Comparing Miracles

[liamconnor]

A quote from C.S. Lewis:

"Whatever men may say no one really thinks that the Christian doctrine of the REsurrection is exactly on the same level with some pious tittle-tattle about how Mother Egaree Louise miraculously found her second best thimble by the aid of St. Anthony...Even those who thnk all stories of miracles absurd think some very much more absurd than others."


Do you agree with this claim?

[Divine Insight]

A quote from C.S. Lewis:

"Whatever men may say no one really thinks that the Christian doctrine of the REsurrection is exactly on the same level with some pious tittle-tattle about how Mother Egaree Louise miraculously found her second best thimble by the aid of St. Anthony...Even those who thnk all stories of miracles absurd think some very much more absurd than others."


Do you agree with this claim?

For me the claim is irrelevant, as are many of C.S. Lewis' views.

I don't bother comparing the supposed "miracle" of the resurrection of Jesus with other claims of miracles. All I do is question whether this supposed "miracle" makes any sense in the context of the overall theology, and my conclusion is that it doesn't.

And I'm not saying that it doesn't make any "technological sense" in terms of being scientifically feasible. I'm totally open to granting that a magical God is involved in this whole scenario. Even in that context I claim that this story makes absolutely no sense at all.

Here are my "theological" problems with this supposed resurrection.

1. Why was this necessary?

According to the Christians a "ransom" needed to be paid to obtain salvation for mankind.

Ok, fine. If that's the case, then why wasn't this "ransom" paid for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?

And what was up with the Great Flood if the only solution to sin and salvation is the payment of a ransom?

2. To whom was this "ransom" paid?

Who was such a threat to this God that he or she could demand that God pay the ransom of God's own son's brutal crucifixion before the salvation of mankind could be "purchased" by this ransom?

Also, if this was a ransom for the sins of man why shouldn't it automatically then apply to ALL men regardless of what they might think, do, or believe?

3. If the wages of sin is death, then the ransom check bounced.

If Jesus died as a ransom for the sins of men, then he would have needed to stay dead for the payment to be meaningful. The mere fact that he rose from the dead a mere three days later to go off and live eternally in heaven as the ruler flies in the face that he paid for any sins via his death.

Any mortal man would jump at the chance to die for three days if it meant that he would then be resurrected and become the King of Kings for all eternity. So it's not even impressive.

The greedy criminal men would jump at the chance just to become the King of Kings for all of eternity.

Decent humble and righteous people would probably offer to do it simply because it would supposedly save many other people.

