| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"John Wilson" |
| Date: |
30 Jul 2003 12:55:38 PM |
| Object: |
Re: "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do." |
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:04:11 -0400, James wrote:
On 13 Jul 2003 16:23:25 -0700, (Truth Hunter)
wrote:
Well as something Jesus said as he was being crucified: "Forgive them
Father for they know not what they do." Clearly, if this was God's
idea, Jesus wasn't aware of it. The real question we should be asking
is WAS it God's idea?
Hello,
Yes, it was God's purpose to ransom His Son, in order to save many. 1 Jo
4:10,
"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his
Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (NIV)
The thought that a god of love could condem his own son to such a
horrible death - simply to impress a bunch of pagans - stretches the
limits of credibility.
Actually, it shows the depth that love can reach, by both Jesus and God.
Jesus willfully gave His life for us. Mt 20:28,
"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to
give his life as a ransom for many." (NIV)
"About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud void, Eloi, Eloi, lama
sabachthani? (My god, my god, why have you forsaken me)" (Mathew 27:46)
So Jesus didn't want to die. In this respect, he's hardly a willing
sacrifice. Which is ironic, given that earlier - in the same book - he
states (again From Mathew):
"[18]We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to
the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condem him to
death. [19]and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged
and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!"
So on the one hand, we have Jesus not giving his life /willingly/, but
reluctantly. On the other hand, we have Jesus not giving his life /at all/
- merely loaning it. Now given that both these accounts are from the same
gospel - so no problem with different interpretations by different authors
- which part is true:
Did Jesus give his life unwillingly, or did he not actually give his life
in the first place?
If we accept the second: that Jesus was fully aware he would be
resurrected, then why would he cry out to god, who he was apparently in
cahoots with.
If we accept the first: that Jesus gave his life unwillingly, then a) how
do you account for the resurrection, and b) why does he so blithely speak
of being a servant he's so clearly not prepared to accept to the end.
That God sent him is clear from such scriptures as John 6:38,
"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will
of him who sent me." (NIV)
Which, in the end, he was apparently unprepared to do - despite knowing
the apparently glorious resurection that was coming. I wonder, would this
not be dishonouring his father? Which would be a sin according to the 10
commandments. Which would not make him sinless. Which would make him an
unnaceptable "sacrifice".
I hope the above Bible verses have helped to answer your questions.
You've not so much answered a question, as inadvertantly asked even more.
John.
.
|
|
| User: "Charles P" |
|
| Title: Re: "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do." |
30 Jul 2003 01:53:23 PM |
|
|
"John Wilson" <john.wilson71@btinternet.com> wrote in message
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:04:11 -0400, James wrote:
Yes, it was God's purpose to ransom His Son, in order to save many. 1 Jo
4:10,
Instead of blood sacrifices and ransom rituals, why didn't He instead
seek the services of a competent therapist. He could have learned
to cope with His anger problems in other ways.
"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his
Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (NIV)
This concept of blood sacrifices and atoning for sins is common to
ancient tribesmen, but not for a modern "God"
Actually, it shows the depth that love can reach, by both Jesus and God.
Jesus willfully gave His life for us. Mt 20:28,
Jesus did nothing of the sort. He lost conciousness for a day or so, and
then was back in life with superhuman powers. That's hardly the definition
of death, which to humans, is final.
"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to
give his life as a ransom for many." (NIV)
ancient sacrifice cult rubbish, out of date
"About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud void, Eloi, Eloi, lama
sabachthani? (My god, my god, why have you forsaken me)" (Mathew 27:46)
So Jesus didn't want to die. In this respect, he's hardly a willing
sacrifice. Which is ironic, given that earlier - in the same book - he
states (again From Mathew):
"[18]We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to
the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condem him to
death. [19]and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged
and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!"
In other words, He's not going to die!
So on the one hand, we have Jesus not giving his life /willingly/, but
reluctantly. On the other hand, we have Jesus not giving his life /at all/
- merely loaning it. Now given that both these accounts are from the same
gospel - so no problem with different interpretations by different authors
- which part is true:
Did Jesus give his life unwillingly, or did he not actually give his life
in the first place?
If we accept the second: that Jesus was fully aware he would be
resurrected, then why would he cry out to god, who he was apparently in
cahoots with.
None of it is true. Such things don't happen, and there is no need
for it to happen. It's cult rubbish of the highest order.
If we accept the first: that Jesus gave his life unwillingly, then a) how
do you account for the resurrection, and b) why does he so blithely speak
of being a servant he's so clearly not prepared to accept to the end.
That God sent him is clear from such scriptures as John 6:38,
"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will
of him who sent me." (NIV)
Which, in the end, he was apparently unprepared to do - despite knowing
the apparently glorious resurection that was coming. I wonder, would this
not be dishonouring his father? Which would be a sin according to the 10
commandments. Which would not make him sinless. Which would make him an
unnaceptable "sacrifice".
The story is filled with contradictions and impossibilities. None of it
makes any sense, for good reason. It never happened!
.
|
|
|
| User: " Phar-Lap" |
|
| Title: Re: "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do." |
31 Jul 2003 12:18:48 AM |
|
|
In article <DuUVa.80817$0v4.5367747@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Charles P" <chuck@spammerssuck.com> wrote:
This concept of blood sacrifices and atoning for sins is common to
ancient tribesmen, but not for a modern "God"
Alleluia!
+
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
