A lot of people were crucified back then. WTF makes Jesus so special?

True indeed. I've always thought it was somewhat a slap in the face for all others who'd been condemned to death by crucifixion (not to mention burning or any other form) to say that Christ's suffering during his cruci-fiction was somehow worse than theirs, since it merited such a great sacrifice and theirs did nothing. Heck, they may not have even been allowed into Heaven after death if they didn't meet the required conditions.

:idea: Just what did Jesus sacrifice on the cross? :idea:

Many Christians believe that Jesus "the Christ" came to redeem man to God by His death on the cross and to forgive man's sins. In some instances we have the death of Jesus, yet at other times you see the same Christians making the claim that Jesus "lives." Did he actually die or does he live? It cannot work both ways. Even if the death means a temporary death, it gives little value for an eternal sacrifice. But regardless of which way one believes, the morality of such an act deserves questioning.

If Jesus equals a god, then he could not have sacrificed his life, simply because an infinite god cannot die. If Jesus died as just a man, then he committed what we would today call, suicide:

Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

-Matthew 26:2

If anyone believes his prediction, then Jesus must have known of his upcoming crucifixion. Jesus fulfilling his own prophecy says nothing about miraculous predictions for such self-fulfilling prophecies tend to carry themselves out. But if he lived as an all powerful being, he would have the power to avert his death. But he chose not to. Instead he consciously committed himself to allow his own death. In another word-- suicide. This act of self destruction, especially in light of a horrible disfigured and bleeding torso nailed to a cross hardly gives an exemplary act of the expression of life. On the contrary, such a scene equals that of horror movies designed to scare people out of their wits. Who knows how many children have experienced psychological problems after witnessing an image of a tortured man nailed to a cross at Sunday school. (By the way, any graven image of Christ violates the second commandment [Exodus 20:4]).

As to the sacrifice, just what did Jesus sacrifice? According to the Bible, he certainly did not sacrifice his life. Jesus went to Heaven, (and sat on the right hand of God) supposedly a place of peace, calm and everlasting joy. But as a man on earth, Jesus received death threats, attempts at stoning, and condemnation by his enemies. Exiting the problems on earth for the joys of heaven hardly gives an example of noble sacrifice. On the contrary, it appears that Jesus escaped his problems, leaving his disciples to fend for themselves while he opted for a life in perfect heaven. Should we teach our children to emulate such a selfish act? If Christians held to the consistency of their beliefs, shouldn't Christians best render Jesus' suicide as a cowardly act similar to the way they describe the Islamic terrorists who killed themselves by flying airliners into buildings on September 11th?

Did Jesus redeem man from his sacrifice? History shows that violence of man against man has increased since the "sacrifice." Wars, terrorist acts, murders, and suicides have occurred because of beliefs in Jesus. It appears that the sacrifice resembles the curse of a demon rather than that of a savior. Furthermore, believing that his death forgives sins only provides reason for committing them in the first place. Why should anyone feel so disagreeable about committing sins when they feel that Jesus has already forgiven them? No wonder jails contain so many Christian zealots. Regardless of how "Caesar's" laws treat them, they think of themselves as specially forgiven.

So basically you have several misinterpretations of scripture here and lack some understanding about the overall picture of Jesus sacrifice.

First, Jesus sacrifice was not of His flesh only, but of His soul. As Isaiah 53 states beginning in verse 4:
Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9 And *they made His grave with the wicked--
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,...

How else could Jesus offer His soul as a sacrifice for our sins except through the physical death of His body? 2 Corinthians 5:21 also states: For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." By making Jesus "sin" for us, God the Father caused Jesus to experience our spiritual punishment on the cross by forsaking Him and laying our sins upon Him. Jesus demonstrates this when He says "My God, My God why have You forsaken Me?" Mark 15:34 and elsewhere. Clearly this is not referring to a merely physical punishment. If physical death alone was the punishment for sin, then when every person died they would no longer be in danger of judgment for their sin because they would have paid the penalty already with their death. But as Hebrews 9:27 says "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" implying that there is a spiritual debt that must be paid as well.

The resurrection did not invalidate Jesus sacrifice. On the contrary, it was proof that sacrifice of His body and soul for sins was acceptable to God the Father and that everyone who believes in Jesus would no longer be considered guilty of sin: Romans 4:24-5 "But for us also, to whom [righteousness] shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

The resurrection also attested to the fact that Jesus was, Himself, God the Son seeing that "Death was unable to hold Him" See Acts 2:22-36.

Your analysis of the scriptures you quoted is completely off.

"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).

