Crucifixion and forgiveness, a non sequitur

[Nihilist Virus]

Nope. The language and theology of the Atonement, through various ways, goes about explaining Christ's work. If I say that Christ takes upon Himself the full weight of human sin in His death, and that therefore in dying He brings that into death, and in rising defeats the full weight of sin there has been no non-sequitur.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that an argument makes sense if there is no logical syllogism to encapsulate it. That is the entire point of logic. So you must either produce the logical syllogism, admit you're wrong, or else go claim your Nobel Prize for reinventing logic as we know it.

I haven't provided some sort of mechanical explanation--where none is to be had--but I certainly haven't offered a non-sequitur.

If an ancient person said, "Today I have chosen my best animal from my flock, slashed its throat, and lit it on fire; therefore, we will have a good harvest this year," then I would be right to point out the non sequitur.

And here you are telling me, "Jesus was executed; therefore, we have victory over death." I'm sorry, but I need you to connect the dots for me. I've already given you two massive premises for free. As it stands, your beliefs are totally nonsensical even when the skeptic handicaps himself. This is pathetic.

The backstory to the Gospel is the long history of man's inhumanity to man. That includes genocide, racism, sexism, and the condoning of rape and slavery. So yes, that is the backstory: there exists in our world an unbearably deep wound. (And, yes, I'm quite aware that this was intended as a swipe against the Old Testament.)

Thanks for the honesty.

Saying it is "incompatible" with history is presumptive. If it, in fact, happened, then it wouldn't be incompatible with history now would it?

Now you're being silly. Do you really believe the great flood happened?

As far as science? Irrelevant. Science doesn't deal with unfalsifiable claims.

Genesis 1 is falsifiable.

And as far as "self-contradictory", you'll need to do better than that. What is self-contradictory here?

-CryptoLutheran

So you're playing dumb three times here, and now when I read your words my internal voice is that of the Three Stooges. I'd bet my life and all I have that you are acutely aware that the Bible contradicts itself many times.

 

[-V-]

I'm sorry, but I need you to connect the dots for me. I've already given you two massive premises for free. As it stands, your beliefs are totally nonsensical even when the skeptic handicaps himself. This is pathetic.

Yeah! Don't you all know that it's not logical until NV understands it!!

 

[StTruth]

Peter never mentioned it?

"You know that from your empty way of life inherited from your ancestors you were ransomed – not by perishable things like silver or gold, but by precious blood like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb, namely Christ." - 1 Peter 1:18-19

Hi V,

1 Peter can hardly be used as what St Peter said. Serious scholars are well-aware that 1 Peter is a pseudepigraphical work. That's something written by someone who pretends it's written by someone else more important.

Acts 2 is supposed to be an account of the earliest Christian knee jerk reaction to our Lord's crucifixion and death. It also contains an account of the first speech an Apostle made concerning the significance of our Lord's death. Notice that St Peter told the Jews that they had killed an innocent man. Not once did he even talk about the redemptive significance of our Lord's death.

I got that from the New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman in his book, The New Testament. He opines in the book that the idea that Jesus' death took on a redemptive role only came about subsequent to this. That was also the time when the early Christians trawled the whole of the Old Testament to inject Christ into just about every prophecy they could find. Many of these prophecies specify a time frame that is centuries before Jesus' birth but they still squeezed our Lord in to fit the prophecies somehow. Some of these aren't even prophecies but the early Christians turned them into prophecies foretelling Jesus. One good example is St Matthew's mention of "Out of Egypt have I called my son" which actually talks about the sin of the Jews in worshipping false gods but St Matthew applied a part of it to Christ without even thinking that the verse is really talking about sinful Jews and not our Lord who is perfect.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[-V-]

Hi V,

1 Peter can hardly be used as what St Peter said. Serious scholars are well-aware that 1 Peter is a pseudepigraphical work.

SOME serious LIBERAL scholars are "well-aware", I don't doubt.
21. First Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline
The first section deals with authorship. It's still quite plausible that Peter is the author.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi Nihilist Virus,

You have misunderstood me. I did not say that slashing the throats of animals or crucifying our Lord achieved anything. I didn't say that at all. I was merely explaining why the vehicle of crucifixion was chosen by the early Christians as a means for the redemption of mankind. I am saying there is no logical connection but they chose it because they were used to this idea of death for the sake of forgiveness.

Cheers,

St Truth

Your clarification here only confuses me further. This thread is about what Jesus accomplished on the cross and why (or how it worked and was necessary). If that's not what you were talking about, then I'm sorry but you were off topic.

