Apologetics: The Reason for Christ

This is an ongoing conversation I've been having on Facebook with an Atheist.  He knows his Bible verses better than I do, but he lacks the understanding that can only come from God's light and revelation.  Basically, he uses Scripture like Satan uses it.  I am appreciating the discussion, however, and just as a side note:  I am not debating in order to convert him.  Such debates are futile and do nothing to win someone over to Christ and may even just harden their own hearts.  Internet debates especially are worthless, but the reason I persist is because I know there are others who read the comments and the discussion who need to know that Christianity can make logical sense.  It allows me to reach him, but not only him, but all his friends as well and anyone able to catch us debating.  Facebook is a public place and those not participating in the debate will still overhear it.  I am posting the comments here so that I might preserve them.  It is a friendly debate and we very much respect each other.  This isn't the first talk we've had, nor will it be the last.  I think we all need atheist friends to keep us on our toes.


Original Poster: If we're all God's children, what's so special about Jesus?

Me: Lol do you want a serious response? Just say the word ;)

OP:  To be honest, John, I've never understood the point of Jesus in the first place.

Me: I mean, the short answer is that we're adopted through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus into the family of God. You know as well as I do that the Bible talks a lot about inheritance, and being reborn as new creations. I really couldn't condense the entire reason for Jesus in a facebook post in any convincing manner, but I do think Paul does a good enough job in the book of Romans if you care enough to read it through. He pretty much lays out the entire thing, but if I could pick out a few verses Romans 3:21-26; 5:15-20; and 8:1-4,15-17,23 (just read all of 8) deal specifically for the reason for Jesus, but you really need to take Paul's argument in the entirety of it's context to see how he develops it.

OP:  Yes, but John, there is no rational reasoning behind it. The quotes of John don't answer this.
Jesus came to sacrifice himself for the sins of the world. This means that the way that God, in his omnipotent and omniscient manner, was unableto create the world with a correct way of atonement. Then he wasn't omnipotent. Maybe he didn't know a way of doing it without having to send Jesus later. Then he wasn't omniscient.

Now, if there was actually no way for God to pull it off without Jesus (which makes no sense, see above), then why did God wait to send him? Why didn't he send him before Adam and Eve?

This would have saved him from having to destroy the earth twice (Noah's flood and the eventual events of Revelation)

In all honesty, John, none of it makes sense. Jesus either wasn't required, or God isn't all that awesome after all.

Me:  There are a lot of assumptions made in your statement, OP.
1) You assume Jesus wasn't present at Eden. Adam and Eve both walked with God in the most intimate and unadulterated ways (naked and unashamed).

2) You assume God sees times the same as us. If God is outside of time and unchanging, when He created the world he also created the Cross. He made it all at once, both beginning and the end. Jesus was "slain before the foundation of the world." (Rev 13:8) The world had a correct method of atonement that was foreordained in the planning process of God's creation. Through Jesus all things were made and by his sacrifice he became the foundation of the universe and everything in it.

3)Omnipotence isn't being able to do anything you want. It's the ability to succeed in whatever you set out to do. It's the whole "Can God make a rock so heavy even He couldn't lift it" debate. The price for creating free beings who might choose to love God was the blood of God's son, a price he gladly paid because He knew he could raise him back to life. If God is both omnipotent and omniscient, then not only is this world that we live in now exactly the thing God wanted to make, but it is also the most efficient route to get to his end goal. We make things that are lifeless and do not change over time, but God makes things that grow, change shape, develop and evolve over time. We are living in what is the best of all possible outcomes as it is being worked out for the sake of God's plan and purpose. We must assume this if we accept God is omnipotent. If we cannot accept God is omnipotent, then it is as you say, this is no God worth serving.

It's sort of pointless to go back and criticize God's actions as being incorrect if we don't know all of his options or even what his motives are. We can judge a man for murder, but what are his motives and her character? Was it self-defense? Was he fighting a war? Was he full of hatred or was it bravery? We can look at God's actions and assume a motive (e.g. God killed all those Philistines! He must be a cruel God.), but such is faulty thinking thrown out in any court trial. If God is on trial here and must answer for his actions, we must be clear on his motives. True theology starts with the character of God as revealed by God through both Scripture and Creation. How else might we know that which is unknowable unless God himself makes it plain to us? If you want to know anything about God and why He made the world as He did, you are going to have to understand his character and let that interpret his actions, not the other way around. That would be disingenuous.

