Vinnie

Christian doctrine says this: Jesus shared in our humanity, he shared in our oppression, he faced, rejection and a torturous death so that we might be reconciled to God. That is what it says.

Christian doctrine posits 100% humanity. I further accept a kenotic view whereby Jesus relinquished omnipotence, omniscience etc. When someone dies for someone else its considered remarkable. Just as a brave soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his friends. In that light if for no other reason, it would be remarkable.

Obviously you will say but Jesus knew he would be alive again so its not that special. Even if he did know, he still not not have to choose to experience the pain he did. Some atheists have a wierd way of trying to downplay aspects of the Christian faith that they shouldn't. Just an observation.

This whole argument itself is a red herring. The fundies overstate things obviously. Jesus became infinite sin bwcause he literally took on all sin (sin is of course a free will action and not a thing that can be taken on) and that's why God had appeared to have forsaken him. Sure, if you want to know, this is not a tenable notion. But the Cross itself is a very special and remarkable event.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Clutch's analogy fails because Jesus was not a trillionare. My Christoology is slightly different than Lewis' but I agree with him when he says "But surely that is a very odd reason for not accepting them?"

Vinnie

Vinnie

What? When someone wrongs me they can be "without excuse" and have done so willingly but that doesn't mean I shouldn't forgive them if they apologize and ask for forgiveness.


What if the temple was destoryed and the high priest was killed or war was happening and people were detained and there could ne no sacririce that year? Does that mean there would be no forgiveness even if their were repentnent sinners?

Leviticus 5:11-13 shows that there are exceptions to the blood rule:

11"If any of the people cannot afford to bring young turtledoves or pigeons, they must bring two quarts of choice flour for their sin offering. Since it is a sin offering, they must not mix it with olive oil or put any incense on it.

12They must take the flour to the priest, who will scoop out a handful as a token portion. He will burn this flour on the altar just like any other offering given to the LORD by fire. This will be their sin offering.

13In this way, the priest will make atonement for those who are guilty, and they will be forgiven. The rest of the flour will belong to the priest, just as with the grain offering."
[/quote]

Pbviously bloodshed is not a strict requirement in the sense most Christians think it is, is it?

So God made a covenant with Israel. In this context forgiveness and she shedding of blood went hand in hand (because sin offering was a part off their very foundation and identity). Its like repentence and forgiveness now. But how does that turn into the universal proclimation that God is incapable of forgiving all or any people without bloodshed? Further, how does that turn into "Jesus forgave in light of this practice?"

Vinnie

worldling

Vinnie

In your view, is it morally acceptable that someone else should be punished for a crime you committed?

Vinnie

I can probobly think of a rare cases where this might be morally acceptable but I have to answer that with a no despite some exceptions.

I don't hold to a "substituionay" or "penal substition" atonement model. I probably find those types of models more objectionable than do most atheists here and I can do a good job pointing out their flaws. My site will soon have articles on this stuff in the soteriology section (salvation section)

Vinnie

Kosh

Then you are not a True Christian (tm) !!!!!!!!

worldling

Vinnie wrote:
Looking forward to it.

As a matter of interest, in what circumstances can you imagine that it would be morally acceptable for someone else to be punished for a crime you committed?

Clutch

You seem to be missing the point as well, then. The question was never: Yes, of course there is a Jesus who died for our sins, but should I accept him? It was: Why should this story count as the description of someone making a uniquely significant (ie, uniquely supererogative) sacrifice?

To which Lewis's reply is a simple non-sequitur. Hey, I know: let's talk about something else!

Now, your own view may well be different, but that hardly rehabilitates Lewis' view, nor what seems to be the standard Christology. You say:Yes, right. The untenability of this idea was the initial point -- the point you insisted was addressed by Lewis's remarks. Perhaps by "Come on, C.S. Lewis partially answered this objection!", you meant, "Well, if you adopt my idiosyncratic Christology and deny that Christ took all sin onto himself, things aren't so bad". Maybe, maybe not. But Lewis's remarks are still a pointless red herring.

Old Man

If God had to wait until you had confessed all your sin to be forgiven, you would never be forgiven, because half of your sin you are completely ignorant of (same for everyone to a degree).

Like the Babylonian exile, if that happened it was because God caused it as a punishment on Israel. There was no doubt that the blessing of God was removed from Israel during that time, and when Israel returned from Babylon, it remained for the next 350 years a broken nation, until the era of the Macabees.

But there was no substitute for blood in respect of the day of atonement sacrifice. And this is the one I was talking about and also the most important one, which was mandatory, unlike most of the other offerings. (And God had to cater for poor people.)

Jesus was sent only to Israel. He made that clear. Only Israelites could be forgiven by Christ and partake of Christ's blessing (and certain outsiders who partook of Israel's blessing by honoring the Jewish law). It was only after Jesus death that forgiveness could be preached to the Gentiles.

The reason for this, is because until Jesus died, there was no means of justification for the Gentiles. But there was for Jews, and that is why Jesus could declare sins forgiven in respect of the Jews.

Kosh

The reason for this is that the Jews were too smart and knew their own religion to well to buy in to the con job, so Paul et al had to take their show on the road... to the gentiles.

Is anybody buying these apologetics?