If I may add to what I have said, some scholars have said that this idea that our Lord's crucifixion had redemptive effect was not an idea adopted from the very start. There is evidence to suggest that the redemptive effect of His death was only brought up much later. At first, St Peter's argument seemed to be that Jesus was innocent but the Jews killed him. Not once did St Peter allude to his death for our redemption. It took the church some time to come up with the dogma on redemption.

Well thank you for your honesty. Can you conjecture what Christ accomplished, then?

 

[StTruth]

Your clarification here only confuses me further. This thread is about what Jesus accomplished on the cross and why (or how it worked and was necessary). If that's not what you were talking about, then I'm sorry but you were off topic.




Well thank you for your honesty. Can you conjecture what Christ accomplished, then?

Hi Nihilist Virus,

Thanks for your reply. Perhaps you don't understand how religion works to the faithful and I don't mean to say this in a rude way. I mean since you are an atheist, you may not understand how believers think. You tend to think we are all logical. You see, you and I can believe that X leads to Y and so Y must exist but I may suddenly introduce a Z out of nothing and you become befuddled and annoyed because I seem to be a lunatic in my reasoning but that is what religion basically is. We introduce a God out of nothing and with zero evidence and zero logic.

You ask what Christ has accomplished. For us believers (or at least for me), the truth of Jesus and his "accomplishments" isn't important. I have argued with people who say Christ probably didn't exist or with people who say that Christ probably didn't teach the same religion as St Paul and his Hellenistic school did. That may very well be factually true but it doesn't bother us one bit. You may also argue that we have perverted the idea of God as a Trinity and have flouted the OT sheema. That again may be factually true. But you see, it's not important to me what the truth actually is when it comes to my religion. It's what the church teaches and true, the church may teach something quite different in apostolic times from what it teaches today.

So, what I really think Christ accomplished is not important. What is important is what is the teaching of the Church on Christ's accomplishment on the cross. As I understand it, the teaching is Christ died on the cross to redeem our sins so that we may have forgiveness from God. If we rebel against this teaching of the Church, we may decide to become atheists. If we submit to it, we remain in the faith.

We who are Christians submit to it even if it's so palpably false to some of us.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi Nihilist Virus,

Thanks for your reply. Perhaps you don't understand how religion works to the faithful and I don't mean to say this in a rude way. I mean since you are an atheist, you may not understand how believers think. You tend to think we are all logical. You see, you and I can believe that X leads to Y and so Y must exist but I may suddenly introduce a Z out of nothing and you become befuddled and annoyed because I seem to be a lunatic in my reasoning but that is what religion basically is. We introduce a God out of nothing and with zero evidence and zero logic.

You ask what Christ has accomplished. For us believers (or at least for me), the truth of Jesus and his "accomplishments" isn't important. I have argued with people who say Christ probably didn't exist or with people who say that Christ probably didn't teach the same religion as St Paul and his Hellenistic school did. That may very well be factually true but it doesn't bother us one bit. You may also argue that we have perverted the idea of God as a Trinity and have flouted the OT sheema. That again may be factually true. But you see, it's not important to me what the truth actually is when it comes to my religion. It's what the church teaches and true, the church may teach something quite different in apostolic times from what it teaches today.

So, what I really think Christ accomplished is not important. What is important is what is the teaching of the Church on Christ's accomplishment on the cross. As I understand it, the teaching is Christ died on the cross to redeem our sins so that we may have forgiveness from God. If we rebel against this teaching of the Church, we may decide to become atheists. If we submit to it, we remain in the faith.

We who are Christians submit to it even if it's so palpably false to some of us.

Cheers,

St Truth

Thanks for your honesty. It appears we have no common ground.

 

[StTruth]

Thanks for your honesty. It appears we have no common ground.

We have. In fact, we have more common ground than you do with other believers. First, we both agree that there is no logical connection between Jesus' death and forgiveness. Second, we both agree that the church rules that Jesus' death has redemptive effect for us men. Where we differ is our submission to the church. I submit but you don't.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[ViaCrucis]

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that an argument makes sense if there is no logical syllogism to encapsulate it. That is the entire point of logic. So you must either produce the logical syllogism, admit you're wrong, or else go claim your Nobel Prize for reinventing logic as we know it.

A - I turned on my car today, it started, and I drove to work.
B - My car currently works.

Is it a non-sequitur that if B is predicated on A being true that if A is true then therefore B is also true?

Or do I have need to have a robust understanding of automotive engineering and the theory of internal combustion to be able to make my statement?

If an ancient person said, "Today I have chosen my best animal from my flock, slashed its throat, and lit it on fire; therefore, we will have a good harvest this year," then I would be right to point out the non sequitur.