That's why I encouraged you to read all of Romans. God is on trial for being unjust and Paul is giving a narrative defense of God's righteous character and the "righteousness being revealed" that was Christ crucified.

OP:
1. Present or not doesn't matter. He did not sacrifice himself at the time.
2. He does. He's all powerful. If he cannot see time in the same manner as us, he is not all powerful. If the manner was fore-ordained, then why wait?

3. It is having the power to do anything you want. It means 'all powerful' does it not? The price for creating free beings was not the blood of God's son unless he chose it to be so. He made the rules up himself. And again, my argument is that it was not the most efficient route. God could have made it properly, and didn't.

Again, you seem to think God has options. God has all options, or your book is a lie. We're not using court trial rules here. Motives aren't the problem, it's actions.

You keep telling me to read Romans. I've read it multiple times.

Me:
I didn't mean to insult you by implying you've never read it. I merely meant to read it again. I always find benefit in re-reading texts, especially scripture.
1) I wrote this in response to "Why wait to send Jesus?" Jesus was already there. Whatever God has foreordained already is, was, and is to come all at once because God can see multiple perspectives in time.

2) Yes, I agree, but he also sees time in a way that transcends it, but that wasn't the main point of my argument. It was the rest of it left unaddressed. If you are asking purely in human terms and conception of time "Why wait?", it was so that Sin might appear utterly sinful through the law and that through of the law, sin and transgression might multiply. (Romans 7) Romans 8 then goes into the reason for Christ.

3)We just disagree on a definition here. Omnipotence does in a sense mean that, but the thing is that it doesn't mean God would do anything he wants. There is a huge difference between can and will. He could, but he won't. God's own nature and character constrains God's actions. He cannot act in ways inconsistent with his own being or else cease to be God. Whatever actions seem to contradict God's character are only seeming contradictions, not actual ones because God is unchanging and consistent, else everything I said and believe and preach is worthless. Everything lies on God's character and the question "Is He just?"

And you are right, God did choose it to be so and he did make the rules. I just happen to believe that it was the best possible choice because I have faith in God's judgment whereas you are critical of it. He knew all his options and as you said had all options, and yet he chose this one. That tells me it was his best option. I'm not quite sure how you would do things differently? How could he have been more efficient? To what standard can you compare God's effectiveness?

I argue that there is no way to reason such a thing and so it is a moot point. No sense arguing about what could've been as trying to replicate a process that took billions of years and control for every possible variable and prove God did it inefficiently would take longer than the age of the universe. What we have is what is so we should be working to make sense of what is instead of what could've been.

OP:
1) What scripture says God exist outside of time? And even if he does, he must be able to see ours as well, and if so, again, why wait to fix the problem with creation?
2) Then why would God create sin? (Isaiah 45:7) If God created sin,why would he have to teach it to us instead of just giving us that information? (I think that's what you're trying to say here.)

3) I understand what you meant. But the point still remains. He could have made the way to salvation correctly, and he didn't. He had to later send Jesus to fix it. Why not do it right the first time?

And this is where blind faith and absolute skepticism disagree. You see it and think "There was a reason" whereas I say "This makes no sense".

I'm not looking at effectiveness, I'm looking at logic. God didn't give us the correct salvation at first. He started with animal sacrifice. There were ways to repent, and God even repented some himself. To who I have no idea. But several thousands of years later, he figures salvation isn't working (and why? He makes the rules) so he has to created a child of himself and send himself to earth to be sacrificed. Why not just do it right the first time? He, again, made up the rules.

Me:


First of all, I am using logic but starting with two assumptions: God exists and God is who he says he is (God does not lie). Maybe a third that the Bible is God's Word. All logic must start with a few assumptions.



1) The main reason for saying that "God exists outside of time" is the stress that God is unchangeable and is always the same. Scripture does make that clear, so even if God didn't exist outside of time or existed as both in and out of time, he is always unchanging. The "outside of time" part is an implication drawn from divine immutability.

We also seem to be mis-communicating. You say God waited to fix the problem, and I am saying he never waited. He fixed it before it even happened so that it could happen and be accounted for. There's no surprising God.

