Jesus IS a sinner. Therefore an unacceptable sacrifice

[Avoice]

Jesus is a sinner. By his actions he proves this.

In the story of the adultress woman caught in the very act.
The law requires her to be stoned. Jesus faces a problem here. He has to somehow save her from being punished for her sin yet not break the law.

Jesus tells those standing by that whoever has not sinned cast the first stone. One by one they all walked away not throwing a stone at her. The law states no such stipulation but ets just do it Jesus' way. When it says Jesus and the woman were left standing alone. Now its jesus' turn.

If Jesus is sinless he is to throw a stone
If Jesus is a sinner he wont throw a stone.

What does Jesus say? NEITHER do I condemn you. He tells her to go and to not do it again.

He does not throw a stone. If he were sinless he was to stone her. He said so.

If indeed he were sinless up until this time he became a sinner by not keeping the law by throwing a stone at her.

Throwing a stone or not throwing a stone either proves he is a sinner or makes him a sinner.
And being a sinner would be an unacceptable blemish. Unfit for sacrifice. Thats if God was even into throwing babies in fires, virgins in volcanos or nailing a man onto a tree/ cross in the first place. At a place called Golgotha....the skull? Unacceptable location even.

[Danmark]

The Old Testament is replete with examples of God obliterating anyone or anything that came close enough to his holiness.

Yes it is. That is one of the reasons many reject the 'Old Testament' as utter nonsense and as portraying a 'God' that is unreasonable, unfair, petty, defensive, and an all around tyrant. This version of God, the one that can't tolerate proximity of others, who is so pathetic he loses his mind and overreacts to what at most would be a minor annoyance to the creator and ruler of the universe seems precisely human... and not a very likable human at that.

Let's be clear, it is not that this monster is believed in and hated; it is not believed in because it is a monster.

I always find it fascinating to see how people react to passages of scripture. It reveals much more about them than about the texts themselves.

It isn't that God can't tolerate others, but that his transcendent holiness prevents sin from getting anywhere near him. In a way it's like people who never get sick, but can carry diseases which infect anyone who gets near them. It isn't that they can't tolerate anyone who has a weak immune system, but that people with weak immune systems can't tolerate being around them.

The only ones losing their minds are those who can't tolerate things like holiness, purity, sinlessness, etc. The supreme irony is that God tolerates all of it while it is everyone else who can't tolerate God.

Bulloney!
There are thousands of man made Gods. You've picked one who can't tolerate others if they are not "holy" enough. This wasn't My judgment; it is yours. You wrote:

The Old Testament is replete with examples of God obliterating anyone or anything that came close enough to his holiness. Holiness is death to anything that isn't holy. Sinlessness is associated with holiness. It's like an antibiotic, or an antiseptic cleanser. So while germs can kill other germs, it is sinless holiness that wipes sin from the face of the earth. There are even a few examples from the New Testament as well.

"Revenge is mine says the Lord""

You also wrote just now

his transcendent holiness prevents sin from getting anywhere near him.

You sure make it sound like your 'God' can't tolerate this alleged 'non holiness.' But "can't" or "won't" makes no nevermind to me. Either way you've envisioned a 'god' who just can't abide these 'sinners' he made.

What a ridiculous theology! It is laughable and pathetic on its face. AND this, your, vision of God is just about the opposite of the example set by Jesus of Nazareth who drank with the drinkers, ate with the party goers, sat with prostitutes and ministered to sinners.

This 'Christian' god of yours can be just about anything a human imagines, from opposite to opposite.

[shnarkle]

Bulloney!
There are thousands of man made Gods.

Sorry, but there are no gods anywhere; man made or otherwise. You can't even prove the one's of your own imagination.

You've picked one who can't tolerate others if they are not "holy" enough. This wasn't My judgment; it is yours. You wrote:

The Old Testament is replete with examples of God obliterating anyone or anything that came close enough to his holiness. Holiness is death to anything that isn't holy. Sinlessness is associated with holiness. It's like an antibiotic, or an antiseptic cleanser. So while germs can kill other germs, it is sinless holiness that wipes sin from the face of the earth. There are even a few examples from the New Testament as well.

"Revenge is mine says the Lord""

Yep, and you then presented your false assumptions as if they proved anything; they don't. For example, just because showering removes germs, it doesn't then follow that one can't tolerate germs, or that one is a "tyrant" or a "monster". These are obvious false assumptions. Another example would be those who want to buy a house, but they don't have enough money so they borrow from someone who knows how to manage money wisely. Those who manage money wisely know that to pay interest on a loan is idiotic. Those who don't pay three or four times as much(if they're lucky enough to not default) for a home as those who have no desire to be enslaved by debt. The lender is doing the borrower a favor; they're practically begging the lender to screw them over. That's what sin does to people. It robs them of their common sense as well as their sanity.

his transcendent holiness prevents sin from getting anywhere near him.