That on its own, yes. But if an ancient person said: "Since ancient times the gods have instructed us to slay a prized yearling that we might be blessed with a good harvest" then the non-sequitur disappears: the conclusion is predicated on a belief that the gods will blessed with a good harvest if an action is undertaken. If A is true, and if B is predicated on A being true, then therefore B is also true.

And here you are telling me, "Jesus was executed; therefore, we have victory over death." I'm sorry, but I need you to connect the dots for me. I've already given you two massive premises for free. As it stands, your beliefs are totally nonsensical even when the skeptic handicaps himself. This is pathetic.

Jesus died and rose from the dead; His victory over death becomes ours because we will also be raised from the dead, and this is given to us, in present, as a promise in the Gospel which is received in faith.

If Jesus rose from the dead, then Jesus has overcome death.
If Jesus has overcome death and promises that all who trust in Him will overcome death.
And if Jesus' promises can be trusted.
Then we will also overcome death.

Not a non-sequitur.

Now you're being silly. Do you really believe the great flood happened?

Moving goalposts. We were talking about the Christian doctrine of Atonement. No, I don't believe there was a world-wide flood; the story of the flood in Genesis 6 is not literal history.

Genesis 1 is falsifiable.

Like the above, this is moving goalposts. We weren't talking about Genesis ch. 1, we were talking about the Christian doctrine of the Atonement. And yes, a literal interpretation of Genesis ch. 1 is falsifiable--but at no point was this remotely under discussion.

So you're playing dumb three times here, and now when I read your words my internal voice is that of the Three Stooges. I'd bet my life and all I have that you are acutely aware that the Bible contradicts itself many times.

Apparently you chose to change the topic without letting anyone know about it.

Like above, this is moving goalposts. We weren't talking about the Bible, we were talking about the Christian doctrine of the Atonement.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[StTruth]

If Jesus rose from the dead, then Jesus has overcome death.
If Jesus has overcome death and promises that all who trust in Him will overcome death.
And if Jesus' promises can be trusted.
Then we will also overcome death.

-CryptoLutheran

I always have a problem with that. This is a sorry case of one wild presupposition riding upon another and another and another. IF Jesus rose from the dead is a VERY big IF. Supposing you can get round that (which I do not for a moment believe you or anyone else can), your second series of presuppositions are equally problematic. Did Jesus really promise that Christians can overcome death? Serious scholars have shown that many things Jesus is reported to have said probably were never said in the first place. In the Holy Gospels, there are many obviously wrong and demonstrably incorrect things that Jesus is supposed to have said. All this will make your assurance that you will overcome death even more untenable.

I'm saying this not because I disbelieve the Christian claims about eternal life. I'm just saying that our religious claims do not rest on logic and cannot be defended cerebrally.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[Nihilist Virus]

We have. In fact, we have more common ground than you do with other believers. First, we both agree that there is no logical connection between Jesus' death and forgiveness. Second, we both agree that the church rules that Jesus' death has redemptive effect for us men. Where we differ is our submission to the church. I submit but you don't.

Cheers,

St Truth

OK, well I cannot conceive of a reason to do that.

 

[StTruth]

OK, well I cannot conceive of a reason to do that.

That is why you are an atheist. There is no reason to faith. There is no reason to submit to the church either. You just do it if you are a Christian and you don't if you are an atheist. Maybe it has a lot to do with the upbringing as well, as in all things. My family is pious. I may change when I'm older and I'm independent but right now, I believe strongly in the church and I love the church too much to leave it.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You can use that language, I suppose - saying that sentences intrinsically have a conclusion - but that does not make them arguments. A flower is not violent if we call it a Murder Rose, and a sentence is not an argument if you call it a statement with a conclusion.



My statements can be fed into any argument you can think of. That doesn't mean the statements themselves are arguments.



Advocacy is not logical implication.



This conversation is asinine.

I said Declarative sentences. Those were such sentences, or do you deny they stated something was thus or an equivalency? So you are merely obfuscating to try and hide your error. I agree the discussion has been asinine. Most of your responses feel as if they were lifted from a Monty Python sketch, just not as funny.

I don't care to go on about this floundering anymore. You're devoting post after post to defend what you flippantly threw out as a joke. I showed you were wrong, and that's the end of it. Now do you have a syllogism related to the OP or are we done?

Yes, the key word is floundering. You do seem to be thoroughly out of your depth. I actually went to the trouble of defining the meanings of the terms and breaking down the sentences into their constituent propositions, yet you still take this tact? I cannot do anything with willful ignorance.

