This is an inherent problem of any religion that claims to have a text that is the "Word of God". Everyone has their own personal interpretations and understanding of the writings, and then everyone starts to argue that only their interpretations are "correct".

This is why these religions have fallen into the many different opposing sects, from Judaism, to Islam, to Catholicism, to the many different interpretations of Protestantism.

The Catholics had the idea to simply appoint one person as a "Pope" (supposedly divinely ordained by God himself) to interpret the scriptures and be the ultimate authority on what God's Word actually means.

The Protestants protested against that notion and held out that everyone should interpret things for themselves.

Over time, ironically, individual Protestants have gotten it in their heads that their personal interpretations are indeed the only CORRECT interpretations.

And this is why today we are faced with individual protestants trying to proclaim to other people what "God Meant".


Just like Jeanniebean says, "That is what you interpret it to mean."

To proclaim that this is what "God Meant" would be extremely arrogant would it not?

That's basically nothing more than attempting to proclaim the authority of the Catholic Pope, and idea that Protestants had supposedly protested against!

Protestants have come full-circle and are today violating the very ideals that they had originally protested against. No individual should claim to have the correct interpretations of scriptures for everyone else.

Yet this is basically all the Protestant ever do anymore.

They have violated their own idealism.

You are absolutely correct Ruth. Cowboy and I are on extreme opposite poles when it comes to religion. And that's precisely why we feed off each others posts.

He's trying to make a case that the Bible is God's Word, it's perfectly clear, and no one has any excuse for not believing it.

I'm taking the stance that it's far more likely to be nothing more than man-made superstitions, it's not clear about anything, and there are many sound and valid reasons for not believing it.

We are about as opposite as can be on this issue.

I have no desire to argue with Cowboy about this on a personal one-to-one basis. I'm not trying to convince him of anything on a personal level.

It only makes sense to discuss this in a public forum.

Why?

Well, so other people can see these opposing views and the rationale that lies behind them.

That's why we do "public debates" or "public discussions" on topics like this.

It just to serve as "food for thought" for whoever finds it interesting. I feel that I have some fairly unique, fresh and important perspectives to offer this topic. Although they may not seem very "fresh" to people who have already been reading my posts for years.

People who don't find it interesting should just scroll past it. Why bother to read something that they aren't interested in?

This is precisely what non-Christians have been telling Christians throughout all of history.

It's just an unfortunate fact of history that Christianity is a highly proselytizing and evangelizing religion.

It is extremely unfortunate. But it's the way things are.

It's simply a property of the Christian religion to evangelize.

Unfortunately it can sometimes get so extreme to the point where it basically becomes harassment of non-Christians. They simply won't take no for an answer. They continually beat people over the head with it relentlessly. And then when the people challenge it they scream "foul".



As long as there are Christians who continue to accuse non-Christians of "not believing in God's word", as if there is something wrong with that, there will always be animosity associated with the religion.

You're not being consistent.

You just stated, "God's word is absolutely clear."

But now you are suggesting that we need to congregate with one another to see how others came to their conclusion. Why would that be required if God's word is absolutely clear?

Also, if God's word (the bible in this context) is absolutely clear as you say, then why are there so many disagreeing sects and factions in the Abrahamic religion?

Clearly everyone does not come to the same conclusions, and therefore it cannot even remotely be claimed that these scriptures are "absolutely clear".

~~~~~

If you are interested in just discussing these ancient scriptures then you most certainly should be interested in my views on these scriptures because I have solved all problems and have explained away all contradictions.

The explanation is really quite simple.

1. There never was any God that required blood sacrifices to pay for sins. Those ideas were nothing more than man-made superstitious myths. The old testament is just a bunch of superstitious fables that have no more merit than the Greek fables of Zeus.

2. Jesus was a mortal man who rejected the immoral teachings of the Old Testament and replaced them with the higher moral values of the moral wisdom taught by Buddhism.

3. The New Testament is nothing more than superstitious rumors made up about Jesus in an attempt to proclaim that he was some sort of ultimate sacrificial lamb who give his life to pay for our sins.