You have totally wrested the first verse out of its context. It is referring to the fact that our flesh is corrupted and has a propensity for sin. If it were not for the Spirit of God dwelling in Christians, we would not be capable of overcoming the fleshly nature. Paul later states in Romans 8:1 "[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." This is in keeping with the verse you cited in Galatians about Christ indwelling the believer through the Spirit of God Who does the works of righteousness through us.

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

This is referring to our corrupt human bodies that are subject to death and decay. In our current state we could not live forever and Paul says that Christians will receive heavenly bodies like Jesus now has.

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.

Again, you have taken this verse completely out of it's context. Everyone who witnessed Jesus while He was physically here on the Earth did "see the salvation of God". Furthermore everyone who does not believe will see Jesus in their flesh when they are resurrected at the end of the age. Believers will see Christ immediately when they die.

Furthermore, Jesus' body was raised physically, but it was changed into a Heavenly body. He was able to appear and disappear at will and yet was able to eat food (Luke 24:35-42). He also ascended to Heaven in His physical form. He never had corruptible flesh and does not now, so you are twisting this verse to try to support your claim.

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 by far the most grievous example of obscuring the meaning of the text with your ridiculous commentary. This verse is referring to believers who felt guilty about eating meat that they either felt may have been sacrificed to idols or that was perhaps not kosher. And some felt that it was better to abstain from drinking wine because they did not want to unwittingly support it use and possible abuse among Christians. So here Paul is exhorting the Christians to not cause their fellow believers to stumble by eating or drinking something that they might have considered "sinful". He clearly states that "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in *these things is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles *or is offended or is made weak. 22 *Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God."

So your application of this verse to the "Eucharist" is quite wrong.

Lastly, no one can do anything for their own salvation. Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient. Everyone who puts their complete trust and faith in Christ will be saved. If you want to consider "believing" as doing something, well then yes, you do have to believe. But as for righteous works, these can never annul our sins. So you are again mistaken in your interpretation.

I hope that perhaps you will consider reading the New Testament (or if you have already, perhaps rereading it a few more times), it seems you are in need of more study as your exegeses of scripture indicates.

I don't think that you or the dictionary are qualified to define what sacrifice means in the context of the New Testament. Biblical hermeneutics is based on the idea that scripture interprets itself. If Jesus' soul was an offering for sin, then the definition of offering should be a biblical definition and not just one pulled from a non-related source such as you suggest. I don't believe that any textual critic would look to a dictionary to find definitions of terms used in an ancient document, the very thought is ridiculous.

With that said, the authors of the text clearly understood that Jesus death and resurrection were not a contradiction in terms. They saw that Jesus was able to sacrifice Himself on the cross for sins and that the resurrection was the proof that this sacrifice was acceptable to God. You don't get to decide whether or not it was a sacrifice, God already did. So please, don't try to make it seem as though you or any other Atheist on here can make that determination.

Furthermore, I was not the first person to recognize that Isaiah was speaking of Jesus, every Gospel writer understood this was so and hence the reason why they quoted verses from this very chapter of Isaiah and applied it to Christ. Just because you refuse to accept it is of no consequence. It's your choice if you wish to be incorrect. But, again, in view of the fact that the biblical text is allowed to interpret itself, your assertion that this is a case of "question begging" is just absurd.

And no, Jesus's soul was not left in Hell, nor was this a requirement for His sacrifice to be valid as I previously stated. As Acts 2:31 says "[David] seeing this before spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption."

Your blindness to your own sin is obvious if you think you are innocent. There is none righteous and all have sinned. The wages of sin are eternal spiritual death. If you want to pay your own debt, then you have that choice. But God has provided a means of salvation and it is the Gift of eternal life through Christ Jesus. It cannot be earned.

Furthermore, you have no idea what Christ experienced on the Cross so your paragraph on how some humans have suffered more is a blatant case of ignorance. It isn't wise to speak so offhandedly of something which you know nothing about.

However Jesus did recognize that His sacrifice, though horrific, was the only means by which man could be saved. Hebrews 12:2 states "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." So I believe this answers your question.

I find your contempt of the ordeal that He experienced to provide you with salvation to be tragic. But such is the nature of providing humans with free will; some will believe to their eternal joy and others will refuse to believe to their eternal misery.

As for your scenario about me going to the cross to save billions, I am not capable of doing this. Jesus experienced the wrath of the Father by becoming our sin on the cross. Being a finite being, I would not be able to endure it, nor can I imagine what it would have been like. So there is no way for me to answer this question.

Again, I find it inconceivable that you or anyone else can question the validity of Christ's sacrifice. You do not know what Jesus suffered on the cross or what it is like to experience God the Father's wrath as He did when He became our sin. Jesus is an infinite being who tasted death for every man. Do you know what that would feel like? Furthermore, do you know what that would be like to enact that punishment on Your most beloved Son?