That's wonderful, you could replace the first word of the post with a "therefore." But since it is the first word of the post, it's not the conclusion of anything I said. ViaCrucis said that no syllogism related to the OP exists, and I said, "[Therefore] the core belief of Christianity is a non sequitur..." which follows by definition. Application or citation of a definition is not an argument. Again, this is absurd and moronic, and we're moving on. Or at least I am. Please post something related to the OP, or kindly derail some other thread.

If this is what ViaCrucis said, he is wrong. But this is not what he said. He said it wasn't spelled out, which is hardly the same thing. This is the difference between an apodictic syllogism and an assertoric one, which I have already tried to explain to you, only to receive a flippant and nonsensical response.

I'd love for you to make a thread defending the historicity of Christian claims. Be sure to send me a PM if you do so as I won't automatically see it. But we're not discussing that here.

We have discussed it many times before, so I don't see why I need repeat myself. I assume perhaps that is why you had me on ignore, as you did not like the responses you received.

Right, you are unaware that the Bible promotes genocide and condones slavery. And yet you know all about everything else in the Bible and the age of the church.

Correct, it doesn't do so. For the crux of the Bible is of course Jesus and those things are inimical to teachings like Love thy Neighbour. So yes, the entirety of the Bible neither condones slavery nor genocide. If I take certain verses, I can paint it that way, but I can take sentences from the Origin of Species to deny Natural Selection if I wanted to. That hardly is applicable.

Did you really try to educate, or did you spend way too long defending a point that you knew was wrong only to patronize me at the end and pat yourself on the back for claiming to know how logic works?



Remove the plank from your own eye before you dig for the speck in mine.



I agree, discussion has been quite tedious as you've been off topic from the start and now here we are several posts deep logically probing a failed joke.

I made no joke, I merely pointed out your statements were non-sequiturs. Thereafter I explained logic, which the OP was calling for by asking for a syllogism. Thus we are thoroughly within the rails on this thread, as the inherent problem is that you fail to understand how syllogistic logic functions, and therefore your either irate or puerile responses here to peoples' posts, are thoroughly unjustified.


If you really want a syllogism:
1. Jesus died on the cross.
2. Jesus is God.
3. God was on the Cross.
3. Cursed is he who hangs from a tree.
4. God was thus cursed.
5. God is sinless per defitionem.
6. God was thus cursed and sinless on the cross.
7. The scapegoat was sinless and cursed.
8. God and Jesus are already stated to be equivalent, therefore Jesus is a Scapegoat.
9. The scapegoat was for the forgiveness of the people's sin.
10. Thus Jesus acted as the scapegoat for the forgiveness of sin on the cross.

So there you go. There are other ways to do it also, but I should keep it simple so that you may grasp it better. These aren't apodictic, but based on Biblical assertions made, but it remains a logical syllogism based thereon. As so far you have singularly failed to address any syllogism offered according to logical precepts, I am not hopeful. These are not non-sequiturs, but the propositions flow from one another.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

A - I turned on my car today, it started, and I drove to work.
B - My car currently works.

Is it a non-sequitur that if B is predicated on A being true that if A is true then therefore B is also true?

It's poorly phrased but it's not a non sequitur. If fixed it would be of the form "If X, then Y. X. Therefore, Y."

Or do I have need to have a robust understanding of automotive engineering and the theory of internal combustion to be able to make my statement?

Is this silliness intended to detract from the fact that 2000 years of Christian philosophy and theology have utterly failed to logically describe their most fundamental belief even when spotted outlandish premises for free? I can pretty much let you have any premise you could possibly want and you still cannot show the logical or physical necessity for Christ's death and resurrection.

There is no church of cars. But there's a church of Christ and it has made a lot of promises. You know, like selling us something that we can't have until we're dead. So I think my request here is reasonable given the stakes.

That on its own, yes. But if an ancient person said: "Since ancient times the gods have instructed us to slay a prized yearling that we might be blessed with a good harvest" then the non-sequitur disappears: the conclusion is predicated on a belief that the gods will blessed with a good harvest if an action is undertaken. If A is true, and if B is predicated on A being true, then therefore B is also true.

The solution you're suggesting here to dissolve the non sequitur does not apply to Christ. In fact it directly contradicts the penal substitution theory that you reject. If these primitives are killing their goats because their deity demands blood sacrifice for blessings, then the analog here has the Christian God demanding the blood sacrifice from Jesus not for blessing but in this case atonement. Even on that theology, I still see a non sequitur because there is no compelling reason that God couldn't just forgive as an act of will.

Recall that Christ prayed in the garden: "If there is any other way..." Christ did not want to die, but had to. So, what is it that compelled him? What is the logical or physical necessity that dictated his actions? That's the point of my analogy. If the gods are not bloodthirsty, what is the actual necessity for slaughtering your animals and wiping the blood and guts on an altar? If the Christian God is not bloodthirsty, what was the point of the crucifixion?