~~~~~

This solves all problems with this religion.

~~~~~

You're suggestions do not solve anything. Nor can they even be correct within the context of this religion overall.

You have claimed that blood sacrifices were made to God, not to appease the God but rather to prove sincerity to God.

That idea fails in two major ways:

First, it fails because there would be absolutely no need to 'prove' or physically demonstrate through actions, a person's sincerity to a supposedly omniscient God who knows what's in the hearts and minds of men. Such a God would automatically know whether a person is sincere or not and would have absolutely no need to have this person demonstrate their sincerity by sacrificing a living animal to God.

So you're suspicion that these sacrifices were necessary for God to know that a person is truly sincere cannot be true. What appears to be "Crystal Clear" to you, appears to be totally incorrect to me.

It cannot be that an omniscient God needs people to prove their sincerity to him. That makes no sense.

Secondly, in terms of Christianity and the idea of Jesus being the ultimate sacrificial lamb of God to "pay" for the sins of man as a "ransom" certainly could not fit into your idea.

You idea that sacrifices were originally designed by God to be a way that humans could prove their sincerity to God cannot possibly fit in with this same God sending his son to be the ultimate sacrifice for all humans.

Based on your ideas, all this would amount to is Jesus sacrificing himself to "prove" the sincerity of all men! It would also result in relieving men from having to prove their sincerity to God.

That cannot be the explanation. It simply doesn't work. It's makes no sense for Jesus to be the ultimate sacrifice to prove the sincerity of men.

~~~~~

So let's go back to your words, "God's word is absolutely clear."

Well, it certainly can't be clear to you because your claim to have interpreted the meanings of these things leads to contradictions that simply do not work.

~~~~~

I have just given a very powerful explanation of why your interpretations of these scriptures cannot be correct.

And that's what you claim you want. You claim to want discussion on why other people come to the conclusions that they come to.

Well, I'm giving you my reasons for coming to my conclusions.

Your explanation concerning blood sacrifices in this religion simply cannot be made to work. It fails, IMHO. It simply cannot be correct. I've shown clearly how it leads to gross contradictions and absurdities.

~~~~~~

Therefore, there must be another "explanation".

Personally I have never heard a rational sound explanation for these blood sacrifices. I have never been satisfied by anyone's interpretations of these things. And I've been considering these things for my entire adult life.

~~~~~~

However, I do have a workable explanation. The explanation is really quite simple.

1. There never were any gods that required blood sacrifices to atone sins.

2. Jesus was not the son of any God and he wasn't a "sacrificial lamb". He was simply a mortal man who taught against the immoral behavior that had been established by the Torah, and he was crucified for blaspheme because his views against the Torah, and against the current religious establishment (i.e. for calling the Pharisees hypocrites)

3. The New Testament is just superstitious rumors about the man Jesus that try to make him into a 'demigod'. And YES, a man who is born from a mortal human woman who was impregnated by a God is indeed a 'demigod'. That too, was a popular superstition back in those days that came right out of Greek Mythology.

~~~~~~

My explanation WORKS.

You personally don't like it because my explanation dismisses the divinity of Jesus, the God of the Old Testament, and everything you so dearly cling to as "MUST KEEPS"

So you're stuck with having to continue to try to make sense of a religion that cannot be made sense of.

I've long since given up on that futile pursuit and have simply recognize that the religion is simply not true. It's just superstitious rumors.

~~~~~~

Does this mean that we have to give up on the idea of a spiritual existence altogether and become secular atheists?

No, not at all. Just because one little religious myth is false does not mean that there can be no spiritual existence to reality.

After all, you yourself must also accept that a whole bunch of religious beliefs are false. Does that make the idea of spiritual existence impossible? No, you simply choose ONE of those religions and cling to that.

Therein lies the difference between you and me.

I don't need religion to believe in a spiritual existence to reality. I don't need for Greek Mythology to be true, and neither do I need for Hebrew Mythology to be true.

I don't need for any "religion" to be true.

I don't need a book written by men who claim to be speaking for God in order to believe in a "God". I can call men on their superstitions and religious propaganda without connecting that with any "God".

~~~~~~~~

When discussing these matters with YOU, the bottom line for me is that you are not consistent.

You make claims like, ""God's word is absolutely clear."

Yet your explanations of concepts concerning these stories does not add up. Your explanations cannot be made to work. Therefore you cannot possibly have a "clear" understanding of these ancient fables.

So where do you get off proclaiming that "God's word is absolutely clear" when you yourself cannot even offer explanations that can actually be made to work?

I'm just going by what you say Cowboy. If you feel that makes you look bad that's your assessment.

You just said, "God's word is absolutely clear".

Well, if you believe that, then you must also believe that you have and absolutely clear and perfect interpretation of the Bible which you believe to be "God's Word".

