God exists and loves us.

"How many people in the world have sacrificed real blood for others? A mother or a father dies to save their own child - no reward, no assurances. They just do it."

I would just point out that, while they have no assurances, the motive of a mother or father in sacrificing their lives for their children is love. This consideration outweighs any other gain and the good of their children is a greater reward than their death. If they merely acted irrationally, I think it would denigrate their sacrifice.

"Every day, every person suffers more pain than this supposed savior could ever have suffered "for us". We all live in doubt, we all suffer pains. We do it because we must. Some of us even give more - we sacrifice our time, our blood, even our lives, for others.

No rewards. No guarentees."

Christ's Cross had no rewards or guarantees; witness the Agony in the Garden. His cross was the utmost offense against God, the greatest suffering a human person could endure - an agonizing death, and the greatest giving ones own will to God that one could do.

"A solidier gives up his life for his country. What reward does he get? A ribbon nailed to a wall somewhere, his name recorded in an unseen history book."

Well, if this were purely the consideration for a soldier, nobody would give their lives in battle. However, their love for their country and its good - even among pagans and those who do not believe in God - outweighs the value of their own lives. If the reward was death without any recompense, nobody would do such.

"Think about it like this: imagine your child is about to be burned alive forever. And someone says to you: you can save him if you agree to go on the cross for three hours. In return, you not only save your own child, you save all children in the world. In addition, you are remembered and loved by billions. Oh, and one more thing: you go directly to heaven, in eternal bliss (after a three day tour of hell, all expenses paid!)"

Christ is different than myself, first, in that He was God. He possessed infinite adorability as well as infinite happiness. His sacrifice was a pure outpouring of love to man that was undeserved. Second, this is, in a sense, the motive behind a martyr's death, not God's. Anyone would gladly die a death, offering themselves to God, for the salvation of souls. Christ's was out of love and obedience, not a sense of reward or gaining anything. He already had the angels and Himself; He had no need for human praise or glory. His motive was to give Himself to man so that they could be happy with Him forever. That is all. 

"Would you refuse? Would ANYONE refuse? Seriously. There can be no greater gift in the world than to be offered the opportunity."

Wonderful sentiments attributed to martyrdom.

"Again, I challenge a theist to answer the question: Would you go on the cross?

Watch as they continually dodge the question by stating that they 'can't do it!' But this is a hypothetical! If I ask you if you would fly if you could, saying "but I can't fly' isn't a rational response!"

I would hope that I could suffer a death like our Lord. Saint Peter and Saint Andrew died, famously, upon crosses.

 

Quote:

 

submitting Himself to the pain and suffering which it entailed, and allowing His human nature to experience the grief it entailed.

 

 

"A million children suffer worse pain, without any reason, and without any reward. "

Their reward is in heaven. Christ had no reward for His sacrifice.

 

Quote:

 

He was not "rewarded" with heavenly bliss,as He always possessed it due to His Godhead.

 

 

You're ignoring your own words:

 

Quote:

 

Every sacrifice is intended to give honor to God, in order to appease Him.

 

 

and

 

Quote:

 

Second, the sacrifice was done out of obedience,

 

 

"You say that this sacrifice was done to honor god, and that it was done ' out of obedience.' So, you tell me, what befalls your 'jesus' for not obeying?"

Christ is not punished for not obeying, nor is He rewarded for obedience with anything He did not already possess. It was pure self-sacrificing love. The mother lays down her life for her children out of love. Christ truly suffered and then died. It is really that simple.  

 

"The point is that heavenly bliss awaits an obedient jesus. It's that simple. If you don't like calling it a reward, that's fine, but it remains the case that an obedient jesus knows that heaven awaits him."

Heaven was continually possessed. No reward "awaited." The sacrifice on the cross was freely given.

"To sacrifice is to lose. I find your argument tiresome in that you don't even bother to critically analyze your responses.

Please think this over:

Sacrifice involves a loss, a reliquishment. You can't sacrifice something and then get it back. "

Again, the definition of sacrifice seems lacking essential parts of offering[1] something pleasing to God[2] in appeasement[3].

"Your 'jesus' cannot be said to have sacrificed anything. Everyday people suffer far worse deaths without 'knowing' for certain that there is an afterlife (a given for 'jesus'Eye-wink some die in even worse pain, and all die without the comfort of 'giving' their lives to save countless billions of others, without the pleasure of knowing that they are a 'hero' and without the eternal love and accolades that such an act would bring.

When theists talk about jesus and a 'sacrifice' they do all they can to run away from the painfully obvious truth that there's no sacrifice here at all.