Jesus died and rose from the dead; His victory over death becomes ours because we will also be raised from the dead, and this is given to us, in present, as a promise in the Gospel which is received in faith.

Again, non sequitur. Why is Jesus' death and resurrection necessary? Are you saying that God is physically incapable of raising us from the dead unless Jesus dies and rises first? If God is able to raise the dead without Christ's death, and if Christ did not want to die, then what was the point?

If Jesus rose from the dead, then Jesus has overcome death.
If Jesus has overcome death and promises that all who trust in Him will overcome death.
And if Jesus' promises can be trusted.
Then we will also overcome death.

Not a non-sequitur.

It's obviously a non sequitur.

If my doctor is a cancer survivor, then he has overcome cancer.
If my doctor has overcome cancer and promises that all whom he treats will overcome cancer.
And if his promises can be trusted.
Then we will also overcome cancer.

Crossing out the non sequitur:

If my doctor is a cancer survivor, then he has overcome cancer.
If my doctor has overcome cancer and promises that all whom he treats will overcome cancer.
And if his promises can be trusted.
Then we will also overcome cancer.

Rewritten without strike-through:

If my doctor promises that all whom he treats will overcome cancer.
And if his promises can be trusted.
Then we will also overcome cancer.

Applying this to your argument:

If Jesus rose from the dead, then Jesus has overcome death.
If Jesus has overcome death and promises that all who trust in Him will overcome death.
And if Jesus' promises can be trusted.
Then we will also overcome death

Rewritten:

If Jesus promises that all who trust in Him will overcome death.
And if Jesus' promises can be trusted.
Then we will also overcome death.

Argument unaltered with insertion of random premise:

Jesus ate a cheeseburger.
If Jesus promises that all who trust in Him will overcome death.
And if Jesus' promises can be trusted.
Then we will also overcome death.


Non sequitur.

Moving goalposts. We were talking about the Christian doctrine of Atonement. No, I don't believe there was a world-wide flood; the story of the flood in Genesis 6 is not literal history.



Like the above, this is moving goalposts. We weren't talking about Genesis ch. 1, we were talking about the Christian doctrine of the Atonement. And yes, a literal interpretation of Genesis ch. 1 is falsifiable--but at no point was this remotely under discussion.



Apparently you chose to change the topic without letting anyone know about it.

Like above, this is moving goalposts. We weren't talking about the Bible, we were talking about the Christian doctrine of the Atonement.

-CryptoLutheran

Moving the goalposts is where one changes the criteria for victory conditions in a debate. I was just changing the subject briefly, but - no worries - we're back on track.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I said Declarative sentences. Those were such sentences, or do you deny they stated something was thus or an equivalency? So you are merely obfuscating to try and hide your error. I agree the discussion has been asinine. Most of your responses feel as if they were lifted from a Monty Python sketch, just not as funny.


Yes, the key word is floundering. You do seem to be thoroughly out of your depth. I actually went to the trouble of defining the meanings of the terms and breaking down the sentences into their constituent propositions, yet you still take this tact? I cannot do anything with willful ignorance.


If this is what ViaCrucis said, he is wrong. But this is not what he said. He said it wasn't spelled out, which is hardly the same thing. This is the difference between an apodictic syllogism and an assertoric one, which I have already tried to explain to you, only to receive a flippant and nonsensical response.


We have discussed it many times before, so I don't see why I need repeat myself. I assume perhaps that is why you had me on ignore, as you did not like the responses you received.


Correct, it doesn't do so. For the crux of the Bible is of course Jesus and those things are inimical to teachings like Love thy Neighbour. So yes, the entirety of the Bible neither condones slavery nor genocide. If I take certain verses, I can paint it that way, but I can take sentences from the Origin of Species to deny Natural Selection if I wanted to. That hardly is applicable.


I made no joke, I merely pointed out your statements were non-sequiturs. Thereafter I explained logic, which the OP was calling for by asking for a syllogism. Thus we are thoroughly within the rails on this thread, as the inherent problem is that you fail to understand how syllogistic logic functions, and therefore your either irate or puerile responses here to peoples' posts, are thoroughly unjustified.

I have no reservation in admitting when I'm wrong. This just isn't one of those cases. I said we're done on that issue and I'm not reading what you have to say here. I just don't care.

If you really want a syllogism:
1. Jesus died on the cross.
2. Jesus is God.
3. God was on the Cross.
3. Cursed is he who hangs from a tree.
4. God was thus cursed.
5. God is sinless per defitionem.
6. God was thus cursed and sinless on the cross.
7. The scapegoat was sinless and cursed.
8. God and Jesus are already stated to be equivalent, therefore Jesus is a Scapegoat.
9. The scapegoat was for the forgiveness of the people's sin.
10. Thus Jesus acted as the scapegoat for the forgiveness of sin on the cross.