After all, how could you possibly take the stance that "God's word is absolutely clear" if you don't personally feel that you have a prefect understanding of the scriptures?

After all, if any part of it was "unclear" to you, then you could hardly take the stance that "God's word is absolutely clear".

The very act of taking that stance is really no differently from saying, "I have a perfect understanding of the Bible which I believe to be the infallible word of God".

And clearly your "understanding" of those scriptures is that Jesus was the only begotten son of God sent as a ransom for the salvation of mankind (just as the Bible proclaims)

You claim to have a "absolutely clear understanding of this".

You have to take that stance because you just said, "God's word is absolutely clear".

Yet now you are saying:



Well how could it not be correct if you are taking the stance that "God's word is absolutely clear".

How could you have an incorrect interpretation of something that you claim is absolutely clear?

More importantly, if you have such a clear understanding of the scriptures then why do your explanations of those scriptures no make sense to other people.

You have claimed that sacrifices were necessary because humans have to prove their sincerity to God.

Yet, that cannot possible be the correct interpretations of sacrifices. The reason for that should be obvious. If Jesus was then the sacrificial lamb of God sent to be the sacrificial lamb for our sins, then all that would do is relieve us from having to prove our sincerity.

So now we no longer need to make sacrifices to prove anything to God. Jesus made the sacrifice for us.

That makes no sense.

I personally think that what you are calling "absolutely clear" is really nothing more than an attempt to pretend that you have explanations for all of the contradictions in these stories.

But in truth, you don't.

So I conclude that your very own assessment must be correct. There must be an ego involved that needs to believe that it has the correct interpretations of scriptures, when in fact, it clearly doesn't.

Who's ego is showing now?

You say that God's word is absolutely clear, but the Jews and Muslims don't agree with your interpretations.

Therefore all you are doing is egotistically arguing that your interpretations are correct, and that theirs are wrong.

So you'd be guilty of precisely the egotism to which you just referred.

Even if you use that apologetic excuse, you'd still be stuck with a jealous God.

Well either the bible is the infallible word of God, or it contains erroneous errors and falsehoods. It can't very well be both.

So either the Biblical God's name is "Jealous", or the Bible is totally undependable, and cannot be trusted to contain truth.

It states right in the Bible that the biblical God is a jealous God and it's one of the ten commandments that we are not to have any other Gods before him. Well, if there are no other Gods, then why even bother to make such a statement? How could anyone put another God before God if there are no other Gods to put before him?

Clearly this is just one culture trying to create a religion that will trump the religion of their neighbors. This was a common theme in the Mediterranean region. Everyone was seeking to own the copyright on God, and the Christian historically won that war.



Well according to Exodus, not only is the biblical God a jealous God, but his name is Jealous too!


Exod.34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

So when you pray you better end your prayer with,...

In Jealous' name we pray.

Hey, I'm just going by what the Bible says! Exodus 34:14

Could this be an error in the Bible?

Or is the Biblical God's name truly Jealous?

We shouldn't have to ask a God to make something clear to us if it's God's will that we understand it. God should have been smart enough to make it clear in the first place.

Face it. The religion is totally unclear even to extremely zealous believers who wish upon a star that it could be made clear.

The mere fact that Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, and the myriad confused sects of the protesting Protestants can't even agree on much of anything at all is PROOF POSITIVE that nobody understands these ancient contradicting and convoluted fables.

So the PROOF is in the pudding.

Even religious fanatics can't agree with each other.

So clearly asking God doesn't work. You can be absolutely CERTAIN that the religious clergy of ALL the Abrahamic religions have prayed quite diligently and sincerely for answers.

And clearly NONE of them got any answers because they still continue to disagree and hold totally different beliefs!

So we have absolute proof positive that what you say here cannot possibly be TRUE.

That's what they ALL SAY. Just trust in OUR GOD and he will give you the answers you seek.

It's a lie. Clearly. There can be no question about it. It is clearly a false HOPE that cannot possibly be true.

If there were any truth it it, then all the religious clergy of all the Abrahamic religions would be in complete agreement on religious values and views. But clearly they aren't.

Therefore we must rationally conclude that these religions can't be anything more than man-made superstitious dogma that has absolutely nothing to do with any supreme being.

The PROOF is in the pudding, as they say.

Well it's been my experience that many Christians outright lie about this. They are indeed trying to convince others even when they in denial of this themselves.

Moreover, re-read your own post.

You said,


You personally may not be trying to convince others. But that's not what you said. You said that you don't think "anyone" is trying to convince you.

