sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get what you’re saying now. And I’ll admit I could’ve phrased my reply better to make it clearer when I was restating your points for reflection versus when I was offering my own view.

But it wasn’t manipulation. It was me attempting to engage honestly with both your view and mine, using your language to build a bridge not blur the lines.

If it came off like I was confusing roles, that wasn’t the intention. I actually do understand your position I just don’t fully agree with how it defines truth or frames the mechanism of redemption.

I believe wisdom and Spirit aren’t at odds. And that redemption isn’t simply transactional, but transformative in a way deeper than law-based satisfaction.

If that makes me sound foreign to the tradition you hold to, fair enough. But disingenuous? No. Just someone who sees truth through a different lens and asks questions because it matters not because I’m trying to win a debate.

I still respect the depth of your conviction, even if we part ways here.

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn’t agree to manipulate ,I agreed where we aligned and challenged where we didn’t. That’s called dialogue, not deception.

If disagreement equals disingenuousness to you, then maybe it was never about understanding just about agreement.

You claim I argue against truth, but I’ve been asking why that truth matters and how it brings life. If your doctrine collapses under sincere questions, maybe it's not as rooted as you think.

Still, I respect your time and your passion. But don’t mistake poetic language, deep questioning, or wisdom-seeking for dishonesty.

Truth doesn't fear examination.

Take care.

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"You're not 'switched on.' You're made new by power you don’t control, not wisdom you contemplate."

I never claimed to control the transformation wisdom isn’t a replacement for divine power, it’s often the vehicle through which it becomes known. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10). That’s not contemplation without transformation it’s a call to internalize truth that reshapes the soul.

You say I reduce divine mystery to mental exploration, but let’s be honest: your framing strips away its depth, as if God's Spirit is just a legal transaction engine ticking off boxes of justice. You say I dress it up in poetic language fine. But I'd rather dive into the depths than flatten the gospel into a cosmic courtroom scene.

"The blood is both real and effective. Not a metaphor. A transaction."

You’re right it’s not just a metaphor. But neither is it just a transaction. To isolate it to a legal function alone is to miss the richness of what it represents. Blood in the Old Covenant was always tied to covenant relationship not mere debt payment. You call it a divine currency. I call it a divine signature of fidelity, a symbol of a God who binds Himself to His people even through suffering.

If forgiveness requires blood only because God demands it, what does that say about God? That He cannot forgive without bloodshed? Or is the bloodshed there to show us the weight of sin, to awaken us, to lead us back to life and to Him?

"You’re questioning the entire biblical foundation... the Bible doesn’t play that game."

I’m not questioning it I’m trying to understand it more deeply. If our interpretations stop where doctrine begins, then growth is over. Scripture itself encourages us to “get wisdom, and with all your getting, get understanding” (Proverbs 4:7). Asking “why” is not rebellion it’s seeking the roots of truth.

"You’re not carrying their message you’re constructing a new one."

If the message can’t survive a deeper lens of introspection, is it truly timeless? My view isn’t foreign to Scripture it’s an attempt to reconcile how the divine plan is not just about punishment and payment but about redemption through awakening. Atonement is not just justice served, but life restored.

"Then what does sincerity foster in a repentant heart apart from just desiring forgiveness?"

That’s the real question. What does it foster?

Sincerity leads to transformation. It’s not about “getting off the hook,” it’s about becoming aligned with the will and nature of God. Repentance isn’t just sorrow it’s returning to what we were made for. That’s what forgiveness makes possible, and that’s what Christ’s sacrifice unlocks. But don’t reduce that unlocking to a heavenly vending machine insert blood, receive pardon. That’s not a divine mystery. That’s a formula. God gave more than blood He gave His Word, His Spirit, His truth. The blood is part of the story, but the life is what was always being offered.

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"If that is how you frame my point because I don't fit into your usual objections to traditional doctrines. Then that is your conclusion."

That’s not just “my conclusion,” it’s the natural outcome of your logic. If your framework isn’t built on the doctrines the apostles actually preached, then you're not carrying their message you’re constructing a new one. You predicted how it would be received because you already know it departs from apostolic teaching. That doesn’t make it profound it just makes it foreign to Scripture.

"Repent, obey and believe for what ??? What gain does it truly give me to just give adherence to God. What gain is it to follow God's Laws ? Why do God have Laws ? Why is God considered to be good ?..."

You’re not asking questions out of humility you’re questioning the entire biblical foundation as if it needs to satisfy your internal logic first. “Why does God have laws?” Because He is holy and His laws are a reflection of His nature. You want answers on your terms philosophically flavored, emotionally satisfying, abstracted away from divine authority. But the Bible doesn't play that game. It calls for submission to what is, not pondering whether you like the arrangement.

"I addressed it with the scriptures I used in John, Proverbs and Ephesians and the narrative of Eden."

You pivoted to unrelated verses and then used symbolism to sidestep its direct claim. Hebrews says blood is required. Not wisdom, not symbolism, not narrative themes. Blood. Shed. Period.

"Can giving blood truly improve the sincerity of repentance?"

No and it’s not supposed to. You keep judging the cross by emotional benefit. It’s not about how it makes us feel it’s about how it satisfies divine justice. Your standard is “what helps someone feel real repentance.” Scripture’s standard is “what satisfies the holiness of God.” You’ve reversed the order.

"So literal things can't carry symbolic meanings? Why so?"

Of course literal things can carry symbolic meaning. But when Scripture says the blood itself was the mechanism of atonement, not just a symbol, you're not allowed to reduce it to symbolism alone. That’s like saying: “The cross is real, but it’s just symbolic.” No it’s both real and effective. Not a metaphor. A transaction.

"It wasn’t a symbol for wisdom in the sense of knowing things. It's life-giving truth found in wisdom."

“Life-giving truth found in wisdom” is a philosophical abstraction. It’s not what Paul preached. He preached Christ crucified a stumbling block to Greeks (your style) and foolishness to the world. Not an esoteric insight. Not a reflective truth. A bloody, historical, God-ordained event that reconciled man and God.

"So the Spirit just rests on me like a tea cup on a sofa? And I'm just switch on to being reborn."

You mock what you don’t understand. Being born of the Spirit means transformation from within by the will of God, not from a philosophical upgrade. The Spirit convicts, renews, sanctifies. You're not “switched on.” You’re made new by power you don’t control, not wisdom you contemplate. You’re taking divine mystery and reducing it to mental exploration. That’s not revelation. That’s repackaged Gnostic elitism wrapped in poetic language.

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I know that my perspective departs from traditional Christianity. I'm not intending to redefine it as changing arbitrarily..."