Thanks! But it seems you've labored just to get to the point in question here on this thread. Your answer to a thread titled "Crucifixion and forgiveness, a non sequitur" is that "Jesus acted as the scapegoat for the forgiveness of sin on the cross." Nowhere do you explain what sin is, what a curse is, and why death is remotely relevant to forgiveness. Also you do not explain how a scapegoat works.

So there you go. There are other ways to do it also, but I should keep it simple so that you may grasp it better.

Thanks, but it seemed unnecessarily complicated. Premises 2, 3 (the first one), 4, 5, 6, and half of 8 could be removed.

1. Jesus died on the cross.
3. Cursed is he who hangs from a tree.
7. The scapegoat was sinless and cursed.
8. therefore Jesus is a Scapegoat.
9. The scapegoat was for the forgiveness of the people's sin.
10. Thus Jesus acted as the scapegoat for the forgiveness of sin on the cross.

And I'm still left wondering why God cannot just forgive as an act of will.

These aren't apodictic, but based on Biblical assertions made, but it remains a logical syllogism based thereon. As so far you have singularly failed to address any syllogism offered according to logical precepts, I am not hopeful.

Clarify please. I have addressed every post on this thread and certainly every proposed syllogism.

These are not non-sequiturs, but the propositions flow from one another.

Nothing flows from anything until terms are defined. That was requested back in the OP.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is this silliness intended to detract from the fact that 2000 years of Christian philosophy and theology have utterly failed to logically describe their most fundamental belief even when spotted outlandish premises for free? I can pretty much let you have any premise you could possibly want and you still cannot show the logical or physical necessity for Christ's death and resurrection.

How about you make up your mind exactly what sort of question you want to ask. Do you want to know the underlying "mechanics" of the Atonement, a la understanding the underlying principles of automotive engineering; or do you want to understand the premises and views that are attached to Christ's death and resurrection and what those mean in Christianity?

You've stated (or it's certainly seemed to be the case) that there's a non-sequitur, seemingly on the basis of there not being a comprehensive set of established "mechanics"--that's akin to saying that one can't turn on their car, drive it to work, and say their car works without understanding the underlying mechanics of automotive engineering. That is not how a non-sequitur works.

There is no church of cars.

Irrelevant.

The solution you're suggesting here to dissolve the non sequitur does not apply to Christ.

It doesn't apply to Christ, it applies to the situation you provided.

Again, non sequitur. Why is Jesus' death and resurrection necessary? Are you saying that God is physically incapable of raising us from the dead unless Jesus dies and rises first? If God is able to raise the dead without Christ's death, and if Christ did not want to die, then what was the point?

So is your question why is Christ's death and resurrection a necessity? Has this been your question the entire time?

It's obviously a non sequitur.

If my doctor is a cancer survivor, then he has overcome cancer.
If my doctor has overcome cancer and promises that all whom he treats will overcome cancer.
And if his promises can be trusted.
Then we will also overcome cancer.

Crossing out the non sequitur:

If my doctor is a cancer survivor, then he has overcome cancer.
If my doctor has overcome cancer and promises that all whom he treats will overcome cancer.
And if his promises can be trusted.
Then we will also overcome cancer.

Rewritten without strike-through:

If my doctor promises that all whom he treats will overcome cancer.
And if his promises can be trusted.
Then we will also overcome cancer.

Applying this to your argument:

If Jesus rose from the dead, then Jesus has overcome death.
If Jesus has overcome death and promises that all who trust in Him will overcome death.
And if Jesus' promises can be trusted.
Then we will also overcome death

Rewritten:

If Jesus promises that all who trust in Him will overcome death.
And if Jesus' promises can be trusted.
Then we will also overcome death.

Argument unaltered with insertion of random premise:

Jesus ate a cheeseburger.
If Jesus promises that all who trust in Him will overcome death.
And if Jesus' promises can be trusted.
Then we will also overcome death.


Non sequitur.

Sure, anything's a non-sequitur when you rewrite it to be a non-sequitur.

I got in my car, turned it on, and drove to work; therefore I know my car works.\

I got in my car, turned it on, and drove to work; therefore I know my car works.

Purple bananas are full of vitamins; therefore I know my car works.

But fine, let's try it another way:

- Christian hope is that there will be a resurrection of the dead. We inherited this belief from the Jews, as the Prophets speak of a resurrection of the dead.