And that is what I'm saying is extremely naive.

You can ONLY speak for yourself. To think that no one is trying to convince anyone of Christianity is silly. Like I've already said, there are entire Christian organizations that are dedicated to proselytizing and evangelizing the religion throughout the entire globe.

Christianity is historically a highly proselytizing and evangelizing religion. The Crusades were the epitome of that, burning down pagan temples and threatening people at sword-point that if they didn't confess Jesus as Lord they would suffer grave consequences.

It's historically a quite hostile religion actually.

And let's not even get into the horrible things they did to women because of their belief in a demonic "Satan". Burning midwives at the stake as "Witches" many of whom were actually Christians themselves!

The religion doesn't have a very proud history.

When it wasn't burning witches on stakes or threatening people to convert or be chastised it was socially crucifying scientists for discovering truths about the natural world that conflict with religious superstitions.

Many Christian fundamentalists even today use the religion to argue against evolution, the age of the earth, etc.

There are many people who have been adversely affected by this religion in this way.

And let's not even get into the Christian hostility toward same gender relationships.

Try telling people who are being adversely affected by this religion that no one is trying to convince anyone of anything.

Good luck with that.

Don't be too naive about that.

There are entire Christian website entirely devoted to evangelizing and spreading Christianity throughout the world. And they stress the need to 'target" non-believers.

After all, what good would it do to evangelize to someone who is already sold on the religion?

So YES, there are many Christian organizations whose sole purpose is to CONVERT non-believers into buying into the Christian religion.

There are PLENTY of people trying to convince others that Christ is the "only way" to salvation.

You're in total denial of reality if you aren't aware of that fact.

Get serious MorningSong.

The BASIC fundamental "truths" that you are referring to are COMMON to all decent religions. There are no BASIC moral teachings in the bible that the ancient Hebrews could claim a unique copyright on.

Those kind of obvious moral truths were around LONG before the Bible was ever written. And long before Jesus was ever born.

In fact, when you take Jesus out of the picture, the actual Torah had actually taught people some pretty BAD moral behavior. The Torah had people judging each other to be sinners and stoning people to death in the name of God.

Jesus himself rejected that kind of behavior and offered up some far BETTER moral values which had already been adopted by the Buddhists and Taoists long before the time of Jesus.

So the BASIC fundamental moral truths are simply HUMAN NATURE. They most certainly didn't originate with the ancient Hebrews or the Bible.

~~~~~~~

So trying to pass the Bible off as somehow being a unique source of good moral behavior, or even the "origin" of such morals is simply a false idea.

The moral values taught in the Bible are neither unique or original.

And like I pointed out, even the story of Jesus has Jesus renouncing the immoral teachings of the Torah and introducing far more highly moral behavior.

So any attempt to appeal to the bible as somehow being the 'source' of basic morals is truly false. The original moral values taught in the Torah weren't even all that great.

People who adhere to those moral values today are typically called the Taliban.

~~~~

Also, if an acceptance of the BASIC moral values that every decent human would agree upon constitutes being in harmony with the desires of "God" then clearly there would be no need for Jesus, a crucifixion, or anything along those lines.

There are plenty of highly moral atheists who don't even bother with religion at all.

So if the bottom line is about morality, then we don't even need religion at all. All we need is basic human common sense, that isn't contaminated by selfishness, greed, or a desire to rule over others.

You don't need the Bible or Jesus for any of that.

But if man lacks understanding of God that could only be God's fault.

Either God didn't create man with enough capacity to understand him, or God failed to communicate with man in a way that man could understand.

Besides, the whole idea of men "misunderstanding" God flies in the very face of the idea that we are supposed to be "CHOOSING" between good or evil.

Misunderstanding does NOT constitute an informative choice.

All it would constitute would be precisely what it is - misunderstanding.

So how would that play into the picture of a God who is supposedly interested in people CHOOSING between good and evil?

These kinds of "excuses" for an obscure confused religion simply don't cut it.

If the religion is confusing, then it's only because the religion itself is a confused religion.

You can't be starting to "blame" misunderstandings on men.

Men are supposed to be CHOOSING between "Good" and "Evil", NOT between understanding and misunderstanding.

So the religion fails entirely if it needs to resort to proclaiming that men are simply misunderstanding it.

Yes, and I would like to go back to the original topic again.

When speaking of Jesus specifically, allow me to ask the following questions:

There are really only four "Gospels" in the Bible that actually claim to speak on behalf of Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Matthew and Luke are most likely just retellings of the Gospel of Mark.