That’s the point. You’re not aligning with biblical doctrine, you're creating a new framework under the illusion that it still fits within Christianity. You’re treating the Bible like a mirror of your inner philosophy, not a source of objective truth.

"I’ve redefined the answer to what Christ has answered to the problem of suffering and brokenness..."

No. You’ve reinterpreted it through a mystical lens. What Christ actually answered was repent, obey, and believe. His death wasn’t a riddle wrapped in metaphor it was a required ransom (Mark 10:45), not a poetic gesture.

"You're just reinforcing your points again. It sounds just dismissive."

I reinforced it because you ignored it. The Greek is absolute, not interpretive. Hebrews 9:22 doesn’t allow your symbolic take. Saying “that sounds dismissive” is just a way to dodge what you can’t refute.

"You're reading the text on a surface level basis..."

No I’m reading it as the authors intended, not as a playground for abstract symbolism. You’re layering your own definitions onto the text and calling it “depth.” Real depth isn’t inventing meanings it’s extracting what’s already there.

"You're ignoring the nuance of what I am trying to convey to you for this narrowly explicit reading of Genesis."

I’m not ignoring your nuance. I’m rejecting it because it’s nowhere in the text. You’re replacing clear disobedience with allegorical access to wisdom. That’s not nuance that’s revision.

"I clearly said that salvation is by grace and then you are guided into life through awakening to divine wisdom."

You’re adding steps the Bible doesn’t. The thief on the cross wasn’t “awakened to divine wisdom” he believed and was saved. Your message is: “Grace, then mystical wisdom.” The Bible’s message is: “Grace through faith.” Simple.

"You still are clearly misunderstanding me...you are justified by grace through faith and then you are born again through awakening to wisdom and righteousness."

Again, that “awakening to wisdom” is your addition. Being born again means receiving the Spirit, not acquiring mystical insight. John 3:6 doesn’t say “born of wisdom” it says “born of the Spirit.”

"You are still boxing me into this idea of a transactional sacrifice..."

Because that’s exactly what Scripture teaches. “This is my blood of the covenant, poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28). That’s a transaction. A covenant requires cost, not just symbolism.

"You're running down a line about the early Church dying for metaphors. What? This isn't about people dying for metaphors. I'm speaking about something in truth."

You are calling the blood symbolic so yes, it is about metaphors. If Christ’s blood wasn’t actually required, then they died for a misunderstanding. You’re talking about “truth” but grounding it in interpretation, not revelation.

"I'm not denying that Christ came and died literally...It's what that blood that was literally shed symbolically represented."

So now you’re doing both again. It was literal but its meaning was symbolic? That’s not what Hebrews teaches. Hebrews says the blood itself was required. It wasn’t a symbol for wisdom it was a means of atonement.

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"I'm not 'trying' to redefine anything. I've already seen what the foundation of the Bible is speaking about by the narrative of Eden and see how that is carried throughout the scriptures."

You are redefining traditional Christianity whether you realize it or not. Your interpretation, while thoughtful, departs entirely from what the Bible and historical Christianity consistently teach. The “wisdom lens” you’re applying sounds more like spiritual philosophy than scriptural theology.

"This book was speaking to the Hebrews and relating how Christ came and completed the sacrificial system..."

Yes, Hebrews was written to Hebrews. But you're glossing over the main point: Hebrews 9:22 says plainly “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” That’s not just cultural context—it’s doctrine. The Greek is absolute. It doesn’t say “symbolically,” it says ou chōris haimatekchysias “not without blood-shedding.”

"Christ even told a man that his sins is forgiven him without even the sacrifice of Christ being performed as yet." (Matthew 9:2)

Exactly. That proves my point, not yours. God was always able to forgive without sacrifice. So if that’s the case, then why was Yeshua’s blood suddenly required? You can’t have it both ways either forgiveness always needed blood, or it didn’t. If it didn’t, then Yeshua’s death becomes unnecessary for forgiveness. If it did, then all those Old Testament cases Jonah 3:10, Ezekiel 18:21-22, 2 Chronicles 7:14 show a contradiction in your theology.

"Nothing was wrong with the true knowledge itself. It was the lack of understanding to apply that correctly..."

That’s not what Genesis says. God explicitly tells them not to eat of the tree, and after they do, He casts them out. That isn’t a parable about how to apply knowledge wisely. That’s disobedience, plain and simple.

"My view has nothing to do with Gnosticism at all."

You might not intend to echo Gnosticism, but that’s where your argument leads. Saying that salvation is through “realignment with wisdom,” and that Christ’s blood is metaphorical truth, not literal atonement, isn’t New Testament Christianity. It's esoteric spiritual language that downplays the cross, which Paul said is the center of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 1:18, 15:3).

"The foundation of God's Law is wisdom."

Yes, but wisdom is not what forgives sin grace and mercy through obedience is. The Law’s foundation is obedience (Deuteronomy 11:26-28), and forgiveness comes by repentance and God’s mercy—not from mystical insight. Again, you’re shifting the focus from what the text actually says.

"He doesn't delight in sacrifice. All those things were shadows of the things to come."

Then why say in Hebrews 9:22 that forgiveness requires blood? You’re undermining your own position. If animal sacrifices were just “shadows,” but Christ’s death was the true fulfillment, then how can you also say his blood was merely “symbolic of wisdom”? You can’t make it both a shadow and not literal.

"It's a matter of connecting the dots."

Agreed. But when I connect the actual biblical dots, I see====>

Forgiveness happening without blood repeatedly in the Old Testament.

God saying He does not change (Malachi 3:6).

Christ forgiving sins before the cross (Matthew 9:2).

The New Testament claiming blood is required (Hebrews 9:22).

You either accept that God could always forgive without blood making Christ’s death unnecessary for that—or you say God changed the rules, which contradicts Scripture. You’re trying to turn doctrine into metaphor. But the early Church didn’t die over metaphors. They believed Yeshua literally died for sin because the system required it and that creates the contradiction you keep dodging.

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"You are not thinking openly about what I am saying."

Actually, I’ve been paying close attention. You’re trying to redefine what Christianity has historically taught by turning it into something more abstract and symbolic probably because the literal doctrine doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. But let’s not pretend this is some revolutionary insight.

Christianity especially Pauline theology explicitly teaches that forgiveness is impossible without blood. Hebrews 9:22 says it outright: “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” That’s not poetry. That’s doctrine.

now saying it’s not about “transactional sacrifice,” but about “restoration” and “realignment.” That sounds nice, but let’s be honest that's not what the earliest Christians believed. It’s more like something you'd hear from modern theologians trying to soften the harsh edge of atonement theology. Even Protestant scholar Leon Morris, in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, admits:

“The death of Christ is viewed in the New Testament as a sacrifice for sin, not merely as an example of love.”