Given that you don't know what Jesus went through while He hung on those beams of wood for your sin, you really have no right to speak about whether or not it was a real sacrifice or what it cost the Father. So how can you compare this to a hundred slaps in the face? Your use of this metaphor to describe something you know nothing about is highly arrogant.

Your second point about the word nephesh being something other than what we understand today is not supported. Thayer's lexicon defines nephesh primarily as:

1.) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
b) living being
c) living being (with life in the blood)
d) the man himself, self, person or individual
e) seat of the appetites
f) seat of emotions and passions
g) activity of mind

Our esteemed visitor Sara wrote:
"Again, I find it inconceivable that you or anyone else can question the validity of Christ's sacrifice. "

Why? In the O.T. is it not written that we should use scripture to prove all things? Does your statement here also apply to the Jews? If so, how come? If you can not give a reason why, that is oustide of your religious theology and dogma then you are commiting what in logic is called a special plead logical fallacy. What justification do you have in claiming that atheists and Jews can not question a person who claims to be a son of God and Gods messiah? If you can't do this then you suffer from narrow minded religious bigotry ma'am. I sure hope that you are not the type of religionist that puts naked assertions and special pleads before the dignity of human beings and humaities sacred search for truth. Telling some one who does not believe in a holy spirit or Faith as a means of knowing IS the same as telling them to shut up. Do you use such nonsensical nonsequiters as a means to shut the jews up as well? I think you are a big meany.

You're not nasty, Trey - like me, you're just responding in kind.

When an xian questions my beliefs in a reasonable manner and asks me to explain my position rationally, I respond calmly and without a trace of rancor.

But when a thumper lays a guilt trip and/or eternal torment threat on me based on NO evidence but the irrational beliefs foisted upon them before they could reason for themselves, the "snide remarker" dons his cowl & cape...

It wasn't a sacrifice in the sense of the amount of pain he underwent, TP. It was a sacrifice in the sense that a perfect man without mark was offered up to God -- quality instead of quantity, perhaps. I know that you think that this should have included an inordinate amount of pain, but the blood sacrifice was done on oue behalf -- Jesus suffered for our redemption. It wasn't the amount of pain that redeemed, it was that the sacrifice was made at all.

As someone put it: "Jesus died, so that in the end we wouldn't have to". Metaphysical nonsense from a naturalistic perspective, sure, but you are on the wrong track if you think that Jesus's sacrifice was about the amount of pain.

That seems to be the one chink in his omnipotence. Well, that and his apparent inability to handle money...

Anti-Faith,

Your question about Jesus being the Messiah and God in the flesh is a different matter all together, though it is well supported in the Hebrew Scriptures. What is being questioned here is whether or not the Death of Christ for the sins of the world a real sacrifice. The Atheist position is that because Jesus only spent a brief amount of time in Hades and was resurrected 3 days later, that it wasn't "good enough" or a "real" sacrifice. This is ridiculous.

The bible clearly states that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22) and that the blood of bulls and goats was not capable of expiating sins because these sacrifices had to be repeated (Hebrews 10:4). Jesus' sacrifice of His perfect life ONE time on the cross was most certainly valid and His resurrection was the proof.

Hebrews 10:10- By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

People have the choice as to whether or not they wish to believe the bible's account, but if Atheists or Jews want to argue Christian theology, then they should really try to understand what the New Testament scriptures teach regarding salvation and sacrifice. Calling the validity of Christ's atonement in to question because it doesn't agree with THEIR idea of what a sacrifice must be is sheer nonsense. It's not their or your call to decide what the biblical definition should be.

I'm sorry you find me to be mean, that was not my intention. The best means of cutting through lies is by being direct. Furthermore, if believing in Jesus and His sacrifice as being the only way to God means I am a bigot, so be it. The truth cannot be compromised to accommodate people's preferences.

Take this test to see what you really know about the Bible:

http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=7170693911873259163

The truth or falsity of the Bible and Christian theology is no longer an issue for most of us here. So when I am calling into question Jesus' sacrifice as espoused by Christian theology I am merely putting into rational scrutiny the philosophical implications of the concept being discussed. And as shown, it fails utterly to even make any sense and all you can do is resort to ad hoc explanations based on what you think the Bible says.

Exactly.

The_Prize,

I did not miss your point. I fully understand that you are implying that Jesus' sacrifice does not meet your criteria. But seeing as how you have no understanding of what the biblical term means, you are not viewing this correctly.

First, the consequence of sin is the eternal separation from God in Hell. This is not God's choice for a person, but it the natural result when people choose to exercise their free will and rebel against God. In order for this penalty to be paid, a person would have to spend eternity doing so. Hence their spiritual lives will exist in a state of eternal misery and torment apart from God. The only way for man to be saved from this fate, is if an Eternal Being were to take our eternal punishment for us.