So in essence there are really only two gospels. (1. Mark, Matthew, and Luke as one gospel retold with slightly different slants) and (2. The gospel of John)

These are the only books in the New Testament that claim to "quote" Jesus directly. Any other books that "quote" Jesus are actually quoting from these Gospels.

The writing of Paul are an entirely different matter, yet they make up about 75% of the New Testament.

So here are my questions? (I already know the answers so they are rhetorical questions)

Did Jesus teach anyone, or tell anyone that they should believe that the Torah is the verbatim "Word of God"?

As far as I know, he did not.

Did Jesus teach anyone, or prophesize to anyone that some guy named Saul or Paul would be sent to finish his ministry?

As far as I know, he did not.

Therefore the question that really surfaces is this,...

Why is Jesus being used to HOLD UP the notion that the entire Old Testament must be accepted as the "Word of God" and that the teachings of Paul should be accepted as having anything at all to do with God or Jesus?

~~~~~

As was said:



I agree, to a point.

But even within the Gospels there are claims being made that didn't come from Jesus.

For example, one of the Christians most famous versus of all time:


[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Even though that's in the gospels, it wasn't even being attributed to Jesus as a quote. This is just John's narrative opinion.

Moreover, even the things that were being attributed to Jesus as having been actual "quotes" should be highly questioned since they weren't actually written down by Jesus, and according to most scholars these stories won't even written down for some decades after Jesus had lived.

So even the so-called "quotes" that are being attributed to Jesus are just belated hearsay. These authors aren't even claiming to have actually heard Jesus speak these words. They are just repeating rumors and stories they heard in some cases too.

They also could not possibly have overheard conversations between say, Jesus and Pilot for example. They would have had to have been flies on the way to do that.

This is why I highly question these writings. Many of the claims being made simply could not have been overheard by any single reporter.

Were these guys actually there when God supposedly spoke from a cloud? Or where they just reporting this as a rumor? Or did they make it up entirely?

They couldn't possibly have heard everything they claim was said.

One of them claims that Judas when back into the temple and threw down his 30 pieces of silver. Then he went out and hung himself.

Another one claims that Judas used the reward money to buy a field and fell headlong into a ravine where his bowels gushed out.

It would be pretty hard to fall HEADLONG into a ravine if you're handing yourself.

The stories aren't even consistent.

Moreover, the one that has Judas returning the reward money and going out and hanging himself suggest that Judas was in a deep state of repentance. That EARNS God's forgiveness. So if that's story is true then Judas had repented and was "saved" from his sins.

However, if he actually did buy the field with the money and had no remorse for his 'sin' of being honest with the authorities, then falling headlong into a ravine could be seen as his 'punishment' for having no remorse for having been honest with the authorities.



In any case, I have no problem with Jesus. How could I? I never met the guy.

But I have tons of problems with the authors of the New Testament.

I agree with you there to a point.

If all a person does is look at science and religious teachers as people who all have an agenda to teach their specific topics, then sure, choosing which ones to believe would be on precisely equal footing.

However, if you go beyond that a look at the methods that scientists use to acquire their knowledge versus the methods that religious people use to acquire their knowledge, suddenly the scientists should be trusted to have information that has been far more carefully scrutinized.

And finally, it shouldn't take much to realize that religious people are infamous for going off the deep end of trying to support their religious beliefs whilst purposefully ignoring evidence to the contrary. So not only do they not use the rigorous methods of science to acquire their knowledge, but they even refuse to acknowledge when their knowledge has been shown to be non-credible.

So just based on that alone a person should be more apt to believe the teachings of science than the teachings of any religion.



That is a very obvious TRUTH right there. And this is why it should be highly suspect when being "taught" to the masses.

I wasn't following that particular conversation, but I have yet been shown anything in the bible that is impressive in terms of having made any valid prophecies.

But you're avoiding the crux of the issue.

In what way would his death result in the salvation of others?

That's the paramount issue that needs to be explained.

Well, in terms of the book I don't see where you've shown anything significant. Like I said in my previous post. Explain who was demanding a ransom from God. Otherwise the verses you've quoted are meaningless.



That kind of wisdom is better read and acted upon privately.

To actually type it out and toss it in the face of another is to do nothing more than abuse the scriptures in an attempt to egotistically try to call someone else a "Fool".

That is extremely poor use of a religious doctrine, IMHO.

These verses don't "explain" anything.


Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Give his life as a random to WHO?

Who required this "ransom".

That is the problem my friend.


Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Why would blood need to be shed for the remission of sins?

Again, there is no explanation here, only more questions.

Why would a loving deity require these sorts of violent things before he can forgive someone?

Cowboy continually tries to answer this question with the same thing over and over again, Cowboy states:



This makes absolutely no sense at all to me. On the contrary this flies in the very face of the idea of a God himself needing to sacrifice his very own son before someone could be forgiven.

If the idea of sacrifice is that we need to prove our sincerity to god. They the crucifixion of Jesus to pay for our sins would have alleviated us from having to prove our sincerity.

Does this truly makes any sense to anyone?

It certainly makes no sense to me.

Also the very idea that anyone would need to "prove" their sincerity to an omniscient God who knows what's in the hearts and minds of men is itself a totally misguided notion.

Look at what Cowboy said in more detail:



Cowboy has a really consistent habit of reducing God to the ineptitude of mortal men. He compares a supposedly omniscient God with a mortal man who would indeed need to be convinced of a person's sincerity and/or intend.

But a truly omniscient God would have absolutely no need for anyone to display their sincerity. That would fly in the very face of the idea that this God is supposed to know what's in the hearts and minds of men. God would automatically know whether or not a person is sincere.

So Cowboy's "explanation" is a sieve that holds no water. It simply can't be applied to a supposedly omniscient God. It makes absolutely no sense in that context.