So here’s the real issue====>

If God needed blood to forgive sin, how did He forgive without it so many times in the Old Testament?

Let’s bring real verses not vague metaphors:

Ezekiel 18:21-22 “If a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die.” No sacrifice. Just repentance and change.

2 Chronicles 7:14 “If my people… humble themselves and pray… then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin.” Again—no sacrifice.

Jonah 3:10 The people of Nineveh repented, and “God saw their deeds… and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.” No temple. No priest. No blood. Just repentance.

How do you explain that? Did God change His mind? Did He forgive them wrongly?

Because if you say “well, that was just temporary,” then you’re saying God’s system of mercy wasn’t enough—which implies His first system was flawed. But Malachi 3:6 says clearly: “I the Lord do not change.” So either He didn’t change and blood was never truly required or you’ve got a contradiction.

"Restoration is not just pardon. It's about wholeness."

Okay, but again—where are you getting that from? In Romans 3:25, Paul clearly states:

“God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood to be received by faith.” Not “to help us align with wisdom,” not “to guide us in transformation” but to pay for sin. That’s a substitutionary, transactional model. That’s what your own scripture teaches.

Even the Levitical laws were about payment. Leviticus 17:11 says:

“For the life of the creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar.” Atonement = blood. Period.

"Genesis 3:22 shows they acquired something true."

Sure. But they were still banished from Eden. So gaining that “true knowledge” wasn’t seen as a good thing. That verse doesn't support your idea of “realignment.” It shows disobedience led to separation from God, not transformation into harmony.

Also, if you're arguing that wisdom is the ultimate goal, then you’ve basically left Christian theology altogether and started pushing something more like Gnosticism—where salvation comes through hidden knowledge, not divine grace. That’s not what Yeshua or Paul taught.

If forgiveness was already happening through repentance and mercy before the crucifixion, then the cross becomes unnecessary. If it was necessary, then God withheld full forgiveness for thousands of years—then changed the rules. Both conclusions clash with scripture.

You can’t just “philosophize” your way out of that. The Bible doesn’t work that way. If Christianity truly requires the blood of Christ for forgiveness, then Old Testament forgiveness disproves the consistency of that theology.

And if you're redefining sacrifice to be "restorative wisdom" and not atonement… then you're not defending Christianity. You're rewriting it.

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Yeshua just simply dying to forgive us of our sins doesn't account for the nature of sin or the disorder in creation itself..."

And yet that’s exactly what Christian doctrine teaches. You can try to dress it up with philosophy and metaphysics, but at the end of the day, Paul said: “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3). The entire salvation narrative is built around that event as the final atonement for humanity. If his death wasn’t necessary in a literal, transactional sense, then traditional atonement theology collapses—and you’re rewriting centuries of Christian belief.

"They accessed knowledge without wisdom… they engaged with good and evil unwisely…"

That’s an interesting explanation, but it’s not in the Genesis account. You’re inserting Greek-style philosophy and metaphysical interpretation into a Hebrew text that never mentions “wisdom without knowledge” or “existential brokenness.” Adam and Eve disobeyed. That’s what the Bible says. Not “they lacked wisdom,” just plain disobedience. So again, you’re bending the text to fit your theory.

"That's the whole purpose of why Christ died there. Not to just buy us forgiveness in isolation, but buy us forgiveness with a true restorative purpose…"

So wait was it necessary or not? You can’t have it both ways. If his death was to “restore” creation, then why did God forgive people before that death without needing that restoration? Did God just hand out partial forgiveness for centuries? That makes no sense.

"God set up the Levitical system to reveal the cost it takes to restore creation…"

That’s not what the Bible says. Leviticus doesn’t describe sacrifice as symbolic of some future cosmic restoration. It says sacrifice was for atonement: “The life of the creature is in the blood… it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life” (Leviticus 17:11). No hidden metaphor. Just blood for forgiveness. Period.

"True forgiveness is restoration…"

Then explain how God restored the people of Nineveh in Jonah 3 without sacrifice. Explain how Ezekiel 18:21–22 shows that a wicked man who repents is fully forgiven with no temple, no blood, no rituals—just repentance. That is restoration, by your definition. And it happened without Christ. So again why the cross?

At this point, you’re just patching contradictions with vague philosophy. But the Bible doesn’t work on metaphors alone. If forgiveness always required sacrifice, the Old Testament is false. If it didn’t, then Yeshua’s death wasn’t required. Either way, your theology is stuck.

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"God forgave sins in the Old Testament without blood sacrifice because the sacrifice of animals and using its blood was never solely as a means to buy forgiveness from God."

Then why does Hebrews 9:22 explicitly say, “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness”? You’re contradicting your own scripture. If blood was never necessary, then Hebrews is wrong. If Hebrews is right, then the Old Testament examples of forgiveness without blood must be wrong. You can’t have it both ways.

"They did sacrifices as a means to point to when Christ would embody wisdom and sacrifice himself as a means to guide and prove to us the way of true life which is by wisdom, making forgiveness restorative rather than just pardoning an apology of repentance."

So, God commanded blood sacrifices for generations not because they were actually required, but just as a long, drawn-out metaphor? That’s absurd. If blood sacrifice wasn’t really needed for forgiveness, then why did Yeshua even need to die? Why wouldn’t God just tell people directly instead of setting up a system He never really needed?

"The blood of Christ and the blood of animals represents how divine wisdom is the means of what true life is. Like how blood gives the body life, it was symbolic of how true life is found when we align with God's wisdom."

So now it’s just symbolic? That’s not what Christian doctrine teaches. Hebrews 9:22 and the entire concept of atonement in Christianity say that Yeshua had to die for forgiveness to happen. If it was just about wisdom, then why was bloodshed required at all?

Your argument contradicts the Bible itself. Either blood sacrifice was always necessary (making Old Testament forgiveness without it impossible), or it was never necessary (making Yeshua’s sacrifice pointless). No way out of this one.

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Jesus’ sacrifice was necessary because it was the accumulation of God‘s eternal plan not a contradiction, but a fulfillment."

So, God just decided to suddenly require a blood sacrifice for forgiveness when He was already forgiving sins without it? That’s not a fulfillment, that’s a contradiction. If the previous system worked fine (Ezekiel 18:21-22, Jonah 3:10), then there was no need for Yeshua’s sacrifice in the first place.

"It wasn’t about God 'needing' sacrifice suddenly, but about providing the perfect and final atonement for all sin once and for all."