- Further: Christ said that "Whoever believes in me, I will raise him up on the last day" Thus resurrection is a promise Christ has given attached to faith and hope in Him.

- Christ died and rose from the dead. Part of the significance of this, we are told in our Scriptures, is to declare the truth of resurrection; Christ's resurrection is connected to the general resurrection. How does Christ's resurrection signify the truth of our own resurrection? That is bound up in the belief that Jesus' life and work is to recapitulate Adam: the first Adam was disobedient and brought death, the second Adam is obedient and fixes death. Christ changes the human reality by undoing what Adam did. Adam signifies us here; Christ takes Adam (us) and joins that to Himself: "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". Christ plunges Adam--our common, broken humanity--into death and raises that up in Himself. What was mortal has become immortal in Jesus; what was corruptible has become incorruptible in Jesus.

If, therefore, Christ is risen from the dead; then we hope and trust and believe that on the basis of the promises connected to and with Christ and His resurrection, that we too will be raised up even as Jesus was raised up.

Is this "necessary"? Is God unable to raise the dead unless Jesus is raised up? That's not the point. The point isn't about the absolute power of what God can and cannot do; the point is, we believe, in what God has done and the significance of what it means.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

How about you make up your mind exactly what sort of question you want to ask. Do you want to know the underlying "mechanics" of the Atonement, a la understanding the underlying principles of automotive engineering; or do you want to understand the premises and views that are attached to Christ's death and resurrection and what those mean in Christianity?

The first one. That's all this has ever been about.

You've stated (or it's certainly seemed to be the case) that there's a non-sequitur, seemingly on the basis of there not being a comprehensive set of established "mechanics"--that's akin to saying that one can't turn on their car, drive it to work, and say their car works without understanding the underlying mechanics of automotive engineering. That is not how a non-sequitur works.

If nobody on earth knew how a car works, would there be cars? No, and yet you want to leverage this analogy to try to claim that we can all be saved despite no one knowing how salvation works. Fallacy of the false analogy.

Irrelevant.

You brought it up.

It doesn't apply to Christ, it applies to the situation you provided.

The situation I brought up was the non sequitur chasm which separates death and forgiveness.

So is your question why is Christ's death and resurrection a necessity? Has this been your question the entire time?

Yes, obviously. This is the very first sentence in the OP:

Please present a sound, valid logical syllogism which explains why Christ's execution was either a physical or logical necessity for the forgiveness of sins.

Everything else is clarification on that sentence. The post was only edited 5 minutes after creation. I don't know what your confusion is stemming from.

Sure, anything's a non-sequitur when you rewrite it to be a non-sequitur.

I got in my car, turned it on, and drove to work; therefore I know my car works.\

I got in my car, turned it on, and drove to work; therefore I know my car works.

Purple bananas are full of vitamins; therefore I know my car works.

Your argument was thoroughly and meticulously debunked via a counter example. Handle it gracefully.

In your defense, you said no such argument exists.

But fine, let's try it another way:

- Christian hope is that there will be a resurrection of the dead. We inherited this belief from the Jews, as the Prophets speak of a resurrection of the dead.

- Further: Christ said that "Whoever believes in me, I will raise him up on the last day" Thus resurrection is a promise Christ has given attached to faith and hope in Him.

- Christ died and rose from the dead. Part of the significance of this, we are told in our Scriptures, is to declare the truth of resurrection; Christ's resurrection is connected to the general resurrection. How does Christ's resurrection signify the truth of our own resurrection? That is bound up in the belief that Jesus' life and work is to recapitulate Adam: the first Adam was disobedient and brought death, the second Adam is obedient and fixes death. Christ changes the human reality by undoing what Adam did. Adam signifies us here; Christ takes Adam (us) and joins that to Himself: "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". Christ plunges Adam--our common, broken humanity--into death and raises that up in Himself. What was mortal has become immortal in Jesus; what was corruptible has become incorruptible in Jesus.

If, therefore, Christ is risen from the dead; then we hope and trust and believe that on the basis of the promises connected to and with Christ and His resurrection, that we too will be raised up even as Jesus was raised up.

That's poetic, which is nice, but it doesn't actually explain anything.

Is this "necessary"? Is God unable to raise the dead unless Jesus is raised up? That's not the point.

Please present a sound, valid logical syllogism which explains why Christ's execution was either a physical or logical necessity for the forgiveness of sins.

Yes it is the point.

The point isn't about the absolute power of what God can and cannot do; the point is, we believe, in what God has done and the significance of what it means.

-CryptoLutheran

You can't just blunder onto a thread where nearly every theological proposition is already assumed from the outset and then say, "I don't need to explain how atonement works - we already assumed it does!"