~~~~~

And again, it makes no sense in terms of Jesus "paying for the sins of men" via this crucifixion. Because that too would do nothing other than FREE men from having to PROVE their sincerity to God (based on Cowboy's attempt to address this problem)

Cowboy's answer simply can't be made to work. So some other explanation would be required.

~~~~~~

Let's go back to the idea of a "Ransom" which is more in-line with scripture anyway:


Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Who was demanding this "random"?

That is the unanswered question.

God certainly didn't have any need to "prove" his sincerity to mortal men by having them crucify his son. And since it was supposed to be a "sacrifice" by God (since Jesus is said to be the sacrificial lamb of God) and a "ransom" as claimed by Matthew 20:28, then there must have been a THREAT to God.

The only entity that could have possibly posed a "Threat" to God would have been Satan. But I've been down that road many times. It makes no sense to have God bending over backwards sacrificing his only begotten son to Satan. That gives Satan far too much power and implies that God felt that Satan was a real threat to have to make such a great sacrifice as a "ransom" to him.

Also none of this is consistent with the original religion anyway.

~~~~

Who was it that was originally appeased by blood sacrifices?

Well, it was the God himself!

He was the one who was demanding this 'ransom" as an atonement for sins.

Therefore the only explanation that makes sense in this religion is that this God was making a "sacrifice" unto himself to appease himself so that he could forgive mankind of their "sins".

That's a little too circular for me. A God making a sacrifice unto himself to play himself a ransom so that he can forgive people their 'sins'.

As far as I'm concerned there is no rational explanation for this myth.

~~~~

My solution?

It's quite simple.

Simply recognize that Jesus was not the son of Yahweh. Jesus was a mortal man who objected to the immortal teachings of the Torah, he publicly voiced his views on this and taught far better moral values (that coincidentally happen to be very similar to the moral teachings of Mahayana Buddhism which was at it's peak at the time Jesus would have lived).

Jesus accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites. He was ultimately crucified for his views and his slander against the Pharisees. He died. He did not raise from the dead.

However, rumors and superstitions did raise up after he died, and that's what became the New Testament.

~~~~~

This explanation WORKS without a hitch.

It's no longer necessary to try to rationalize how a God could be associated with having his only begotten son crucified to pay for the sins of mankind. It never happened. It's that simple. No God had any part in this crucifixion, and the crucifixion of Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with finding your way to "God".

No that explanation WORKS. It's rational, reasonable, and has no problems that need to be explained away.

Jesus was a mortal man. Not a demigod who was sent by God via a virgin birth through a mortal woman to ultimately be crucified as a ransom to pay for the sins of men.

It's that simple.

~~~~~

The verses you posted Pimpwagn don't "explain" anything. All they do is open up a whole can of worms of contradictions and questions.

Ransom?

Who was demanding a "ransom" from God?

Got a verse that explains that one?

And why did God cower down to the ransomer's demands?

And if God himself was demanding the "ransom", then you've got major problems. God would be sacrificing the "ransom" unto himself, what sense would that make?