Now, Jesus, Who is such an Infinite Being, tasted death (i.e. experienced spiritual separation from the Father) for everyone when He died upon the cross. It doesn't matter if this punishment lasted for an 3 hours or a billionth of a second because an eternal Being can experience an eternity in an instant. Therefore a long drawn out punishment (in our time frame) wasn't necessary.

Also, if you think this was a light and momentary affliction, you are way off the mark. I must reiterate that you don't know what it is like to experience this separation from God the Father (though if you choose not to believe in Christ you unfortunately will). That being the case, you really have no room to speak about whether or not it was a "real" sacrifice.

Finally, in regard to your statement about eternal souls not being a part of official Jewish Theology, you may very well be correct. But this isn't because the idea isn't found in the Hebrew scriptures. There are several Old Testament verses that point to a soul as being something that does not cease to exist when a person dies. For example:

Psalms 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in [sheol]; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

This seems to indicate that the soul remains in the place of the dead...if it ceased to exist, why even make this statement?

1Kings 17:21-2 And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray, let this child's soul come into him again. And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.

This shows a distinction between the child's soul and his body. If the child's soul ceased to exist, how could it "return"?

1 Samuel 28:15 Now Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" And Saul answered, "I am deeply distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God has departed from me and does not answer me anymore, neither by prophets nor by dreams. Therefore I have called you, that you may reveal to me what I should do."

If Samuel's soul ceased to exist when he died, how was Saul able to communicate with him?

Also, there are a quite a few verses that state that God has a soul even though He is a Spirit. See Leviticus 26:30, Isaiah 1:14; 42:1, Jeremiah 5:9, 6:8, 9:9 etc.

Finally, Jesus Himself corrected the idea put forth by the Sadducees that there was no return from the dead and He used OT scripture to prove it. Mattew 22:31-2 says "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?* God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

If the soul died when the body died, God stating that He IS the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would be incorrect. Instead He would have stated "I WAS the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

So in light of these scriptures, it seems that a soul can exist after a person dies. Thus it is plausible that the passage in Isaiah regarding Christ's Soul as an offering could very well refer to more than His body.

I agree with Matt. You don't realize that the "Buy-Bull", as Sapient called it in another post, is not a reliable source to pull evidence for your claims from. The bible has been shown to be a book full of contradictions and lies, all you have to do is glance over this section of the forum and read a few of the many examples Rook has given.

If the "Buy-Bull" was a reliable source and we could believe everything in it to be true there would be no atheist.

Now let me quote some scripture for you. One of my favorite contradictions that lies on the FIRST page of the bible:

Genesis 1 Verses 3-5: Then God said,"Let there be light"; and there was light, And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Skip down a few verses.

Genesis 1 Verses 14-20: And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. god made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night and to seperate light from the darkness. and God saw that it was good. and there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

That never ceases to shock me. Any pre-schooler knows that the sun is what causes it to be light in the day and absence of the sun is what causes the night. However, God supposedly created day and night the first day. How can that be? We do not have a sun yet...there would be light or darkness! Also, calling the moon a light in the sky? Sure, they thought that in the past...but we now know that the Moon is not a light in the sky, that it reflects light from the sun like a mirror. I believe RRS made this point on the show at one time.

Now, we also know that the sky is not a dome. This was written at a time in which the earth was believe to be flat. And I don't even need to go into the fact that the bible said the sky was holding back the "waters of the sky".

And I don't want to hear any of that bullshit about the fact that man wrote the bible, the bible is supposedly the word of God...God would know how things really are.

I know this has nothing to do with this particular topic...I'm just giving one of the many examples that diminishes the credibility of the bible.

-Trey

Haha, no I didn't forget that part I just didn't mention it. Thanks for doing so though! It really is absurd to believe that plants came before the sun when they need the sun to exist. It's so obvious that the Bible could never be the word of a perfect being who supposedly created the Earth...why so many people don't see this is beyond me.

What's even worse though is the people who DO see it but remain a theist anyway.

Tell that to some of the pastors that push these ideas.

Our punnishment is eternal. What kind of sacrifice did God make that is eternal?

There are Christians who emphasise that yes. Spiritual pain too what ever that means. Some pastors and Christians make a very big deal about it.

So to God a finite sacrifice is equal to an infinite punnishment that God has in store for most of humanity?

So Jesus's sacrifice had nothing to do with our eternal punnishment? I wonder what scripture really means when it switches back and forth from eternal torture and death. I could see that in hell, we would die a tortuous death and be resurected repeatedly for all of eternity. Maybe thats what the bible means when it switches back and forth from death and eternal punnishment.