2)Isaiah 45:7 says nothing about creating sin and is a topic for another time. Romans chapter 5 and 7:7-13 is where you find out how Sin enters the world through the commandment. All the answers to the questions you asked have already been answered by Paul. He knew people would naturally ask the same questions you are asking right now and answered them ahead of time. I can't do it better than him but if it's confusing to you I can try to explain. Bottom line: I don't understand how you think God created sin. Sin by definition is an act which separates someone from God. Can God be separate from himself? An interesting comment can be made about Christ here, but it's a tangent.

3)Animal sacrifice was never intended to forgive intentional sins, only unintentional. It's a common misconception. If you know the Law, you know what happens to people who sin intentionally; they are stoned and killed. Good luck asking for forgiveness and repenting after you have died. The law was given so that we might understand how short we all fall to God's perfect standard. And of course God knew that not a single person would be able to keep the law perfectly (because of our sinful nature), but God had promised Noah not to wipe out humanity again. Because of his great mercy, he did not punish us immediately for our sins but put it off until the timing was right for his Son to come and pay for our debt once and for all. When Adam and Eve commited an act of treason in the garden and bowed down to the serpent by obeying Him, God could've just killed them then and there and started over, but he was merciful from the beginning and clothed them (though he knew they didn't actually need clothes, they just wanted them). God knew we would never be able to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law (nor was that the law's intention), so he sent His Son as a man to fulfill the law on our behalf. As the old saying goes "those who are forgiven more will love more". He let sin reign on Earth so that we might know just how much we needed forgiveness and love him all the more.

What you are missing and what I have been saying all along is this: It was God's plan for Christ to die from the very beginning. The atonement process was perfect from the start. Essentially what you are asking me is "Why didn't God do step 5 before step 2? That makes no sense. He should have done it right the first time." I'm saying to you that he did do it right the first time. Step 5 isn't the correction to the failure of step 2 but logically must come after steps 1-4 have been put in place successfully. Who knows what step we are on now, but I do not think God so stupid as to not have planned this out fully ahead of time in painstaking detail.

OP:  
Well, the bible very specifically states God lies. (Jeremiah 4:10, 20:7)

1. If God did not wait to fix the problem, why didn't the Gospels happen first? Paul does not answer this question at all, unless you want to twist what he says to fit the question.

2. I have never accepted that God did not create sin. The verse I gave states that God created evil. Romans 5 tries to state that the lawlessness of man created it. However, that means that man has the ability of creation and that God did not create everything, as Colossians 1:16 states, also written by Paul.

Lamentations 3:38-39 also states that out of the mouth of the most high proceed both good and evil. So if god did not create evil, and we did, are we not gods?

Sin's definition is an act that violates a known moral rule. That is also a misconception. Your faith has taken a word that was not theirs and you are trying to redefine it. The bible defines sin as lawlessness (1 John 3:4) So your belief that God cannot sin is actually not true. If God is all powerful, he is easily capable of sin. He has an evil and lying spirit, and admits multiple times that he created evil, or chaos, or misdeeds (depending on the version of the bible you're reading)

3) Animal sacrifices were used to celebrate and as a part of prayer and reverence. This includes repentance.

We know we'll sin because I doubt we could keep all 613 commandments.

God did not promise to Noah not to destroy humanity again, he promised no more worldwide floods. (Genesis 9:11-13)

I did not miss that God decided from the beginning to cruelly murder his child to forgive our sins. The question is, why, and why did he wait. He created everything, and either he fucked it up by creating (or allowing) sin, and if he knew it was coming and needed to create us a choice in the matter (death from sin or forgiveness through Christ) why did he wait 4000+ years?

Your steps give it a human feel, but God only has 1 step. You've already stated he created everything that will ever exist or happen all at the same time (as he transcends time) and he made it wrong. He doesn't have to follow steps, he makes it without rules. He can follow any order he wants.

Me: 
God lies? There's a big difference between people making accusations against God and God's actual character. Jeremiah makes an accusation, David makes one, Job makes one, Habakkuk makes one, actually it's quite common in lamentation literature. Jeremiah is making a complaint just like you are making a complaint against God. However, the key difference between Jeremiah's complaining and yours is that He still trusts God and exalts him. Just read a little further past those verses you quoted and look at the context.
1) I already answered this question.

