What are the biggest holes in the ransom sacrifice?
how honest are the proponents of Jesus as the ransom sacrifice?
curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?
The only proof about who/what Jesus was is in a book with unknown authors. There is no proof whatsoever. He may have lived as one of dozens of messiahs at the time. But him doing miricles is based on faith not facts.
I grew up as a JW with the teaching of the ransom sacrifice.
I never really understood, how and why a ransom must be paid back to an allmighty god.
Why is there a need for an unimaginably cruel human sacrifice (Jesus) just because Adam and Eve (who probably didn't even live) were a bit rebellious and ate from the wrong fruit?
Is it not a cruel god, to bring death and suffering to billions of humans just because 2 humans were a bit rebellious?
What does it tell about god, that he needed another being to be tortured to a human death just to get this so called ransom?
For me, the ransom doctrine makes god a cruel monster, being in need of human sacrifice.
I believe that Jesus lived and that his teachings are a good influence for mankind, but I can't believe in this picture of god that the ransom doctrine paints.
My view of god is completely different.
Probably this doesn't make me a christian, as a christian should believe in the ransom, i guess.
Jesus' hands and feet obviously,
The teaching of the ransom used to really touch my heart. The whole God loved the world so much thing.... But then I realised how the Bible condems human sacrifices to upease the Gods of Baal and Yahweh wanted exactly that. A human sacrifice to upease his desire for vengeance. Strange that I thought this was a wonderful loving idea?!
WikiPedia - Historical Jesus: "Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted. There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus."
Josephus & Tacitus recorded evidence of Jesus' existence and Rabbi Nelson Glueck, a renowned Jewish archaeologist said this about Bible references: "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
Even if these references are ignored, the greatest undeniable historical fact about the man known as Jesus Christ (apart from Christianity itself ) is this: thousands of 1st century Christians (and their families) were willing to be crucified, burned alive, or eaten alive by wild animals, rather than renounce their faith in someone they had most likely personally seen. Personally, I think many people would readily deny a long-held belief in anything they believed, rather than face such terrible fates. They had a choice to avoid the consequences, but for reasons of "faith", they refused to deny Jesus Christ.
The holes are so big that there is no substance, really, except stories. Just think, how can anything really have been paid TO "god" if he provided the ransom "value, price" in the first place?. Wt occasionally calls " jehovah" the ransomer, rather than "jesus" . The ransom theory is just an exercise in bookkeeping. and: the painful death story is cruel, but has been played out billions of times, and it could happen to you, if no morphine is around.
I think there are a couple of huge gaping holes...
1) Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God.
2) That there is some sort of original sin that requires a human sacrifice.
Scully: "PS: The most elderly couple/first time parents I looked after on the mother-baby unit - she was late 50s, he was in his 70s. reading this on another thread, :-- The biggest hole is the virgin birth story. , eliminate the man, and you will have perfect babies.
Think it was Origen who first specifically proposed it early in the 3rd century. It's made absolutely no sense in 1800 years since. Why is God forced to follow a system of blood sacrifices? Who designed the cosmic scales of justice which he has to make sure are in balance? I asked these questions as a kid and it ended up being turtles all the way down until I figured that asking questions was pointless.
"Because the angels are watching."
"But God made the angels, they do what they're told or they join Satan."
"Because it's justice."
"But it doesn't seem fair. Why couldn't he have used Job?"
"Because he's God and you can't understand it."