Now, let's give you a question to help you think this over better.

If you were offered the opportunity to go on the cross, to save billions and also go to heaven in eternal bliss, would you go?

When you answser 'no', explain why you wouldn't... not why you couldn't, it's a hypothetical."

I would, with God's help. But Christ had no reward that He did not already possess. His was out of pure love.

 

Yours In Christ,

StMichael

 

PS - In response to these posts, I would point to what the Catechism says here (which is more comprehensive and eloquent than myself; I suggest you read it for a good treatment of the issue - it also uses a great deal more Scripture than I do to support its claims):

III. CHRIST OFFERED HIMSELF TO HIS FATHER FOR OUR SINS

Christ's whole life is an offering to the Father

;">606 The Son of God, who came down "from heaven, not to do [his] own will, but the will of him who sent [him]",413 said on coming into the world, "Lo, I have come to do your will, O God." "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."414 From the first moment of his Incarnation the Son embraces the Father's plan of divine salvation in his redemptive mission: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work."415 The sacrifice of Jesus "for the sins of the whole world"416 expresses his loving communion with the Father. "The Father loves me, because I lay down my life", said the Lord, "[for] I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father."417

;">607 The desire to embrace his Father's plan of redeeming love inspired Jesus' whole life,418 for his redemptive passion was the very reason for his Incarnation. And so he asked, "And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, for this purpose I have come to this hour."419 And again, "Shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?"420 From the cross, just before "It is finished", he said, "I thirst."421

"The Lamb who takes away the sin of the world"

;">608 After agreeing to baptize him along with the sinners, John the Baptist looked at Jesus and pointed him out as the "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world".422 By doing so, he reveals that Jesus is at the same time the suffering Servant who silently allows himself to be led to the slaughter and who bears the sin of the multitudes, and also the Paschal Lamb, the symbol of Israel's redemption at the first Passover.423 Christ's whole life expresses his mission: "to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."424

Jesus freely embraced the Father's redeeming love

;">609 By embracing in his human heart the Father's love for men, Jesus "loved them to the end", for "greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."425 In suffering and death his humanity became the free and perfect instrument of his divine love which desires the salvation of men.426 Indeed, out of love for his Father and for men, whom the Father wants to save, Jesus freely accepted his Passion and death: "No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord."427 Hence the sovereign freedom of God's Son as he went out to his death.428

At the Last Supper Jesus anticipated the free offering of his life

;">610 Jesus gave the supreme expression of his free offering of himself at the meal shared with the twelve Apostles "on the night he was betrayed".429 On the eve of his Passion, while still free, Jesus transformed this Last Supper with the apostles into the memorial of his voluntary offering to the Father for the salvation of men: "This is my body which is given for you." "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."430

;">611 The Eucharist that Christ institutes at that moment will be the memorial of his sacrifice.431 Jesus includes the apostles in his own offering and bids them perpetuate it.432 By doing so, the Lord institutes his apostles as priests of the New Covenant: "For their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth."433

The agony at Gethsemani

;">612 The cup of the New Covenant, which Jesus anticipated when he offered himself at the Last Supper, is afterwards accepted by him from his Father's hands in his agony in the garden at Gethsemani,434 making himself "obedient unto death". Jesus prays: "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. . ."435 Thus he expresses the horror that death represented for his human nature. Like ours, his human nature is destined for eternal life; but unlike ours, it is perfectly exempt from sin, the cause of death.436 Above all, his human nature has been assumed by the divine person of the "Author of life", the "Living One".437 By accepting in his human will that the Father's will be done, he accepts his death as redemptive, for "he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree."438

Christ's death is the unique and definitive sacrifice

;">613 Christ's death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world",439 and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the "blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins".440

;">614 This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices.441 First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience.442

Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience

;">615 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities".444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445

Jesus consummates his sacrifice on the cross

;">616 It is love "to the end"446 that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.447 Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died."448 No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

;">617 The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ's sacrifice as "the source of eternal salvation"449 and teaches that "his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us."450 And the Church venerates his cross as she sings: "Hail, O Cross, our only hope."451

Our participation in Christ's sacrifice

;">618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the "one mediator between God and men".452 But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, "the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery" is offered to all men.453 He calls his disciples to "take up [their] cross and follow [him]",454 for "Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps."455 In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries.456 This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering.457

Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.458

 ...

636 By the expression "He descended into hell", the Apostles' Creed confesses that Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil "who has the power of death" (Heb 2:14).

637 In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven's gates for the just who had gone before him.

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.