No. Sin does not exist in the real world. Sin is "the disease invented by various religions so that they might sell you the cure." Sin has no meaning outside of religion. Only people who think there is sin can sin. Note though that sin and morality are different things, despite what you have been brainwashed into thinking. To sin is to disobey god and then condemn yourself for it. What if god told you to do something that was immoral? No, the cop-out of "God would never do that" will not work. Remember Abraham being told to sacrifice his son? On the whole, the sin claim is merely an assertion and not an argument.
may I ask why "Christians" center their life around the son of god? hell even your name is derived from his name you people take to much importance in his son you dont even care about the real god naybe Jesus was the antichrist who is making you people pay more attention to him than god oh and by the way why would god make his only son atone for our sins with blood? isnt he an all loving god?
The argument from morality says that without god, we cannot have a moral code and/or that we would simply be free to rape and kill and steal and/or since we have moral law, there must be a moral law giver. Many times, the person so stating it says "If there was no god, I would go around killing people, etc." That is an indictment of that person and not of humanity as a whole. If that person feels such, in no way does that translate to the whole of humanity having to feel that way. They also come to the problem of Euthyphro's Dilemma. Put simply: is something good because god says so, or does god say something is good because god can judge it good via an objective standard. In the former, morality is a subjective dynamic based upon the whim of the deity, where what was wrong today may not be wrong tomorrow, and in the latter there is no need of god to give us a moral code since there is an objective standard apart from god.
"The tomb is empty--it proves Jesus was resurrected and thus god!". Don't make me laugh. Show me peer-reviewed medical journals that say resurrection is possible and I might believe you. Plus, the "rolling the stone away" bit? Nuh-uh. Round stones on tombs were only for the wealthy until 70CE. 3 days? Did you know that the 3 days was actually for the family (Jewish custom) to come to the tomb every day for that length of time to make sure the person truly was dead? Has nothing to do with any prophecy of resurrection.. In fact, we learn in Origen Contra Celsus that there was a story going around at that time that the disciples had absconded with the body.
Why do the resurrection accounts differ greatly, i.e. who sees who where first, and where did Jesus go afterward and what did he say. Doesn't add up.
"Look at all the prophecies Jesus fulfilled. He must be the savior!" Oh really? Let's look at some common ones:
No, there is no virgin birth prophecy. Is 7:14 reads with "ha-almah", which means "young woman". "Bet'ulah" is the Hebrew term for virgin, and it is used later in Isaiah, so the author of Isaiah certainly knew the difference. Then there's Is 8:3, which has that child mentioned in Is 7:14 being born. Is 9:6 refers to that same child of Is 8:3.
Is 53 deals with Israel, not some savior.
Ps 22 does not read "pierced". "Ka-'ari" means "like a lion"
There is no prophecy of the savior being in the ground 3 days and coming back. Judaism in fact has no dying and rising savior story.
Look at Is 9:1-2 and then look at Matt 4:12-16. Notice something amiss? Yeah. The author of Matthew chopped part of Is 9:1 out. Talk about manufacturing a prophecy to fit your needs!
Micah 5:2 refers only to that the savior's lineage comes from Bethlehem, not that he would be born there. That is to say, the savior is of the Davidic line, and Jesus wasn't of the Davidic line!
Those are just some of the crap "prophecies". You're better off not trying the rest.
He was the savior/messiah? Really? Certainly not the Davidic messiah, which is the messiah spoken of in the old testament. Jesus is more of an Hellenistic messiah, not a jewish one.
According to the OT, the Davidic messiah will bring the earth the full knowledge of the lord (Is 11:9). That hasn't happened, so obviously Jesus wasn't the Davidic messiah.
What happened to Jesus before he was crucified? He was physically abused (Matt 27:26,29, Mk 15:15,17, Jn 19:1-2; 20:25). According to Paul, the circumcision that Jesus received was like "mutilation" (Phil 3:2). Lev 22:18-25 states that the blood-atonement sacrifice must be physically unblemished. Jesus therefore could not have been a valid sacrifice.
Lev 22:19 states that the sacrifice must of an animal, and Lev 11:26 states that any non-cloven hooved, non-cud chewing animal that has digits on its feet (e.g. toes) is unclean. Jesus, being a human, is unclean and unfit for sacrifice (Jesus was fully human in order to be killed). Ergo, Jesus could not have been a valid sacrifice.
Lev 16:18-19 says the sacrifice must be made in the temple and the blood must be spilled on the altar. Was Jesus killed in the temple and his blood spilled on the altar? No and no (no, calling his body the temple is not valid. It must be the real temple). Ergo, Jesus could not have been a valid sacrifice.
Jesus was killed by the Romans. According to Ex 29:9, only the line of Aaron are the priests, and only the priests may make the sacrifices. Ergo, Jesus could not have been a valid sacrifice.
Did Jesus die from bloodshed? No. Crucifixion kills by asphyxiation or shock. According to Lev 17:11, the sacrifice must die from blood loss (exsanguination). Ergo, Jesus was not a valid sacrifice.
What method was used to kill Jesus? Crucifixion. How is a valid sacrifice killed? Via "shechitah", which is:
"Ritual slaughter is known as shechitah, and the person who performs the slaughter is called a shochet, both from the Hebrew root Shin-Chet-Tav, meaning to destroy or kill. The method of slaughter is a quick, deep stroke across the throat with a perfectly sharp blade with no nicks or unevenness. This method is painless, causes unconsciousness within two seconds, and is widely recognized as the most humane method of slaughter possible. Another advantage of shechitah is that ensures rapid, complete draining of the blood, which is also necessary to render the meat kosher. The shochet is not simply a butcher; he must be a pious man, well-trained in Jewish law, particularly as it relates to kashrut. In smaller, more remote communities, the rabbi and the shochet were often the same person."
Kashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws
Was Jesus' blood given only for the jews? Nope. Not a valid sacrifice.
Did Jesus rebuild the temple and gather in the diaspora Nope. That's something the Davidic messiah should do, and Jesus didn't. Ergo, Jesus is not the Davidic messiah.
Research for this topic taken mostly from Jews For Judaism
2006-07-03
20:06:24
·
22 answers
·
asked by
Spetsnaz
2
in
Religion & Spirituality