If that is so, then I think Jesus didn't really make any real sacrifice at all if you take into account what the punnishment is. Jesus did not die the way we would have had he not made the sacrifice at all.
Right? I would think that if Jesus thought that inventing hell was a great idea that he would also think that an equitable sacrifice would also be a great idea. Maybe Jesus was just trying to scare us into bying into his dillusions. Cult leaders usualy do things like that. Dillusional or not. I think Jesus has satan in him to have come up with such a bizar and evil idea of sacrifice. I think this part of Jesus is very ugly.

First, God was the source of Light before the Sun was formed. Psalms 104:1-2: O Lord my God, You are very great:
You are clothed with honor and majesty,
2 Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment,
Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain."

So there's no contradiction. Futhermore, what does it matter if plants were created one day before the sun? Even if the Light that God cloaked Himself in when He created the world didn't sustain plant life, would plants have died because they were without sun for one day? No.

As for my use of the bible being some sort of taboo in your atheist forum, I must say this is somewhat hypocritical of you. If you can use Christian theology (which is derived from the bible) to disprove the existence of God, then I can use the bible to defend it.

Using the Bible to defend christianity is a logical fallacy known as circular logic - if the Bible is true, Christianity is true, and vice versa. If one is false, so is the other. Maybe plants wouldn't have died without sunlight (though they certainly would with temperatures being what they would be without the sun), there is no possibility they could bear fruit.

Seeing as how I derive my "theology" from the bible, I don't see why my definition is incorrect. If you can find another definition of "sacrifice" from the bible, then please share it with me. But, again, since you are trying to pick apart my theology, which is derived from the bible, I can use the bible to defend it. I'm tired of the atheists always trying to tie Christian's hands by stating that using the bible is "circular reasoning" and thus not admissible. If you can use ideas that are derived from the bible (i.e. Theology) to trash Christianity, then I see no reason why I can't use scriptures to elaborate on or explain these concepts.

By the way, the entire process of substitutionary atonement is metaphysical, so I don't see why you are griping about my explanation of it. It is mathematically logical to state that infinity times 1 second is still infinity. So if Christ is an infinite being who lives outside of time (though He was physically in it while on the Earth), then He could experience eternal punishment in a very short period of "our" time. Just because you can't comprehend that doesn't make it untrue.

I'm sorry that you think that sins are comparable to a child stealing a piece of candy. Do you think murderers and rapists are such innocent children? What about people who steal from the impoverished and cause them to die of exposure or hunger, are they like children as well? What about people who molest children are they guiltless little innocents?

But you may be thinking, "I don't do any of those things, so I am a good person". Well, just because you don't think having sex outside of marriage, or lying, or stealing "little" things, or blasphemy is as bad as the above doesn't make it so. You may try to rationalize away the harm that these sins can cause, but it doesn't mean that harm doesn't result from these acts.

It all comes down to what reality is. If God exists, then He is the moral lawgiver and gets to decide what is right and what is wrong. I'm sorry if you find this to be disturbing, but we are not debating about what we WANT to believe, but about what is true.

1. You are using the Bible as evidence to prove what the Bible says. Circular Logic. Go through this section of the Forum and prove that all of the contradictions that Rook has pointed out are in fact not contradictions, then we will talk about how the bible “easily stands up to criticism."

2. What? What are you saying? The Earth is rotating!? Well, you know the Bible says that the Earth was flat and that it rests on pillars…how can such an Earth be rotating? And if there is no Sun there is no light an darkness to separate. Also, of course neither of us were around when the Universe was formed. There is, however, scientific evidence supporting The Big Bang…there is no evidence that some intelligent super being created the Earth. The Bible is not evidence.

3.The Bible calls the Moon a great light in the sky because at the time Genesis was written it was thought to be just that…a light in the sky. This passage mislead people into thinking the Moon was something it was not, therefore the Bible is misleading. God should have clarified what the moon actually is.

I really don't enjoy having to repeat myself, as I'm sure you don't either. So let's go over this one last time and then consider it done, o.k.? I understand that you feel that using the bible to defend the bible is "circular". But if you can use the bible to disprove the bible, then I can use the bible to defend the bible...Does this make sense to you???

You are again using a "idiom" and poetic language used by the bible to disprove the bible (what circular reasoning!!!). (Now, take note of my circular reasoning The bible is not referring to a flat piece of land on pillars as you are assuming. Later Job states the God "Hangs the Earth on NOTHING" Job 26:7. So, it seems that your idea of the use of pillar must not be referring to literal pillars, but simply another way of describing the "foundations" or inner core of the Earth.

