An honest question for Christians

[yavoon]

sorry if I was smug. I didnt mean to be. I was just pointing out one possible reason for the futility of the argument.

[Ned]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Wernazuma:

In order for Christ to atone for sins, he must be fully God and fully man at the same time.

Why?

It seems, like the temptation, that he has to be human.

[SnowFire]

Obiwan: While most churches agree on the "fully human/ fully God" part nowadays, this was a hot topic of conversation in the early days of the church before Christian theology had really been hammered out. There were some Greeks (and the Gnostics too, IIRC) who believed that Jesus wasn't really human at all- He was just a divine hologram of sorts. God just made people see something that looked like a human, when it was just his pure spirit telling people stuff (this was partially from the whole Greek "The spirit is greater than the body, therefore a being of pure spirit [God] would never soil itself with a rotting earthly body"). Among others, like say some Jews, Jesus was a prophet, yes, but Son of God? No. And then there were people like the Arians, who believed that Jesus, being the Son of God, was neccessarily "less" than God himself. Sure, he was fully human, but he wasn't quite God- just part of him, or something.

Most of these creeds perished with the fall of Rome and less big cities to have religious diversity in, and the Church clamping down the findings of the Council of Nicea. While I happen to disagree with most of these early heresies, unfortunately the Church was a little too good at stomping resistance and hence we have the long stagnation until Martin Luther brought inter-Christian debate back to life.

Edit: Seems like Ned got in before me. Oh well.

[Alexander's Horse]

There was a lot of confusion about Jesus divinity/humanity in the ancient world because of existing religious traditions. Polytheism was common, also common was the idea that a human could become a God or be part human, part God. The belief that Gods could appear in human form was also common.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
There was a lot of confusion about Jesus divinity/humanity in the ancient world because of existing religious traditions. Polytheism was common, also common was the idea that a human could become a God or be part human, part God. The belief that Gods could appear in human form was also common.

The average person in the first centuries, schooled on the immortality of the gods, would be very confused to first be told that Christ died on the cross and that he was also God.

[Alexander's Horse]

Not necessarily - Gods in some religions common at the time made sacrafices of themselves.

[Dom Pedro II]

Indeed, there are many examples in ancient Egyptian religion and Hinduism as well as in the Americas with the Aztecs.

[Jaguar]

I have no clue, but I'm not Christian so I don't have to answer.

[cinch]

Apocalypse (or anyone, really):

Satan tried to temp God in the book of Job. God really got pissed about this and put the smack down on Satan.

Yeah, but God put Job in that position. He gave all of Job's belongings to Satan to play with, just to prove a point, and rub it in the devil's face. But, yes, it backfired.

God kinda acts immaturely in the Old Testament, eh?

You really annoy me in that you don't really take the bible as a whole. You say the bible is full of contridictions, but you don't really look at it fully. I'm not saying there aren't contridictions, but you really have no place to talk in this issue.

Why does the Bible have to be looked at fully? It's a collection of different books, written at completely different times, by completely different people, tied together somewhat loosely by the appearance of Yahweh & friends. It seems perfectly acceptable to critique certain books and not others.

[Ben Kenobi]

God kinda acts immaturely in the Old Testament, eh?

Cinch: You need to re-read Job. Satan argued that Job only loved God because of the blessings God provides to those who love him.

In order to prove Satan wrong, God has to let Job suffer so that it can be proved people do love God regardless of their current state.

It's not an arbitrary decision, but the only recourse for God to answer Satan's challenge.

[Dom Pedro II]

God kinda acts immaturely in the Old Testament, eh?

Further evidence that the Bible is man's creation and not God's. This is perfectly in keeping with the anthropomorphic view of fallible and human-like gods present in the old religions throughout the ancient world in both the Old and New World.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by cinch
Yeah, but God put Job in that position. He gave all of Job's belongings to Satan to play with, just to prove a point, and rub it in the devil's face. But, yes, it backfired.

obiwan handled this satisfactorally.

Originally posted by cinch
Why does the Bible have to be looked at fully? It's a collection of different books, written at completely different times, by completely different people, tied together somewhat loosely by the appearance of Yahweh & friends. It seems perfectly acceptable to critique certain books and not others.

Well, if one book fills in where another left out...

[Boris Godunov]

Since one of the basics of being human is being limited in power, I think it is rather contradictory that a being can be both an omnipotent/omniscient God and still be a man. The only way for God to have been really human is to be non-omnipotent, non-omniscient and have a fear of death. Did Jesus have any of these things in the Xtian mythology?

[Ben Kenobi]

ned:

CS Lewis has a good analogy that helps to understand Christ's atonement.

Christ bridges the gap between men and between God, a huge chasm. If Christ is not a man, he is like a bridge extending from God's end that does not quite reach man. Your argument has Christ being a bridge from Man's end that does not reach God. He can suffer, but all men break under temptation. Both examples are an insufficient bridge. What you need is someone both God and man to bridge the gap between the two, providing forgiveness for men's sins.

[cinch]

obi:

Cinch: You need to re-read Job. Satan argued that Job only loved God because of the blessings God provides to those who love him.
In order to prove Satan wrong, God has to let Job suffer so that it can be proved people do love God regardless of their current state.

If God is omniscient, why couldn't he just *know* that Job loved him only for his blessings? Why did he have to make Job lose all of his blessings to prove this to SATAN, of all beings?? God kills Job's children to prove a point.

And when Job, a just and right man, questions why his children have died? God responds with a poetic ode to... Himself.