2) The verse states that God "forms light and creates darkness, brings prosperity and creates disaster." A far cry from God creates evil. Romans 5 doesn't say Adam created anything, only sin and death entered Adam through the breaking of the commandment, implying it was already in existence.

Again, Lamentations 3:38-39 doesn't say that at all. Again it says "both calamities and good things come" not "Good and evil". Neither are these calamities brought about for God's enjoyment, but as punishment for sin as evident in v 39. v 40 says "let us examine our ways and test them and let us return to the Lord." If God was evil, why return to him? He is just and righteous, not wicked as you would lead people to believe.

And if sin is lawlessness (i.e. breaking the law or living apart from it), and gave the law to the Jews, How can God be lawless? You said it yourself: He makes the rules. How can he break them? He would just re-write them instead. And what stops God from doing that? His character.

3)Another mistake. Repentance is not the same thing as forgiveness of sins. It just means to stop doing what you are doing and do the opposite.

Also you say "Cruelly murder his Child" only because you think Jesus is dead. He isn't. You also say it like Jesus had no choice in the matter. He did it of his own volition.

There are a lot of flaws in your argument stemming from basic interpretive criteria. Most of the meaning you draw from the Bible is twisted to fit your own view. Your world view informs you how to interpret the Bible instead of the Bible informing your world view. Meaning isn't imposed but rather extracted. I can continue to correct your interpretations if you like because it seems most of them are biased and put words in God's mouth or ascribe things to him that were never meant to be ascribed by the author. Otherwise, I have spoken my peace and am confident I have sufficiently defended my cause.

OP:  Not all are just accusations:
1 Kings 22:23 Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
2 Chronicles 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
 Jeremiah 4:10 Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
 Jeremiah 20:7 O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
Ezekiel 14:9 And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

Me:
Oh you are using KJV? Regardless:
1 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 18 refer to the same event. Again if you would read the full story, God isn't the one lying nor does he have a lying spirit. He does, however, use a lying spirit rather effectively to bring destruction upon King Ahab, which if you know your history, was the cruelest and most wicked King of the Northern kingdom of Israel. Mind you, that the lying spirit was not put into prophets of the LORD, but rather the kings own "prophets". They weren't real prophets and had no right to speak for the LORD as they pretended to (hence why King Jehoshaphat asked "Is not there a prophet of the LORD here whom we can inquire of?")

I already explained Jeremiah, so I will not again.

Ez 14:9 No surprise here that this is about judgment as well on idolaters. It is well within God's ability to blind people to the truth and to give them over to their own depravity of thinking. Is that the same thing as lying to them? Not at all. The context informs the meaning: Some elders came and wanted to ask the LORD some things, but they were idolaters in their own hearts. So God refuses to answer them and tells them they cannot go to his prophets to inquire of God anything until they repent. The Hebrew verb used is a passive "to allow oneself to be deceived" then God deceives him. But wait! What's this? The previous chapter is condemning false prophets! (13:2-3) It seems that these prophets who allow themselves to be deceived are not prophets at all. They speak things as if they know, but everything they say is false and so "they will bear the guilt" (ez 14:10) However the manner of deception is not told, is it the same way he deceived in 1 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 18? Or as in...

2 Th 2:11 This is more than likely what God did, and not surprsingly, it's the same thing he did in 1 Kings 22. He sends a delusion (probably a lying spirit). Also, ironically 2Th 2 deals with... wait for it... false prophets and people who come and try to deceive others using false teaching and scripture. More specifically, it's the Anti-Christ (the lawless one). He is able to deceive those who are perishing because they did not love the truth and so be saved (v10). Reminds me of Ez 14:9, probably because Paul knew Old Testament Scripture like the back of his hand and of course knew Ez 14. The only ones being deceived are those who delight in wickedness and stand condemned unless they repent and believe in the truth.

In the end, all of these these instances are amazingly consistent with each other, but not in the way you had hoped. What you believe about the scriptures is simply a deception and probably no matter what I say you will continue believing it unless God himself causes you to have faith in the Truth I have presented. Strangely enough, I'm ok with that. It never was my job to convert people and never will be. I just tell people what I know to be true.