Debunking the Christian Gospel

[barre]

de·bunk
â€"verb (used with object) to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.

 John 3     Read This Chapter
3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  
3:17
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.  

I submit that the heart of the Christian teaching above is primitive and therefore antiquated, antiquated it that it assumes the primitive, pre-modern, superstitious efficacy of sacrafice, both human and animal.  Modern, civilzied society in general does not make sacrifice to avert divine wrath.  It does not even think of it.  Yet in the Christian gospel, we are told that God made a "human" sacrifice of Jesus his "Son."  The notion of sin is equally primitive and outdated by modern, intellectual progress.  According to Paul, sin entered into humanity through (the mythical) Adam.  It is like a disease that resides in "the members" of the human body, causing mortality.  The idea of doing sacrifice to avert divine wrath is very ancient and ubiqutious but is now actually as rare and incredible outside of Christiandom as the concept of polytheism.  No self-respecting modern intellectual can accept the Christian gospel without defending it against the charge that it is most primitive and therefore antiquated.

[morphyx]

I submit that the heart of the Christian teaching above is primitive and therefore antiquated, antiquated it that it assumes the primitive, pre-modern, superstitious efficacy of sacrafice, both human and animal.

***********************
Main Entry: prim·i·tive
Pronunciation: pri-mÉ™-tiv
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English primitif, from Latin primitivus first formed, from primitiae first fruits, from primus first â€" more at prime
Date: 14th century
1 a: not derived : original, primary b: assumed as a basis; especially : axiomatic <primitive concepts>
************************

I would agree that the gospel is primitive: a) in that it is not derived of human origin; and b) is the original and primary purpose of the Creator's plan; to wit: to demonstrate the love, grace, holiness, and power of God.  

In fact, the Bible as a whole is the revelation of the Creator to mankind that: a) He is the Great I Am; b) mankind has been separated from Him by sin; and c) that He (God) has implemented a course of action to atone for and rectify man's condition of separation.

Therefore, your premise of the primitive being antiquated is an asumptive conclusion that the condition of separation has either a) been remedied by other means, which it has not; or b) the condition doesn't exist. Your statement refutes neither. The condition stands today, mankind as a whole is separated from God by sin.

Modern, civilzied society in general does not make sacrifice to avert divine wrath. It does not even think of it. Yet in the Christian gospel, we are told that God made a "human" sacrifice of Jesus his "Son."  

Because a person, family, or culture fails to practice or adhere to any instruction revealed by God and recorded in the Bible is not evidence of it's non-existence, but is rather simply an observation that certain person's, families, and cultures choose not to recognize the authority of the divinely revealed instruction.

As to sacrifices, and in particular those pertaining to Israelites, it is the intention of religious Jews to restore the ritual of animal sacrifices upon the return of control of the Temple Mount property and rebuilding of the temple,

For followers of Jesus the Christ, it is taught by New Testament scripture that Jesus fulfills all biblical prophecy concerning the Messiah and gave His life on the cross as the final sacrifice for the sin of mankind and that He is the Passover Lamb.

The notion of sin is equally primitive and outdated by modern, intellectual progress. According to Paul, sin entered into humanity through (the mythical) Adam. It is like a disease that resides in "the members" of the human body, causing mortality.  

Sin is nor more outdated "by modern, intellectual progress" than murder, adultery, or hate. "Intellectual progress" has advanced much in the way of technology, the sciences, and innovation. However, it has done little or nothing in terms of morality/immorality, crimes against nature/humanity, narcissism, etc.

Your assertion that Adam is "mythical" is conjecture, speculation, and dismissive of the Creation account as recorded in Genesis. The dialog, as it is written, suggests nothing more or less than the divinely revealed account of events that took place in an actual location involving actual persons that existed at one time.

Sin is not a disease in the physical sense, but rather a spiritual condition that does have, not only spiritual consequences, but physical as well.

The idea of doing sacrifice to avert divine wrath is very ancient and ubiqutious but is now actually as rare and incredible outside of Christiandom as the concept of polytheism.

Your statement indicates a complete void of scholarly study or comprehension of the subject matter as it pertains to the Bible, Israel, or Christians. I will attempt to break down, in its simplest form, the purpose of sacrifice.

a) God is holy, righteous, and pure. Sin cannot enter His presence.
b) The penalty for sin is death (separation from God)
c) Man is separated from God by sin which is spiritually inherited from Adam (man is born spiritually dead)
d) In love, grace and mercy, God instituted a means to atone for sin by which the required death sentence could be substituted by the taking of an animal's life. This sacrifice was a temporary means used to illustrate the sacrifice that ultimately would be made by the promised Messiah.
e) God sent His Son, Jesus, to fulfill all prophecy concerning the Messiah and to complete the sacrificial offering for sin, once and for all. Jesus' death on the cross is the final payment for sin. ( to accept and receive this offering, is to be "born-again")

No self-respecting modern intellectual  

Presumptuous; assumption of self-proclaimed enlightenment; omniscient

can accept the Christian gospel without defending it against the charge that it is most primitive and therefore antiquated.

While it is agreed primitive by the definition I supplied, that it is obsolete or antiquated is certainly not validated by any evidence that you've produced or logical argument that you've raised. What you have demonstrated is that you have very little knowledge of the subject matter and that you are in fact making false statments based on your own personal hearsay, conjecture, speculation, assumptions, and as a result...leap to a misinformed conclusion.

I hope this helps.