Again, God was the source of the light on day one, so I don't think we need to keep rehashing the "there is no light without the sun".

How on Earth do you know that the "scientific" evidence is being interpreted correctly? If you and no one else was present when the universe formed and scientists make the a priori assumption that this phenomenon occurred by PURELY NATURAL means, then of course they are going to interpret the evidence and create paradigms that support THEIR theory. So please don't tell me that scientists have it all figured out, because they don't.

Wow, I'm glad that you are privy to the mindset of the biblical author and understood exactly what he was intending to convey in this passage. I'm also glad to see you are still using circular reasoning by using the bible to disprove the bible. Anyway, this passage isn't intended to mislead. Like I said it's an idiom, like saying the moon is bright. Since I'm almost positive you don't go around correcting everyone who says this, you should probably just let this one pass. But just so we don't have to rehash this one for the third time, I understand that YOU think it's misleading, so we don't need to explore it again.

Absolutely not. By your logic, I could use the book Moby Dick to prove that Moby Dick actually lived. Because there are conversations within the book that mention real places and real animals, and ellude to actual events. So therefore Moby Dick, by your logic, is not a book of fiction at all.

This is how incredulous your position is. Especially since by using the book Moby Dick, the internal evidence supports fiction. The fact that whales aren't man-eaters is evidence enough for the fictionality of the book. However, you don't think like that, and you seem to want it both ways..

You want to be able to prove your Bible without doing any of the work. You want to just assume the Bible is real, and then we are supposed to take your word for it, even though the internal evidence in the Bible goes against everything we know of historically, geographically and scientifically. But you just thought we'd ignore that and pretend it didn't exist...didn't you?

This is why you can't use the Bible to prove itself..because the book is the very thing being brough into question! It's the Bible we are forming a case against, and you cannot bring the very thing the case is against as evidence for the case! Things don't work like that in the real world, only in mythical fantasy realms that exist within the contrains of your mind.

Your ignorance shows through...You are obviously unaware of what circular reasoning is...

Read this link: Circular Reasoning

Again, the Bible is the very thing on trial. If you cannot defend it using outside evidence, the Bible ceases to be used as a verifiable document. The fact that it is even ON trial makes it suspect and therefore it is invalid to use as a form of evidence FOR the Bible.

If we did things your way, the court systems would cease to function as a means of justice and would become instead a playpen for anybody who wants to make a case. Hearsay would be submissable in a court of law, and ones word would be enough to grant the death penalty. This is why outside evidence is required to make a case. You are making the claim, YOU must back it up.

You're really stretching it here, and displays the desperate nature of your case. Here is just one case of the earth being considered flat in the Bible:

1 Sam. 2:8, "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them."

If you are going to claim this as poetry and metaphorical, you would also have to admit that God does not paise up the poor, or life the beggar. Further, the author of 1 Samuel most definitely felt the earth was flat, as he speaks in the following verse of the earth having ends. (1 Sam. 2:10)

Job likewise states that the earth has ends (Job 37:3) ...if they knew of a sphereical earth this phrase would make no sense.

In Isaiah, the author also believed in a flat earth, "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isa. 11:12) There is no way to misinterpret the passage. The earth is sphereical and has no corners. (See also: Rev. 7:1)

In Isa. 41:9, the author writes, "I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you."

Ezekiel 7:2, "Son of man, this is what the Sovereign LORD says to the land of Israel: The end! The end has come upon the four corners of the land."

And in 1 Chron. 16:30, it states very clearly that the earth will not be moved. That it is stable.

Deuteronomy 33:17 states, "In majesty he is like a firstborn bull; his horns are the horns of a wild ox. With them he will gore the nations, even those at the ends of the earth. Such are the ten thousands of Ephraim; such are the thousands of Manasseh.."

Here the author of Deuteronomy clearly thought that the world had ends, and that there were nations at those ends. This is primative thoughts, because the authors were primative people with primative ideas.

This is why the Bible is not submissable as evidence for itself...because it contradicts reality. Because it contains errors, contradictions and fallacies that cannot be reconciled.

Your case only works if the only mention of a flat earth is in that one book, in that single verse. Maybe then I could buy into the poetic metaphorical idea you are trying to insist is the case. However it appears in many books, in many different weays, in very literal meanings, and fits in the context.

There is no way you can state that the "ends" and "edges" in which nations proportedly lived on are just the inner core of the earth. Your case is lost, you should apologize for the lie. I don't want to hear excused, merely an apology. Admit you were wrong and be done with it. We can move on once you do this. Otherwise I'm just going to have to keep exposing the lie, and you wouldn't want that.

This is beyond speculation, this is clearly another lie. Perhaps an ignorant one, because you aren't reading the Bible which you are trying to defend. Please, show me how your point makes any sense in the context of what is written:

Genesis 1:1-5, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day."