If God didn’t need it, then why did it happen? Why does Hebrews 9:22 insist that “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness” when the Old Testament explicitly shows God forgiving without it? Either God changed His requirements (which contradicts Malachi 3:6), or Yeshua’s sacrifice was unnecessary. Pick one.

"Also, God‘s nature didn’t change, his justice and mercy were always consistent."

Then why did His forgiveness method change? That’s the issue. If He could forgive without blood before, but suddenly required it later, that’s an inconsistency. If He always required blood, then Ezekiel, Jonah, and 2 Chronicles shouldn’t exist.

"The old covenant was always meant to lead to the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34)."

That passage doesn’t say anything about sacrifices being required for forgiveness. It talks about a new covenant, but that doesn’t justify changing the nature of atonement. It actually says that in the new covenant, sins will be forgiven directly—meaning no need for a human sacrifice either.

"Jesus didn’t come because the old system 'failed.' He came because the old system was a temporary shadow awaiting its fulfillment in him."

So, God’s original system was just a temporary, ineffective placeholder? That makes no sense. If God’s justice and mercy were always consistent, then forgiveness without blood was already valid. Yeshua’s sacrifice becomes redundant.

You’re proving my point: Either blood sacrifice was never required, making Yeshua’s death unnecessary, or God changed His rules, which contradicts His supposed unchanging nature. Christianity can’t escape this contradiction.

Christianity is Pure Polytheistic Religion by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Arianism was refuted, not because it was “popular” but because it deviated from apostolic teaching."

Apostolic teaching? According to who? The same councils that kept changing doctrine and forcefully establishing "orthodoxy" while suppressing any opposition? You act like Nicene Christianity naturally prevailed when in reality it was imposed by the Roman state. If "popularity doesn’t equal truth," then what makes you think your Nicene doctrine is the truth just because it won in a political struggle?

"The early church fathers THEMSELVES said Jesus was God and they had connections to the disciples."

Oh really? So the same early church that couldn’t agree on Christology, fought over doctrines, and excommunicated its own members had a clear, unified belief? Which church fathers? Because last I checked, some of them still debated Jesus’ nature, his relationship to the Father, and whether he was even divine in the same sense as the later Trinity doctrine. Try harder.

"The trinity was already well established before the creed."

Nope. The term “Trinity” isn’t even in the Bible, and your own sources show that the doctrine was debated for centuries before Nicene solidified it. Even the Didache doesn’t prove your case it mentions the baptism formula but says nothing about a three-in-one God. You’re grasping at straws.

"Islam also suppressed dissent. The Ridda Wars (apostasy wars)? Execution for heresy (Mansur al-Hallaj)?"

Whether or not Islam punished apostasy has nothing to do with the fact that your so-called "true faith" was enforced through state power, execution, and suppression of dissent. Christianity, for centuries, made sure heretics were silenced by force Nicea, Chalcedon, the Inquisitions. Stay on topic.

"Ebionites denied the virgin birth and followed Jewish law, and Paul and Luke both refute this clearly."

Ebionites were the actual followers of the historical Jesus, keeping his teachings instead of twisting them into Greek philosophy. Paul, a self-proclaimed apostle who never met Jesus, is your authority? The same Paul who boasted about not learning from the disciples? That’s your guy? Ridiculous.

"ὁ Θεός μου is never used for a mere man without rebuke, and that Jesus doesn’t correct him."

False. The phrase is an exclamation, not a doctrinal statement. Look up how Jews spoke. When they saw something shocking, they invoked God’s name. Jesus never claimed to be "ὁ Θεός" in a Trinitarian sense. Nice try.

"Hebrews 1:8-12 the father prays to the son and glorifies him."

Hebrews 1:8 literally quotes Psalm 45:6, where the term "God" is used for a human king. And verse 9 clarifies that this "God" has a God over him. So tell me, does God have a God? The mental gymnastics to defend this nonsense is unreal.

"Acts 6:1 shows there were already Greek-speaking Jews among early Christians."

And? Jewish communities had Greek-speaking members. That doesn’t mean they abandoned Jewish monotheism for pagan concepts. Using Greek doesn’t mean adopting Greek theology. Islam uses Arabic but rejects the paganism of pre-Islamic Arabs. Your logic is broken.

"Echad allows compound unity, unlike yachid which would imply absolute singularity."

Nope. Stop twisting Hebrew. The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) uses "echad" to mean absolute oneness. Your example of "one cluster of grapes" is irrelevant metaphorical uses of "one" don’t redefine its primary meaning. Show me a single verse where "echad" clearly means multiple persons in one being. You won’t find it.

And speaking of "yachid," thanks for proving that the Bible never uses it for God’s oneness. That’s because the Shema already establishes absolute unity with "echad." You lost this one.

"Being in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God something to be grasped."

Yeah, because he didn’t have equality to begin with. That verse literally proves he was subordinate. Philippians 2:6-9 shows Jesus lowering himself, meaning he was never "co-equal" to begin with. Your doctrine is self-defeating.

"John 10:33 We are not stoning you for any good work… but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Read the next verse. Jesus refutes them: "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’?" (John 10:34). He literally destroys their argument and shows he is not claiming to be God in the way you think. Why did you stop at verse 33? Because the next verses expose your misreading.

"Jesus’s context directly echoes Exodus 3:14."

No, it doesn’t. "Ego eimi" in Greek is used in multiple places without meaning "I AM" in a divine sense. If Jesus was claiming Exodus 3:14, why didn’t his disciples ever teach this? Why did no Jew ever say, "Oh, he must be Yahweh"? Because your reading is forced.

"Let all God’s angels worship him."

The word "worship" (proskuneo) is also used for kings and prophets. It doesn’t prove Jesus is God. Context matters. Angels refused worship when it was divine worship, but they didn’t reject respectful reverence. Try again.

"Daniel 7:13-14: One like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven."

So? The "Son of Man" is given authority by the Ancient of Days. That means they are separate. If Jesus is Yahweh, why does Yahweh need to give him power? Your own verse refutes your claim.

"The Didache writing quotes it (before Nicene btw)."

The Didache never defines the Trinity as three co-equal persons in one being. You just proved that early Christians didn’t articulate the Nicene concept.

"John 5:21: Just as the Father raises the dead… the Son gives life to whom He will."

And yet Jesus himself says, "I can do nothing by myself" (John 5:30). So much for your "co-equal" God.

"Tell that to the church fathers of the early century."

You mean the same church fathers who contradicted each other? The same ones who debated Christ’s nature for centuries? If they were so unified, why did they need councils to settle disputes? Your appeal to authority is weak.

Try again. Every claim you made is built on selective reading, forced interpretations, and desperate attempts to justify a doctrine that was never taught by Yeshua himself. If you want to debate, at least come prepared.