In short, you could find countless mortal humans who would be willing to have done as much. So it's not remarkable that Jesus would have done this in any case. Most humans would have probably done the same, for good or greedy intentions.

~~~~

In summary, Unlike C.S. Lewis, I simply wouldn't compare this supposed miracle with other unrelated claims of other miracles. I simply weigh its rationality within the context of the paradigm where it is being claimed, and I find it to be irrational on many levels.

Can you answer my questions about this theology?

1. If paying a ransom was the only way to obtain salvation why wasn't this ransom paid for Adam and Eve right off the bat?

2. What was the Great Flood all about if what was actually needed was that a ransom had to be paid?

3. Who was demanding this ransom from God?

4. Why was the ransom payment returned to heaven 3 days after it was paid?

Why bother comparing this with claims of other miracles? Why should we even care about that?

[rikuoamero]

I notice that no reply has been forthcoming to DI's questions...

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

lol... I don't agree with all Lewis said but I do enjoy reading him. I do agree, indeed one the the questions I often ask people who say they believe in these non-biblical miracles is "In light of the Divine purpose, what purpose does this so-called miracle serve?"

[JehovahsWitness]

If Jesus died as a ransom for the sins of men, then he would have needed to stay dead for the payment to be meaningful.

This is not the first time I have seen this kind of idea. It is both unscriptural and illogical.

The ransom is a payment, effectively a payment of a debt. A debt isn't invalidated if the payer doesn't remain poor or recouperates his money elsewhere. The subsequent condition of he who pays is irrelvant to the transaction; the only way to invalidate the exchange is for that which was given to be reclaimed from the recipient.

To illustrate: If you sell someone your car lets say a used Toyota, in exchange for 1000 dollars, the car legally belongs to the buyer as long he does not attempt to take back his 1000 dollars. The buyer gets the car, the seller get to keep the value of the exchange but loses his car. If the buyer later says "Give me back that one thousand dollars I gave you" you have every right to say "Okay but then you have to give me back the car!"

However that transaction doesn't prohibit anyone else giving the seller anything. If subsequently his dad says, "Okay son, you don't have a car, take my Mercedes!" The buyer cannot come back and say "Hey wait a minute, I bought the car on the understanding you would never have another vehicle, you have thus by accepting the gift of your dad's Mercedes invalidated OUR transaction" . It is nonesense to suggest that the initial exchange was made on the basis of eternal carlessness.

Jesus gave his human life (the Toyota); while he can never take that human life back he can be given a spiritual life (vastly superior to a human life, somewhat like the difference between a Toyata and a Mercedes). His life (like the Toyota) was sacrificed (given) fair and square and as long as Jesus never attempts to become a human again, then the deal stands.

The deal was for Jesus to sacrifice his life as a human, this was done; that God, his father subsequently gave Jesus something of higher value is irrelevant, bar the fact that it is a testimony to the Father's love for his son and sense of Justice*.



* Jesus' sacrifice was not easy, he suffered horribly and it is only just that his integrity be rewarded



RELATED POSTS

The Ransom: The exchange of human life.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 905#848905

To learn more please go to other posts related to
THE RANSOM SACRIFICE , THE EXECUTION OF CHRIST and ... MEMORIAL OF CHRIST'S DEATH

[Justin108]

If Jesus died as a ransom for the sins of men, then he would have needed to stay dead for the payment to be meaningful.

This is not the first time I have seen this kind of idea. It is both unscriptural and illogical.

The ransom is a payment, effectively a payment of a debt. A debt isn't invalidated if the payer doesn't remain poor or recouperates his money elsewhere.

What exactly was the price to be paid? A permanent death or a temporary death? A physical death or a spiritual death?

On a side note, I never understand why theists always compare a death sentence to a monetary debt. When is it ever justice for an innocent man to be sentenced to death on behalf of a guilty man?

[JehovahsWitness]

What exactly was the price to be paid? A permanent death or a temporary death? A physical death or a spiritual death?

Death ie the sacrifice of one human life. There was not clause imposing permanence. The sacrifice was of one perfect human life.

On a side note, I never understand why theists always compare a death sentence to a monetary debt. When is it ever justice for an innocent man to be sentenced to death on behalf of a guilty man?

Because its a metaphor (that of debt) that is biblical and the word ransom (also mentioned in scripture) implies an exchange; money is an easily understood method of equal exchange of something of value so it fittingly illustrates what we are speaking about.



For further explanation please consult video below (4"mins total); start at 2mins (debt/money metaphor)

[youtube][/youtube]

[Justin108]

What exactly was the price to be paid? A permanent death or a temporary death? A physical death or a spiritual death?

Death ie the sacrifice of one human life. There was not clause imposing permanence. The sacrifice was of one perfect human life.

Ok now all humans die. Jesus' crucifixion didn't change this.

According to Christians, we die a temporary death (that is, we die and then we come back to life). Since all humans die regardless, why is it our own death is not enough to pay the price of death for sin?

- The price of sin is death
- One day, I will die
- Ergo, I will pay the price of my own sin

Since we all pay the price of death for our own sins, what exactly did Jesus die for?

Because its a metaphor (that of debt) that is biblical and the word ransom (also mentioned in scripture) implies an exchange; money is an easily understood method of equal exchange of something of value so it fittingly illustrates what we are speaking about.

Yes but this metaphor cannot apply to the matter of death sentences. In what other instance has it ever been consider justice for an innocent man to die on behalf of a guilty man?

If an innocent man offered to go to prison on behalf of a guilty man, would you consider this justice? Yes or no? (I highly doubt I'll get an answer from you but here's hoping for the best)

[JehovahsWitness]

What exactly was the price to be paid? A permanent death or a temporary death? A physical death or a spiritual death?

Death ie the sacrifice of one human life. There was not clause imposing permanence. The sacrifice was of one perfect human life.

Ok now all humans die.

Only Jesus was a perfect human so only Jesus could pay one perfect human life; rendering the rest of your post totally irrelevant; which is why it will be discarded as such.


Have a nice day,

JW

[Willum]

[Replying to post 9 by JehovahsWitness]

As a victim/ancestor of someone who ate from the fruit in the Garden, I see that Jesus is not very good in th eyes of Yahweh, and therefore, quite imperfect.

So, your argument is quite invalid.