Now, God had been hovering over the earth BEFORE light was created. God also saw the light...and only after did he decide it was good. Then God divided the light from darkness. Then he decided to call the light day and the darkness night.

SO what you're telling me, is that God turned himself on...with words...and although he is supposed to be omnipotent, he didn't know if the light he himself was supposed to create from himself would be good or not...then and omnipotent being made a decision(?!)...he divided himself up into lightness and the parts of him which were dark yet...and then he decided to call himself day and night?!

You are so beyond incredulous with these comments. If you want to make a point, make sure the scripture supports your claim first.

Because unlike you, we can test and retest and study and retest our theories and hypothesis. You can only hope and pretend. The fact is, we are atleast looking at the evidence...you are shrugging it off and ignorantly proporting things about the evidence which make no sense in the reality of the studies and common sense.

For example, for God to have been the "light" as you put it, God would have to give out radiation and energy, which makes God physical and means that he has flaws and limitations. You are limiting God by attributing him the qualities of light, especially light which would have to be as powerful and radiate enough emitions and energy to generate plant growth, and keep the seas - which supposedly existed over a void (which is impossible..if something is void it has NOTHING...not even water) - from freezing over.

And there is another contradiction. The seas did not freeze, even though they suppoedly existed before God "turned himself on."

Um,. that's not an assumption any more then you "assuming" that walking into a floorboard and stubbing your toe and feeling pain is nature. It IS a natural occurance because we can SEE it is a natural occurance. We can TEST it NATURALLY, which makes it...dur dur dur...NATURAL. If we couldn't examine it, test it, study it...it would then make your case for supernatural. But....we CAN. Thus you are wrong.

You seem to think that sceintists have a bias. Sciense is self-correcting. If the laws of physics somehow were flawed, science would find out how, and then make the appropriate adjustments to fix the tests and conclusions already discovered. This is how science works.

I know this may surprise you, as religion is the complete opposite. Never changing, stubborn in the face of facts, and never giving into reality, instead it clings to fairy tales, myths and legends which have existed since before people discovered fire.

Biggest. Strawman. Ever.

This is a huge case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Further, the internal biblical evidence supports this. For example, the earth being flat and having ends and edges WAS a belief of the day. The fact that author after author states this in one manner or another proves that the Bible is misleading and was misleading during the days these books were written. If they weren't, and if the Bible had not stated this, then the authors would have not acquainted ends or edges with a spherical earth, now would they?

It's okay, we know I'm right.

Now you're stretching again. Motivation and intention is irrelevant when a people don't understand the concept of a planet. When they don't understand the idea of a mirror and reflecting light particles. Saying the moon is bright is not the same as saying the moon is producing it's own light. The two are completely different, as one is discribing the moon's appearance (that it's bright) and one is stating a factual claim (that it produces its own light).

An analogy would be as if I said the snow is bright (due to reflecting the suns light off the white surface like a mirror) and if I said the snow is a light source (that the snow is producing it's own light). Your case here doesn't add up to the facts.

Just because you have faulty reasoning abilities does not mean we do. No way I'll let this one go by, although I'm sure you wish I had.

If your Bible is really perfect and inerrant, there should be no way I could find something misleading. Period.

Go back to studying.

Rook,

I'm glad you finally responded, now if you would be so kind as to do the same for my first post to you two pages back, I would appreciate it.

Your analogy using "Moby Dick" doesn't hold in this situation. First, Moby Dick is known to be a fictional account. We know it was written in 1851 by a fiction writer. The author no where gives the impression that he is trying to report an actual historical event that occurred (or if he is, then he has fictionalized it to such an extent that neither he nor anyone else would promote it as being completely factual.) The bible does not do this. It purports to be an actual historical record of the beginning of the Universe, the Earth, and mankind and to be inspired by God. We are arguing about whether this is the case. So, to me, this analogy falls a little flat.

Secondly, I'm not sure that you fully understand or are applying the "circular reasoning" argument correctly to this situation. Circular reasoning involves making an assumption in an argument part of the proof. For example, you might say something like "all religions are made up by human beings. Christianity is a religion, so it must have been made up by human beings."

HOWEVER, not all circular reasoning is necessarily a logical fallacy. If the premise is of the argument is found to be true, (i.e. all religions are made up) then the circular reasoning would be valid. See: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html. And the premise of the argument we are trying to determine is: "Is the bible true?". We are BOTH using the bible to prove our case. I don't see why you are allowed to do this while I am not. It seems that if I am guilty of using circular reasoning, then are you as well.