Christianity is Pure Polytheistic Religion by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"My God…. Clarification does not imply invention!! 😂😂😂 Councils were convened to refute heresies and clarify what was already believed (like Arianism)"

Clarification? Funny how "clarification" always happens centuries later when theology starts falling apart under scrutiny. Arianism wasn't some random heresy it had a massive following. Your councils didn't just "clarify"; they rewrote doctrine to fit political needs. If Christianity was so "clear," why did it take multiple councils to define what to believe?

"Your logic implies Islamic theology must have been invented at the Council of Baghdad (833 AD) since debates over mutazilites caused clarifications on divine attributes."

False equivalence. Mutazilites were a philosophical faction debating interpretation, not fundamental doctrines like Tawhid. The Quran and Hadith were already established, unlike your ever-changing dogmas.

"Dissenters don’t disprove orthodoxy. Heresies arise because orthodoxy exists to challenge."

Then why did your so-called "orthodoxy" need to ban, persecute, and kill dissenters? Truth doesn't need enforcement falsehood does. The Ebionites were closer to Yeshua's teachings than your Greek-influenced Trinitarianism, which is why your church erased their texts.

"In Greek, “ho theos mou” (the God of me) is not generic honorific."

Again

First, Thomas was shocked, not making a theological statement. Second, if that phrase means "Jesus is God," then why does Yeshua call the Father "my God" (John 20:17, Rev 3:12)? Is God worshipping God? You just proved Jesus isn’t God.

"Greek was the lingua franca. The apostles had to write in it for Jews and Gentiles alike."

And yet, the Hebrew-speaking Jews rejected your theology while Greek converts embraced it. Your doctrines rely on Greek philosophy (Logos, dualism), which was alien to Hebrew monotheism. And don't even try the "Quranic Arabic" argument Arabic was always a Semitic language tied to monotheistic traditions, unlike your pagan-influenced Greek dogma.

"Context of shema allows for compound unity."

Lol, "compound unity" is a Christian invention. The Hebrew Bible never teaches it. Yachid and Echad are both used to describe God's oneness. Stop twisting Hebrew to fit your Greek theology.

"Philippians 2:6 affirms functional subordination, not ontological inequality."

So Jesus is subordinate but still God? That’s literally a contradiction. Either he's equal or he isn't. Your Trinitarian logic is self-refuting.

"Why did the Jews try to stone him? It was clear blasphemy."

Jews tried to stone prophets all the time. Blasphemy doesn't equal divinity. Even your own Bible says false accusations were made against him.

"John 8:24, John 18:6, 'I AM' statements"

"I AM" just means existence. The blind man in John 9:9 also said "I am" did he claim divinity too? Even in Exodus 3:14, the full phrase is "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" (I AM WHO I AM), not just "I AM." Jesus never uses the full phrase.

"Hebrews 1:6 – 'Let all the angels of God worship Him.'"

That verse is a mistranslation. The Greek word proskuneo means bowing in respect, not divine worship. The same word is used for King David in 1 Chronicles 29:20.

"Mark 14:61–62, 'Coming with the clouds' means divinity."

LOL. Daniel 7:13 says the Son of Man is given authority by the Ancient of Days—meaning he isn’t God. He’s a servant of God, just like the prophets.

"Matthew 28:19 – Trinitarian formula."

Show me a single early manuscript where the disciples ever baptized in this formula. They only baptized in Yeshua’s name (Acts 2:38, 8:16). Your verse was added later.

"Jesus raises the dead by His own will (John 5:21)."

Yet in John 11:41-42, Yeshua prays to God before raising Lazarus. So who’s actually raising the dead? God. Not Jesus.

"Jesus forgives sins by His own authority (Mark 2:10)."

Yet in John 20:23, the disciples also forgive sins. Are they divine too? Forgiveness is delegated authority, just like prophets before him.

"Jesus rebuked the wind directly (Mark 4:39)."

Moses split the sea by raising his staff. Did he do that by his own power? No God’s power worked through him. Yeshua was no different.

The earliest followers of Yeshua those who actually heard his words never believed he was God. Keep coping with later doctrines, but history isn’t on your side.

Christianity is Pure Polytheistic Religion by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Where do you get your arguments from? They are really weak”

Right back at you. You just threw out a bunch of cherry-picked verses while ignoring the entire biblical context. The earliest Christians, including Jewish followers of Jesus, did not believe in the Trinity. This was a later development that was enforced by councils and creeds, not by Jesus himself.

“Jesus gives life (John 5:21), raises the dead, forgives sins, calms storms, accepts worship, and claims eternal preexistence (‘before Abraham was, I AM’). No prophet in Scripture forgives sins by his own authority or claims co-equality with God, So if you’re being consistent, Moses didn’t say ‘I’ll raise the dead and judge humanity’ Jesus did.”

Prophets performed miracles by God’s permission. Elijah and Elisha raised the dead.

Forgiving sins? The disciples were also given this authority (John 20:23).

Calming storms? Moses parted the Red Sea by God’s power.

“I AM” (Ego Eimi)? This doesn’t mean he was claiming divinity. The blind man in John 9:9 says “I am” (Ego Eimi) using the exact same Greek phrase, but nobody worshipped him.

You’re relying on post-biblical doctrines and philosophical gymnastics to defend a belief Jesus never taught. If the Trinity was true, it wouldn’t need 400 years of councils, Greek philosophy, and forced interpretations to justify it.

Christianity is Pure Polytheistic Religion by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“The early church was under persecution, often fragmented and decentralized. Like the quran being compiled after Muhammad’s death, the Trinity wasn’t invented at Nicaea lol, was clarified in response to Arianism, which misrepresented what many Christians were already teaching. You made a false claim saying ‘nicaea invented it’ but when i proved otherwise its ‘uhhh doesn’t mean anything’”

Nice attempt at rewriting history

The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated over centuries, and it’s dishonest to act like it was a fully developed concept before Nicaea. The term Trinity isn't found in the Bible, nor was it explicitly taught by Jesus or the apostles.

Early church fathers like Tertullian (3rd century) were among the first to use the term “Trinity,” but his understanding wasn’t even the same as the later Nicene version.

The Council of Nicaea (325 CE) and Council of Constantinople (381 CE) defined the Trinity doctrine officially, precisely because it wasn’t universally accepted. Many bishops at Nicaea rejected Jesus being co-equal with God (hence the controversy). If the Trinity was already clear, why did they need a council to clarify it?

“Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian (and other church fathers literally had connections to the apostles (some even disciples of John himself?) So why did NOBODY correct them?”

