How would the resurrection prove that Jesus is God anyway?

[Wootah]

Argument from contradiction applies here.

If Jesus is not God then he cannot justly pay for crimes against God.

Jesus does justly pay for crimes against God.

Therefore Jesus is God.

[Divine Insight]

ou can't be serious. LOL!!! That's all you've been doing, here; complaining. Like:

"Why, oh why do we have to assume the Bible is true? Oh, it hurts so bad! Why?"

Are you a Christian? If so, why are you bearing false witness against your neighbor? O m ever said those words. I simply pointed out that a theology that demands that we must accept it as truth cannot possibly quality as a legitimate academic subject since it has already demanded its conclusion.

By the way, you seem to be ignoring a major issue here.

The Bible says that God spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his Son. I not only agree that the Bible says this, but I accept this dogma as "Biblical Authority", which DOES NOT mean that I need to accept it as any actual truth of any reality.

However, ask the two theists who posted in this thread (i.e. Elijah John and Avoice) if they accept the "Biblical Authority" that God spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his son.

Unless I'm mistaken neither of them accept that Jesus was the Son of God.

So I'm actually accepting "Biblical Authority" more than they are. In fact I even DEMAND that we cannot ignore that the Bible makes this claim. That doesn't mean that I accept it as representing any truth of reality. It's merely true that the Biblical dogma makes this claim.

So apparently I'm accepting what the Bible has to say more than the so-called "theists" who are posting in this thread.

[Danmark]

We all care about the truth. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

And how do you determine what the truth is?

[otseng]

I don't believe that the rule say that you need to accept the Bible is TRUE.

au·thor·i·ta·tive /əˈTHôrəˌt�div/ able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.

Who said that it had to refer to that kind of "authority"?

So you want to debate the purpose of the forum now? Bless your heart...

Moderator Intervention

I'd like to request ceasing the debate on whether the Bible is true or authoritative. The whole point of this subforum is to avoid such derailments. If anyone cannot accept the Bible is authoritative, please use the other subforums for debating.


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[marco]

Argument from contradiction applies here.

If Jesus is not God then he cannot justly pay for crimes against God.

Jesus does justly pay for crimes against God.

Therefore Jesus is God.

The first statement is debatable. If God wished a human to pay for crimes against him, then that is his prerogative. In theological theory we assume that the Redeemer must have special status. I'm not sure that he has to be God himself: at least I can see no proof of this claim in Scripture. Christ is called the second Adam, certainly; a man creatd in perfection.


The second statement is again contentious theology.


Basically we are saying that if we suppose Christ is God, he is God. There's a volume of War and Peace to argue through before we accept this as a correct statement.

[Divine Insight]

If Jesus is not God then he cannot justly pay for crimes against God.

Can you show where in the Biblical theology it says that only God can pay for crimes against God?

[Wootah]

If Jesus is not God then he cannot justly pay for crimes against God.

Can you show where in the Biblical theology it says that only God can pay for crimes against God?

Exodus 21:23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The concept is well established in the Bible that justice implies compensation of at least like for like. It also means that you cannot be unjustice and take a hand for a foot.

This is equally important. If Jesus is not God then he cannot pay for sins against God.

[Divine Insight]

The concept is well established in the Bible that justice implies compensation of at least like for like.

So how is God like sin?

[Danmark]

Exodus 21:23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The concept is well established in the Bible that justice implies compensation of at least like for like. It also means that you cannot be unjustice and take a hand for a foot.

This is equally important. If Jesus is not God then he cannot pay for sins against God.

"You are to take life for life, eye for eye." That command alone is enough to reject the Bible as coming from a loving God. Perhaps that is why more enlightened souls needed to refute the entire principle of the Bible and come up with the absurd notion that a man became a god so he could undue such despicable nonsense.

“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind�

[Danmark]

Exodus 21:23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The concept is well established in the Bible that justice implies compensation of at least like for like. It also means that you cannot be unjustice and take a hand for a foot.

This is equally important. If Jesus is not God then he cannot pay for sins against God.

"You are to take life for life, eye for eye." That command alone is enough to reject the Bible as coming from a loving God. Perhaps that is why more enlightened souls needed to refute the entire principle of the Bible and come up with the absurd notion that a man became a god so he could undue such despicable nonsense.

“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind�

The doctrine of salvation only thru Jesus is an answer to a straw man belief established in the Old Testament.

[JehovahsWitness]

EXODUS 21:23-25

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise

DOES THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF RECOMPENSE MEAN ONLY GOD CAN PAY BACK TO GOD?


ANSWER The principle behind Exodus was of equality of payment of damages incurred, who was injured (or damaged) was to be totally irrelevant. One did not have to pay more if the victim had more power, authority, rank, or influence, nor was repayment to be in proportion to income. If there was a principle of "equally of import." , it was that all potential victims stood equally important before the law and that damages were not to be established proportional to the importance (whether real or perceived) of the offended party.

To illustrate, if a pauper stole a penny from a millionaire (the amount of which would have in fact constituted 0.000001 percent of the injured party's income) he had to repay a penny. If he stole the same amount from a fellow pauper (for whom the penny may have presented say, 50%of his daily income) he still only had the repay ...a penny. They didn't say "You stole from someone of greater power and higher rank so you must pay more in relation to that. Or you took out the eye of a king, and a kings eye is more important than the eye of a pauper so we have to take a your eye and your leg to balance things out!*

* NOTE The Mosaic law didn't in fact impose actual mutilation, monetary compensation or some other compensationary measures were usually taken


A Pauper that murdered a King or a Judge didnt have to find the life of a King or Judge, his "pauper life" was viewed as equal to the life of a KING and justice was viewed to have been served if his own life was taken in payment for the life lost.

• God is superior to everyone in power, rank, experience, authority, and ownership rights, influence and every other aspect. He is the ultimate "millionaire" but applying the principle of Exodus 21:23, if you could steal a "penny" from him you don't have to pay more than you stole. A penny from God is still just a penny. The effect may well be more devastating but repayment did not take that into account. The law was "Eye for Eye", it did not say "equal eye for equal eye" because all eyes (or lives) were viewed as equal. A God eye is obviously more important than any human eye, as he does more with his eye but under the Mosaic Law, any loss or damages suffered even by God would be paid in value of the item damaged not the import of God as a victim

If you steal from God you must pay back to God what you stole: you do not have to pay back the value of God !

CONCLUSION According to the Mosaic Law one did not have to *BE* equal to the person offended to properly recompense for damages against that person. It is absolutely without foundation to use Exodus 21:23 to support the supposition that "Only God can pay for sins against God" The Mosaic law disregarded who was offended in favor of what was done to that person. The ransom was not punishment but it respected the principle of reconstition of that which was lost, not who it was lost from.

JW




RELATED POSTS

Does Almighty GOD have to die for mankind since the original sin was against God? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=979715#p979715

Does waving a debt repair damages?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 07#p961607

To what did the ransom correspond?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 14#p852214

Why is there a need for atonement in biblical theology ?
viewtopic.php?p=1042433#p1042433

Why would GOD dying for Adam's sin violate the principle of equality of recompense?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 45#p959845

For more details please go to other posts related to...

ADAM &EVE, ORIGINAL SIN and ...RANSOM