When I use the bible to clarify or expound on verses that you misinterpret, twist, or take out of context, I think this is perfectly valid. If an attorney was presenting "evidence" that was either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreted, then the opposing side would be obligated to correct those errors and provide an accurate interpretation. It would be very illogical for the first attorney to say "you can't correct my interpretation of the evidence by using the evidence!" Which is exactly what you are doing when you say I can't use the bible correct your interpretation of the bible. Furthermore, in our criminal justice system the person on trial is always allowed to testify on his own behalf. In the same way, the bible can be allowed to testify on its own behalf against false accusations.

That being said.....Job's statement that the Earth "hangs on nothing" shows that he obviously did not believe the Earth square and rested on literal pillars. The fact that you choose to ignore this verse goes to show how far you are willing to go to promote your own position.

Further, there are verses which point to the Earth being round such as Isaiah 40:22- "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth..." and Proverbs 8:27 ""When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,.." Now before you go jumping to more erroneous conclusions that this is implying a "flat" circle, just know that there is no hebrew equivalent for "sphere", so the word here translated "circle" would easily be used for BOTH.

Citing examples such as "the ends of the Earth" and "the four corners of the Earth" to try to prove the biblical authors thought the Earth was a flat square is simply not true. These are figures of speech which were understood by the people of the period as referring to the uttermost parts of the Earth. Furthermore, the "four corners" could easily be referring to the four directions of North, South, East, and West and thus still be an accurate way to describe the entire Earth. Your insistence that these must be taken literally is, in my opinion, a desperate attempt to find an error that doesn't exist.

Similarly, the verse about the moon being a light is not wrong. The verse is NOT stating that the moon is radiating light by it's own energy, it's just stating that it is a light in the sky. Even in modern times we use the phrase "moonlight" to describe how the moon "lights" up the night sky. Also, not every star we see in the sky is really a "star", some are planets that reflect light. But these are still called "stars" and "lights" in the sky as well. So it seems that you are, again, trying to make the verse imply something that it clearly does not. Additionally, you are ignoring the fact that even in our modern era we still use similar phrases to describe these phenomenon in spite of our advanced scientific knowledge.

Hannah's statement in 1 Samuel 2:8 was figurative, but it represented an underlying truth. I really don't think that the poor were literally in the dust, the beggar was in a literal "dung hill", or that pillars were literal pillars. When God raises up these people, He is bringing them out of their poverty and setting them in a higher position. Setting the Earth on pillars is another way of stating that He laid down the foundation or core of the Earth. Thus Hannah is showing that if He had enough power to accomplish that task, He would certainly be able to help people in need.

Your rant about God actually being the light is not correct. I never said this. When I stated that God was the source of the Light, I meant that He created the Light, not that He Himself was the light. He spoke the light into existence, but it appears that the light remained in a fixed location which would account for the light being divided from the darkness. I was making a conjecture that perhaps God, who was hovering over the Earth, cloaked Himself in light on day one. Psalms 104:2 says "Covering Yourself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out heaven like a {tent} curtain. " This was the verse I quoted earlier to the poster I was discussing this with (which apparently you missed). The sun was created the very next day, so He didn't need to sustain plant life with His light. And I'm sure if He was powerful enough to create the universe, He could manage not to let the seas freeze over. The word "void" does not mean non-existent, it means empty implying it did not have anything on it. Second, your statement that God "decided" the light was good is just ridiculous. It was a statement of fact, not a sudden realization.

The science "not having figured it all out" statement is true. It's not a straw man. You and every other Atheist always point to the fact that scientific discoveries have proven that a God was not necessary to form the Earth. This is false. There are so many problems with the Theories of Chemical and Macroevolution that they do not conclusively prove anything. They are paradigms that have been manufactured to try to support a philosophy, they are not science at all. These theories are based on arbitrary underlying assumptions, which if disproved, would cause the whole theory to collapse. However, since it is difficult to disprove these assumptions (because they are not observable, testable, and repeatable), scientists often get a free pass as having "found the answer" when this is hardly the case. It's actually kind of funny really.

Furthermore, scientists are just as biased as anyone, even religious people. They just worship science and nature instead of God. My comment about things having a purely "natural" explanation, was referring to the idea that the formation of the universe and life could happen through some natural process without the aid of God. I have never seen any evidence that supports this. But since I've been arguing science for over a month now with other Atheists in a different forum, I'm a little tired of it at the moment and would like to focus on just "biblical errors" for a while if you don't mind.

Scientists worship nature. That is so absurd and irrational! Please, I hope Sapient, Yellow and Rook are here to Pwn your irrational ass before Sapient leaves on vacation. This is gonna be too easy..... Hey, with this new forum, can people like this still get the "asshat" picture? I'd like to nominate her after this last post.