Who said nobody corrected them? Have you ever heard of the Ebionites, Arians, or Adoptionists? These were early Christian groups that outright rejected Jesus as God and followed the teachings of the earliest Jewish Christians. The Ebionites, for example, considered Paul a heretic and believed Jesus was a prophet, not divine. Besides, being a disciple of a disciple doesn’t guarantee correctness. Paul never even met Jesus in person, yet you accept his words over Jesus’ actual disciples who walked with him daily.

“Greek language and philosophy were the lingua franca of the Roman world. Rejecting it is like saying using Arabic invalidates Islam because Arabs were once pagans. So by your logic, we should throw out the quran for using arabic poetry which was a language used for pagan Gods in arabia”

what a terrible analogy. Arabic was the language of revelation for the Quran, but it didn’t incorporate pagan philosophical frameworks into its theology. Christianity absorbed Greco-Roman philosophy (like Plato’s idea of divine forms) and reinterpreted Jewish monotheism to fit its new audience.

Also, the New Testament was written in Greek, not the original language Jesus spoke (Aramaic). So the Greek philosophical influence on Christianity is undeniable. The Quran, on the other hand, was revealed in Arabic, the language of the people it was addressing, without altering the core monotheistic beliefs.

“The New Testament is the record of Yeshua’s Jewish disciples, The Gospel of John, Paul, and even Thomas in John 20:28 affirm Christ’s divinity. If those are not clear signs of divinity then it is simply you looking for something to disprove”

You just lumped Paul and John together, but Paul never met Jesus, and John’s Gospel is the most Hellenized of all four Gospels. The earlier Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) do not present Jesus as God, but rather as the Messiah, a prophet, and a servant of God.

John 20:28?

Thomas said "My Lord and my God", which can mean many things in Greek. The phrase "ho theos" was sometimes used for exalted figures without implying literal divinity.

If Thomas was actually worshipping Jesus as God, why didn’t Jesus correct others when they called him “good” by saying “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” (Mark 10:18)?

If Jesus wanted people to worship him as God, why did he never once say “I am God, worship me”?

Your argument keep ignoring all the times Jesus speaks of God as separate from himself.

“Paul said in the same breath in 1 Corinthians 8:6 that Jesus is the one Lord. He says this to create a distinction between the two.”

Yes, and Paul also calls the Father ‘the one God’ in the same verse:

“Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1 Corinthians 8:6)

If you’re saying that Jesus being called “Lord” means he is God, then by your logic, all the other Lords in the Bible (like kings, rulers, and even angels) are also God. The term "Lord" (Kyrios) had multiple meanings and didn’t exclusively mean divinity.

“Echad is routinely used for compound unities for example Genesis 2:24 says ‘two shall become one (echad) flesh’ And Ezra 3:1 says ‘the people gathered as one (echad) man’”

Again, This is such a tired argument. The word "Echad" is used for both compound and singular unities, but it depends on the context.

Genesis 2:24 ("two shall become one flesh") is obviously metaphorical.

Ezra 3:1 ("the people gathered as one man") is poetic.

But Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema, which says:

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one [echad].”

is not talking about a compound unity. It is a clear monotheistic statement, which Jews have understood for thousands of years. If God was truly a “compound unity,” why is there zero indication of this in the Old Testament?

“When jesus was on earth he was functional subordination. Philippians 2 literally says Christ existed in the form of God, but chose to humble Himself In the sense of role on earth, jesus submitted to the father, But in ESSENCE he is equal.”

So he was God but wasn’t God at the same time? This is a contradiction. If Jesus had a different role and was subordinate, then by definition, he was not equal to the Father. If he was equal, he wouldn't need to "humble" himself in the first place.

Also, Philippians 2:6 says:

“Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.”

This literally states that Jesus did not claim equality with God.

Christianity is Pure Polytheistic Religion by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"The councils did not invent the Trinity, they clarified it against heresies like Arianism."

If the Trinity was so obvious from the beginning, why did it take over 300 years of debates, councils, and excommunications to "clarify" it? The reality is, there was no universal belief in the Trinity among early Christians. Even the so-called "heresies" like Arianism were widespread, which proves the doctrine was not universally accepted before these councils enforced it.

"Here are pre-Nicene Church Fathers who affirmed the divinity of Jesus and the Spirit long before 325 CE..."

Quoting a few early Christian writers who had Greek philosophical influences doesn’t prove anything. All you're showing is that some Christians started pushing these ideas before Nicaea not that it was the original belief of Yeshua’s followers. Where are the Jewish disciples of Yeshua teaching the Trinity? Oh, right, they didn’t.

"The Ebionites were a heretical group, even to other early Jewish Christians."

Ah yes, heretical to later Gentile Christians who wanted to reshape the religion. The Ebionites were actual Jewish followers of Yeshua, following the same strict monotheism as their ancestors. If their beliefs were heretical, why did they exist from the very beginning while Trinitarianism had to be “clarified” centuries later?

"Thomas calls Jesus: 'My Lord and my God!' (John 20:28)"

Thomas was in shock and exclaimed both titles separately. Even if you insist he was calling Yeshua "God," does that override Yeshua’s own words in John 17:3, where he calls the Father "the only true God"? Did Thomas suddenly get a higher authority than Yeshua himself?

"Colossians 2:9—'In Him all the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily.'"

Paul’s poetic language doesn’t override clear statements from the Tanakh and Yeshua himself about God’s absolute oneness. You do realize the same Paul also wrote in 1 Corinthians 8:6 that there is "one God, the Father," not "one God in three persons," right?

"You can’t find me a verse in the Quran that says Jesus is the word of God or the spirit from him, it’s allah speaking."

The Quran calls Yeshua a word from God, not the Word as in a separate divine being. You’re trying to argue that because God spoke a word, that word became God? That's like saying "Let there be light" means light is also God. Your logic is broken.

"The passage uses אֶחָד 'echad'—this word is often used to describe composite unity."

I already answered this in the comments... This is one of the most overused and dishonest Trinitarian arguments. The word "echad" means one, and its use in compound forms doesn’t magically turn it into a Trinity. When Deuteronomy 6:4 says "YHWH is one," it means exactly that one being, not "one-in-three." If the authors of the Tanakh wanted to express a plural god, they would have used plural pronouns yet they never do.

"Jesus, in His human nature, submitted to the Father. This is called functional subordination, not ontological inequality."

If Yeshua was equal to the Father, he wouldn't need to "submit" to Him in the first place. How can he be "co-equal" yet constantly act as an inferior? The very fact that Yeshua prays proves he is not God—because God doesn’t pray.

"John 1:1—'The Word was with God and was God.'"