You sure make it sound like your 'God' can't tolerate this alleged 'non holiness.'

I never claimed it was my god. Try and focus on what I'm actually posting instead of slipping in all sorts of pointless innuendo.

But "can't" or "won't" makes no nevermind to me.

Seems like it's a big deal to you. Why else would you be obsessing over it in the first place?

Either way you've envisioned a 'god' who just can't abide these 'sinners' he made.

I'm not envisioning anything. I'm simply pointing out that "holiness" as described in these texts is like an antiseptic cleanser, and the biblical god points out that it anyone wants to draw near to him, they're going to have to stop sinning. It's their choice, not his. At least that's how it works in the old testament. In the new testament, it is God who removes the sin. See how that works? So all our blustering about how God is a tyrant was all for nothing. All you had to do was look at what these atuhors have been pointing out. Which is that God does all the work so you don't have to. Simple

What a ridiculous theology!

I'm not even really talking about theology so no wonder you come to this conclusion.

It is laughable and pathetic on its face.

What's laughable and pathetic is viewing common sense as 'theology'. Some people just insist that anyone who see's anything worthwhile in the pages of the bible must be a theologian. Just because one enjoys their garage doesn't mean they're a car.

AND this, your, vision of God is just about the opposite of the example set by Jesus of Nazareth who drank with the drinkers, ate with the party goers, sat with prostitutes and ministered to sinners.

I didn't post that, and without context, don't see much point in commenting. Seems to be a pattern with your posts as well.

This 'Christian' god of yours can be just about anything a human imagines, from opposite to opposite.

This 'Christian god of yours" is much more yours than mine. In fact, I completely reject that god. I don't believe in any of your imaginary gods. Are you ever going to present anything other than straw man arguments?

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 79 by Danmark]

Christians can't reject the God of the Hebrew scriptures as nonsense.
Because their religion is born of Judaism.

If the Hebrew scriptures are nonsense the Christian testament would be nonsense.

The Hebrew Scriptures can be right and the Christian Testament wrong.
But the Christian Testament can't be right and the Hebrew Scriptures wrong. Impossible

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 83 by Avoice]

I think it is overbroad to think of the Old and New Testaments as 'right' or 'wrong.' Those labels don't help the analysis. For me the question is more specific, whether the supernatural claims have merit or are reasonable. i don't think they are. I agree with the obvious fact that xianity comes from its Hebrew foundation and with your formula about their interdependence.

I wrote:

That is one of the reasons many reject the 'Old Testament' as utter nonsense and as portraying a 'God' that is unreasonable, unfair, petty, defensive, and an all around tyrant. This version of God, the one that can't tolerate proximity of others, who is so pathetic he loses his mind and overreacts to what at most would be a minor annoyance to the creator and ruler of the universe seems precisely human... and not a very likable human at that.

Let's be clear, it is not that this monster is believed in and hated; it is not believed in because it is a monster.

I call 'him' a monster not because he sets out a reasonable prophylactic against sin, an antibiotic against 'germs,' (to borrow a false analogy) but because he destroyed an entire world, including kittens, because he was annoyed by their 'sin.' This is the classic case of killing the patient to get rid of a microbe.

This monstrous character of the alleged 'god' continues with one very human like overreaction after another, from plagues and drownings, to striking dead someone because he tried to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling. We see it in Abraham's torture and provoked attempted murder of his son, in Elisha ordering a bear to tear apart children because they called him 'baldy;' in his tribal commandsto kill women and children. This old geezer 'god' acts just like a petulant parent or vice principal with too much power.

But it isn't just the monstrous quality of this tyrant's character that disproves the supernatural claims, it is the humanness of his personality, his irritability and self aggrandizement; his pettiness and petulance; his lack of humor. At least with Jesus we see some humanity and humor. Could Jesus be the son of this menacing monster? No.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 83 by Avoice]

I think it is overbroad to think of the Old and New Testaments as 'right' or 'wrong.' Those labels don't help the analysis.

Interesting point.

I call 'him' a monster...because he destroyed an entire world, including kittens,

And this is an improvement in labeling and analysis? Obviously, by your own claims, this isn't wrong so why does this result in you labeling 'him' a monster?