It's like if you accuse me of murder and I say, "But how could I have committed the murder? Even if we assume I did, how do you explain X?" And then you say, "I don't have to explain X - we're already assuming you committed the murder!"

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I have no reservation in admitting when I'm wrong.

That is not my experience with you nor have I ever seen it demonstrated. You are often wrong though.

This just isn't one of those cases. I said we're done on that issue and I'm not reading what you have to say here. I just don't care.

Which is exactly what you did to my first post here as well. Why respond to someone who doesn't read what I write? Hence you fail to understand why these are valid syllogisms presented and why your objections on grounds of apodicity are specious and illogical.

Thanks! But it seems you've labored just to get to the point in question here on this thread. Your answer to a thread titled "Crucifixion and forgiveness, a non sequitur" is that "Jesus acted as the scapegoat for the forgiveness of sin on the cross." Nowhere do you explain what sin is, what a curse is, and why death is remotely relevant to forgiveness. Also you do not explain how a scapegoat works.

Unnecessary if we are to connect the Crucifixion with Forgiveness logically. So if I try and explain those things, I would be derailing the thread. Why do it anyway, when by own admission, you are just as likely to ignore it, instead of trying to understand a viewpoint or learn something?

Thanks, but it seemed unnecessarily complicated. Premises 2, 3 (the first one), 4, 5, 6, and half of 8 could be removed.

1. Jesus died on the cross.
3. Cursed is he who hangs from a tree.
7. The scapegoat was sinless and cursed.
8. therefore Jesus is a Scapegoat.
9. The scapegoat was for the forgiveness of the people's sin.
10. Thus Jesus acted as the scapegoat for the forgiveness of sin on the cross.

And I'm still left wondering why God cannot just forgive as an act of will.

You are parading your ignorance here. Do you know what a Sorites is? You should really look up how syllogistic logic works before asking people for syllogisms.

Clarify please. I have addressed every post on this thread and certainly every proposed syllogism.

Please read the contents of my first post here which you seem to have casually ignored.

Nothing flows from anything until terms are defined. That was requested back in the OP.

No, you said sin needed to be defined if it is to be assumed. I did read the OP long ago, so I did not define sin, it is true, but you are again asking in the OP for an unreasonable level of clarification when already excluding one of the most basic definitions. You did not ask for all terms to be defined, because then we need to exactly define God, Crucifixion, Forgiveness, etc. You would not even be able to show any syllogism of any scientific belief whatsoever on those terms, so that is thoroughly disingenious to expect it here.

In my syllogism, it is irrelevant how sin is defined for it to remain a logical sequence, though. I would say sin is that which brings division between man and God and harms loving your neighbour as yourself, the latter merely being an aspect of the former definition.


As you singularly fail to address the contents of my posts, going so far as to admit you aren't reading what I am writing, I see no reason to continue this discussion. Good day.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That is not my experience with you nor have I ever seen it demonstrated. You are often wrong though.

Perhaps browse my thread "God, Gödel, and Omniscience."

Which is exactly what you did to my first post here as well. Why respond to someone who doesn't read what I write? Hence you fail to understand why these are valid syllogisms presented and why your objections on grounds of apodicity are specious and illogical.

I shouldn't need more than definitions and premises to follow your argument.

Unnecessary if we are to connect the Crucifixion with Forgiveness logically. So if I try and explain those things, I would be derailing the thread.

What on earth are you talking about? I asked for a definition of sin. Providing that definition is anything but off topic. Scapegoats and similar elements would be on topic for a certainty.

Now, since the rest of your post is not a logical syllogism, and since you apparently don't even know what the thread is about, I see no reason to look at it.

I'm not interested in fueling this feud. Please just revise your argument or else provide the definitions that I requested so that I can evaluate your argument. Anything else will be ignored, and that includes further attacks on my intelligence or honesty - so I guess you can take some shots for free and I won't retaliate or defend myself.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Perhaps browse my thread "God, Gödel, and Omniscience."



I shouldn't need more than definitions and premises to follow your argument.




What on earth are you talking about? I asked for a definition of sin. Providing that definition is anything but off topic. Scapegoats and similar elements would be on topic for a certainty.

Now, since the rest of your post is not a logical syllogism, and since you apparently don't even know what the thread is about, I see no reason to look at it.

I'm not interested in fueling this feud. Please just revise your argument or else provide the definitions that I requested so that I can evaluate your argument. Anything else will be ignored, and that includes further attacks on my intelligence or honesty - so I guess you can take some shots for free and I won't retaliate or defend myself.

No Sir, we are done here. I see no reason to further waste my time with such absolute silliness and refusal to address or even read what I write.