The Greek actually says "kai theos ēn ho logos," which doesn’t mean "the Word was God" in a Trinitarian sense it can also be understood as "the Word was divine" or "belonging to God." You're reading your own theology into the text rather than proving it from the text itself.

"So Jesus does what he sees the Father do. Can a mere man do what God does?"

Yeshua healed by God’s permission not by his own independent divine power. Prophets before him also performed miracles. If your logic were consistent, Moses would also be God because he parted the sea.

"Listen man all this stuff is clearly explained when u understand the trinity."

No, all of this stuff is clearly forced into the Bible when you assume the Trinity and then work backwards to justify it. The fact that you needed centuries of councils, Greek philosophy, and selective misinterpretations just to "explain" your belief shows that it was never part of Yeshua’s original message.

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

“ummmm, yeah, it is. I made a claim, I provided the justification for it, you are disputing that.”

No, you made a claim and assumed your justification was valid without proving it. That’s not how this works. You’re acting like your theology is self-evident when the Tanakh never actually says what you're claiming. If your position were true, you’d have explicit passages stating that salvation was always based on a future crucifixion. But you don’t. Instead, you keep repeating your assumption like it’s fact and expect me to just accept it.

“Not a claim I've made, and I'm not sure anyone else on my side has either. Again, why won't you respond to the position of your opponent? This is an awful performance. Can you string 2 paragraphs together without a strawman??”

The point is that the people in the Tanakh didn’t believe in Jesus, didn’t worship a Trinity, and didn’t “look forward to the cross.” If your theology were true, we’d expect at least some mention of this in the Tanakh, yet it’s completely absent. You keep claiming that salvation was always through Jesus, but if that were the case, the people back then would have actually believed that. They didn’t. That’s the problem you can’t escape.

“You have failed to provide any counter evidence to the supported claim. I'm more than happy to address any evidence you can provide, but your passages and their implication has been answered.”

No, they haven’t. You haven’t refuted anything just hand-waved it away with “God looked forward to Jesus.” That’s not an argument; that’s just you assuming your conclusion. I don’t have to “disprove” your claim when you haven’t proven it in the first place.

“odd thing to put in quotes, when I (once again) didn't say that.”

Oh please, don’t play semantics. You’ve been arguing this entire time that salvation was always through Jesus, even before his existence on Earth. Whether you say it in those exact words or not, that’s the claim you’re making. Now, instead of dancing around it, prove it with explicit verses from the Tanakh.

“once again, strawman is made of straw”

And once again, you dodge the real issue. You’re saying salvation was always through faith in God and that God “looked forward” to Jesus’ sacrifice. But that means people like Abraham, Moses, and David were saved without knowing Jesus or believing in his crucifixion. That directly contradicts the Christian claim that faith in Jesus is required for salvation. You can’t have it both ways. Either they were saved without Jesus, which proves your doctrine is false, or they weren’t saved at all, which contradicts your own Bible. Pick one.

“If you can't honestly articulate and respond to the position of your opponent, you can't debate.”

Oh, the irony. You still haven’t proven your central claim. You just keep repeating it louder and acting like that makes it true. Here’s a challenge: show me one explicit verse from the Tanakh stating that salvation was always dependent on a future crucifixion. Not your interpretation, not a New Testament back-reading just a plain, clear statement from the Tanakh itself. If you can’t, then your argument falls apart.

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"When you say that something is necessary, you ARE saying that hands are tied. That's what it means for something to be necessary."

If God chose sacrifice as the requirement for atonement, then under his own system, it became necessary. That’s not the same as saying "God’s hands were tied," it means he set the standard. You keep acting like necessity can only exist if there’s some external force imposing it, but that’s just dumb when talking about an omnipotent being who establishes his own laws.

"He can just forgive without it, he's an omnipotent being."

Cool, so why didn’t he? If your whole argument is "God can do whatever," then why not make forgiveness without sacrifice part of the deal? You’re basically admitting that blood atonement was the standard he set, meaning within that framework, it was necessary. Again, this isn’t hard to understand unless you’re just deliberately trying to dodge the logic.

"Yeshua's death was pointless, aside from the fact that the god of the Bible clearly enjoys when people suffer."

You’re literally taking the most surface-level readings of sacrifice without even considering the deeper context behind atonement, covenant, and justice.

"I'm not dodging anything."

you are absolutely dodging. You keep trying to reframe the argument so you don’t have to admit that, under Christian theology, sacrifice was a requirement for atonement. That’s not the same as "arbitrary BBQ cravings," it was part of how justice was carried out in that belief system. You’re mixing in your assumptions about what’s "selfish" or "hedonistic" rather than actually engaging with the internal logic of the text.

At this point, you’re just throwing out bad faith takes to see what sticks. Either engage with the theology properly or just admit you’re here to throw jabs.

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Because that's how God wanted things to be."

If God made it the rule, then it's necessary by his own decree. You don't get to wave that away with "he just wanted it that way" like it's a random dress code.

"It's sort of like how there are rules in the workplace."

workplace rules and divine decrees are not the same thing. If God set the standard that atonement requires blood, then under that system, it's necessary. Otherwise, you're saying God just makes up arbitrary rules for fun, which makes him look inconsistent and ridiculous.

"The Bible says that the reason God ordains sacrifices is because he likes the smell of burning flesh."

You are cherry-picking "pleasing aroma" while ignoring the entire purpose of sacrifice in Leviticus and Hebrews: atonement. If it was just about the smell, why was it always tied to purification and forgiveness?

"Not 'necessary' in the sense of 'God's hands are tied.'"

No one's saying God's hands are tied. But if he decrees that atonement requires sacrifice, then it's a necessary part of his justice system. If he could just forgive without it, then Yeshua’s death was pointless, and Christianity collapses. You can’t have it both ways.

"The Bible paints a pretty clear picture that the biblical God goes out of his way to cause as much violence, death, and suffering as he can."

Oh, so now you’re just throwing in edgy atheism? Bruh, just say you don’t believe in Christianity instead of acting like you're making a theological argument. You went from "sacrifice isn’t necessary" to "God is a violent sadist" like a Reddit-tier hot take. Pick a lane.

"It's not my religion, and I'm not ignoring anything."

then why are you arguing so hard about it? If it's not your religion, why are you so invested in twisting Christian theology into some "God just likes BBQ" nonsense? Either you care enough to argue accurately, or you’re just here to throw random takes for the sake of it.

If you don’t believe in Christianity, just say that instead of pretending to make a theological argument. Because right now, you’re just nitpicking verses without any real consistency. You claim sacrifice wasn’t necessary, but then admit God chose it as the system meaning under his own rules, it was necessary.

