What are the biggest holes in the ransom sacrifice?
Who it was paid to and why - normally a ransom is paid to kidnappers or terrorists, never the parent !. Why was it necessary given that many will resort to claiming the Adam and Eve account is just a parable when you question the idiocy of that part of the bible. Talking animals without Dr Doolittle.
That it wasn't a sacrifice - soldiers have given their lives defending people they don't know, that is sacrifice. He had a nod and a wink from daddy and was back up in a few days walking about (as a human). So what exactly did he sacrifice ... sounds like he got to be king of the galaxy out of it.
That there is no historical evidence of it happening or him existing. All we have is tall tales invented 90+ years after the event but supposed to be "eyewitness testimony"
Josephus & Tacitus recorded evidence of Jesus' existence
Sorry, I call BS on this lame claim that's always trotted out by the believers - the older the copy of the manuscript, the less there is written and it's "added in margins" stuff.
Besides, Josephus was not a historian, he was a Jewish rebel leader who weaseled his way up to Rome. He also described the emperor ascending to heaven when he died - yeah, great reliable "historian".
I still can't get past the idea of how it was a "sacrifice" to begin with.
Jesus was "evidently" dead for all of 36 hours or so. Then he came back better than ever.
Is it a "sacrifice" if I leave my watch in a jewelry shop overnight so they can put a new battery in it?
The biggest hole I see is the notion that blood has to be poured out in order to satisfy god in the first place. Why does a benevolent god require a bloody death of another human in order to be satisfied?
If god set the divine rules in the first place, he just as easily could have said that "I need 3 Hail Mary's and 2 Our Father's in order to be satisfied". OK, your the boss so whatever you say, that's the LAW. The notion that millions of gallons of blood needed to be poured out in both human and animal sacrifices in order to please god is "ungodlike".
Half banana - "What are the biggest holes in the ransom sacrifice?"
The fact that the concept requires the Genesis creation account to be literal, factual history for it to truly work.
The story should be read back to front. Basically one of the so-called messiahs who came out of the heap of preachers in the first century became more popular than the others. He attracted the attention of the Jewish religious leaders and the Romans. They crucified him. It's what they did with difficult people, to put the fear of terrible death into the populace and keep them in line.
So now you have a whole group who were told their leader was bringing the Kingdom of God and now he was dead. What did they do? They put the Kingdom in heaven and said he was resurrected and would return to take them up to be with him. Then you create the ransom/redemption teaching so that it looks like the whole thing was planned. He had to die because of Adam and Eve's sin. This was all planned. The Romans just fulfilled prophecy when they killed him. It hasn't all gone wrong, everything is on track.
What are the holes in the story if taken at face value? If it was God who told Adam and Eve they would die for disobedience, why make imperfection hereditary so that everyone inherited old age and death? Why not make them die after they had children so that their kids were perfect? Or why not scrap that couple and start with another that could make a perfect race? Why make a law that forced him to kill his own son horribly when he could have said life for life doesn't apply here. This is a case of disobedience not murder. So many holes in this story it's like a Swiss cheese.
1. Jesus isn't real...
I tell you the biggest hole, Murder! Yep God kills people to make himself feel important, he even muders his own son and not just a quick fast death but a slow tortuous evil death all because a newly created woman eats a piece of fruit. So there you have it, murder just remember this one word, Murder!
A big hole, IMO, is that no crime/sin is beyond the pale - as long as repentance is shown.
E.g. a serial killer could feel remorse, repent and him and Jesus are tight. Someone who does something minor like regularly get drunk or smoke weed, but doesn't repent and carries on instead, will go to Hell/Gehenna.
That's pretty f**ked up ...
While not claiming any personal convictions in regard to the Trinity doctrine (nor advocating the following as "truth" or encouraging religion), I do recall being shocked to learn about something I as a Jehovah's Witnesses used to tease Trinitarians about.
Does anybody remember how Watchtower publications would attempt to explain the Trinity, then say it was a confusing doctrine, laugh at it being called a "mystery," and then mock how Christians would claim it was "the central doctrine" of their churches?
Actually, when getting my education and studying history, I was shocked to learn that Christianity doesn't believe like the Witnesses in regards to Christ's death. I was always taught at the Kingdom Hall that God demanded the death of another human being in order to set the scales of justice in balance before all the angels who were watching how Jehovah would settle the issue of sovereignity raised by Satan the Devil. But this is not what the churches of Christendom believe in. They don't really even use the expression "ransom sacrifice."
Their teaching is that God became human to teach humanity that we are, in reality, more like God than we realize. We needed no law or standards or even religious teaching to become like God because every human is innately created in the image of God, or so the lesson goes.
The central doctrine of the Trinity is the Incarnation, God becoming human, a "son of man" or even a "son" of himself (the ancients called incarnations of deities "sons"). According to the doctrine, God wanted to share the suffering of humanity and give that suffering redeeming value. The doctrine states that through what happened at the Cross, God changed the outcome of current realities: the sin of many in killing Jesus became the way for humankind's forgiveness, the dead wood of the Cross became the Tree of Life, the death of Jesus became life for the world, etc. According to Christendom the Sacrifice of the Cross (capitalized because it is an actual dogma) is not the offering of God a human sacrifice to appease the Creator due to Adam's sin. Instead it is God's offering to humanity the life of God so they can participate in what 2 Peter 1:4 calls a "sharing in the divine nature."
In other words, the Watchtower teaching is oddly the opposite of nominal Christianity's teaching. The JWs claim that God can only forgive us if a human is slaughtered and his blood is spilled. In Watchtower theology, God sends an angel to materialize and offer a blood sacrifice to the blood-demanding God "Jehovah." But the traditional Christian teaching is that God becomes like us to give us His life: we don't go up a mountain to see and receive instruction from God as did Moses, instead God comes down to instruct humanity as well as share His own life.
I thought this made the Watchtower view pretty shabby by comparison and made their "Jehovah" a really different God than what the rest of Christians believe in.
Ransom sacrifice = child sacrifice, think about it.
par for the course in the Abrahamic death cults.