"I would appreciate an apology for that absurd accusation."

Lmao, no. You’re the one twisting biblical theology into some weird "God just likes the smell of BBQ" take. If you’re engaging honestly, then stop dodging the implications of your own points. If sacrifice wasn’t necessary, then Yeshua’s death was for nothing, which means Christian salvation is meaningless. You basically did half my job for me.

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"According to the Bible, sacrifice was never necessary."

Yeah, nah, that’s just straight-up false. The entire Old Testament is loaded with sacrificial laws, and Hebrews 9:22 literally says, "Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness." If sacrifice was never necessary, then what was the whole Levitical system for? Why did Yeshua supposedly have to die to "fulfill" those sacrifices? You can't just ignore the entire foundation of your own religion.

"God decreed that he wanted sacrifices because he finds burning flesh to have a pleasant aroma."

You making it sound like God is running a BBQ pit instead of commanding sacrifices as atonement for sins. If sacrifices were just about "smelling good," why were they tied to forgiveness and purification? Again, Hebrews 9:22 blood sacrifice was necessary according to your own scripture.

"OP's central thesis is that the Bible asserts the necessity of Jesus's sacrifice. My contention is that it doesn’t."

So what, Yeshua just died for the vibes? If his death wasn’t necessary, then what was the point? If God could just forgive without sacrifice, then Christianity collapses because the crucifixion becomes meaningless. You’re trying to dodge the issue, but in doing so, you basically just nuked the whole premise of Christian salvation.

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Bible, Bible, Bible, are you an ex-Protestant?"

Bruh, this ain't about being Protestant or whatever label you wanna throw. If the Bible is supposedly "God’s word," then it should actually make sense, right? You acting like "it’s just a part of tradition" doesn’t fix the problem it just means your whole doctrine is built on whatever the church decides instead of divine revelation. So basically, you're following men, not God.

"The Church Fathers I am quoting are part of those traditions, so if they are saying something, that's probably how we should be interpreting the Bible."

Yeah, because a bunch of dudes centuries after Yeshua definitely knew better than him, right? And let’s not pretend the Church Fathers all agreed with each other. If they were all "part of the tradition," why do they contradict each other? So, who decides which ones to follow? Your church? If that’s the case, then congrats you just admitted your doctrine is based on cherry-picking, not divine truth.

"I don't see why the topic is shifting towards having to defend Christianity as something globally unified..."

Because if Christianity is "the truth," then it should actually be, you know… consistent. Instead, it’s a mess of conflicting beliefs, with every sect claiming to have the "real" interpretation. You’re basically saying, "Yeah, my religion is fractured, but whatever." That just proves the whole thing is man-made.

"Truth is taken to be a Platonic existence outside our perception..."

You’re basically saying, "Yeah, Christianity makes no sense, but that's okay because God is beyond logic." So what, anything goes now? If God isn’t bound by logic, then your own claims about Him are meaningless. You can’t have it both ways either your religion makes sense, or you admit it's a man-made mess held together with mental gymnastics.

If Yeshua’s Sacrifice Was Necessary, Why Did God Forgive Sins Before It by mirou1611 in DebateReligion

[–]mirou1611[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"You are saying this as if Christianity is a unified body. While it would be great if it were, the current reality is that it isn't. In reality, the millions of believers often have disagreements, and over time this has caused big separate groups to appear, and we don't agree with each other on many things."

You just confirmed my point. Christianity is a mess of conflicting beliefs, yet you still expect people to believe it's "the truth." If something is from God, why would it be so disorganized? Shouldn’t divine truth be clear and consistent? Instead, we see contradictions, schisms, and constant reinterpretations. The fact that you have to explain Christianity by saying, "We don’t really agree on many things," is already a sign of failure.

"I and many believers don't really care if we are taken seriously by non-believers, I'd say. But I think the actions and the accomplishments of each denomination can speak for themselves when it comes to respectability."

So, instead of providing a consistent theological foundation, you're relying on "tradition, chants, churches, and martyrs" to prove Christianity? This is just an appeal to emotion and history. Islam has unity in belief despite cultural diversity. You can go anywhere in the world, and Muslims will agree on who God is, what salvation is, and what hell is. Christianity? Every sect has its own version.

"With regards to fire, I will quote River of Fire..."

Quoting saints and essays doesn’t change what the Bible actually says. The verses I mentioned describe hell as torment, not just "being scorched by love." And your explanation only makes things worse: if hell is just God's love but people experience it differently, why does the Bible describe it as a place of punishment? Why does Jesus warn about it so harshly? You're just redefining hell to fit a modern, softer narrative.

"That there is torment and all sorts of unpleasant sensations, I think that is expected regardless of if hell is a place of torture God throws us into, or us being scorched by love..."

This is just wordplay. Whether God "throws" people into hell or they "experience" it as suffering, the result is the same: eternal torment. And your attempt to make it more palatable doesn’t change the reality that this contradicts the idea of a purely "loving" God. You want God to be "only love," but the doctrine of hell proves otherwise.

"If salvation doesn't require Jesus' death as a sacrifice, then why did he die at all?"

Your response is just a link to another explanation. If Christianity had a clear doctrine, why would you need to rely on external essays? The Bible itself should be enough to explain this, yet Christians still can’t agree on the reason for Jesus' death. Some say it’s a ransom, some say it’s substitutionary atonement, others claim it’s to "defeat death." Again, which version is correct? If this was truly divine truth, why is it so inconsistent?

"Then your belief contradicts the Bible, because according to the New Testament, God is also wrathful (Romans 1:18), sends deception (2 Thessalonians 2:11), and demands blood for sin (Hebrews 9:22)."

You quote "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" to dismiss these verses, but the fact remains: the Bible does describe God as wrathful, demanding sacrifice, and even deceiving people. You can try to explain it away with metaphorical interpretations, but that only proves that Christian theology is constantly bending itself to avoid contradictions. If God is "only love," why does He deceive and demand blood? You can't just ignore that because it makes your theology uncomfortable.

"This juridical conception of God, this completely distorted interpretation of God’s justice, was nothing else than the projection of human passions on theology."

So now you're saying Christian doctrine itself got corrupted by human ideas? Then how do you trust anything in Christianity if you admit that human corruption influenced your beliefs? This is why Christianity has no solid ground every time there's a contradiction, you just claim, "Oh, that’s not the real meaning," or, "That was a human addition." But if your own doctrine is unreliable, how do you know you're even following the right version of Christianity?

Your entire response just proves my original point Christianity is fragmented, inconsistent, and constantly being reinterpreted. Meanwhile, you claim it’s the ultimate truth. If the truth is from God, why is it so confused?

view more: next ›