Notes

The current doctrine of slavation in christianity is that Jesus' death is substitutary for our sins and that his death compensates for our sins. There are a couple of problems with this doctrine.

1- Anti- old testament in the sense that the old testament clearly teaches that evryone shall die for their own sins and everybody is responsible for their own actions and that the son will not inherit the sins of the father (goes against original sin) and the father will not inherit the sins of the son i.e. nobody is responsible for the sins of others and we are all accountable for ourselves. This is preached in Ezekiel 18:20 where it is stated that the son will not bear the sins of the father and the father will not bear the sins of the son. We are the sons of Adam and we shall not bear his sins. It is even written that the one with the sins or the one who sinned, THAT IS THE ONE that will die. Not another person. In 2 chronicles 7:14, God lays it out clear what one must do to achieve salvation and the forgiveness of sins : "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land." To achieve salvation and forgiveness of sins, we should humble ourselves, pray to God, repent off our sins and wicked ways. NO MENTION OF SACRIFICE. It's really simple, to achieve the forgiveness of sins and salvation in the old testament, you should humbly pray to God and then repent for your sins. NO NEED FOR SACRIFICE which entails that the concept of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is false. Hosea 6:6 even says that God's salvation is based upon mercy not sacrifice further demolishing the idea that God would want a sacrifice for our sins rather than us to repent to him. Plus, the bible establishes that Original sin is bogus. In Genesis 6 verse 9 (KJV), it is said that Noah is perfect. How in hell could you be the perfect man with no sin and have original sin at the same time. The simple answer is you are perfect and you have no sins and no original sin.

2- which nature died? The death of the divine nature or the cease to exist for those 3 days grants a very real problem because according to 1 timothy 6:16 and 1 timothy 1:17 and Deuteronomy 33:27 and Psalm 102:12, God is immortal and does not die which is consistent with the old testament classical attributes of God being eternal and immortal. Malachi 3:6 and psalm 90: 2 declares that God is immutable in nature. To cease to exist would be a radical change. Not to mention of course that to declare God dead is blasphemy. If the human nature died then so what? Where is the grand sacrifice? Why not claim that the two thiefs crucified next to jesus were the atonement? We know that Christ was not sinless and that he has commited at least one sin (his human nature carried original sin) + (he became angry at the fig tree which is a sin) + (in the original Mark 1:41 in codex sinaiticus, Jesus is angry once again which is another sin) + (Jesus angerily whips everybody in the house of his father) + (All this anger and wrath are all one of the seven deadly sins). And we know that Jesus was not submitting to the will of the father because in Mark 15 on the cross he says "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?", He is obviously protesting the father's decision which is far from what I would call submission. Why did God have us wait 2000 years just to crucify another sinful protesting human? Human nature atonement is inconsistent with pauline christology that God died on the cross as well.

3- Jesus had a different view of salvation. Jesus always taught that salvation is based on the mercy of God and on keeping thr commandements. In Matthew 9 verse 13 is alone capable of destroying pauline theology because Jesus establishes that salvation is based upon mercy of the lord and NOT sacrifice. Matthew 19:16-20, Mark 10:17-19, Luke 18:18-20 even establishes that Jesus said that salvation is attained by keeping the commandements and NOT by sacrifice. Moreover, in Luke 15, in verse 7 it is also objectively clear that the sinner who repents will go to heaven and he WILL EVEN BE REJOICED BY THE CHRIST HIMSELF. It is even induspitably clearer in the parable of the lost son that the sinner who will come back into the hug of the father and admit that "I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy of being called your son." Whoever sins and says this will be rejoiced back into the house of the father and he will even be greater than the original sinless son. Jesus makes it clear as day in the parable of the lost son, whoever sins against the father but comes back into the folds of the father, admits his sin and repents will be made greater than the sinless son and will obviously be accepted into "the house of the father" or into heaven. In Luke 5:32, Mark 2:17 and Matthew 9:13 (KJV), Jesus makes it very clear : "I have come not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance". Jesus makes four things very clear: 1- There are righteous people but he did not necessarily come for them. If there are righteous people as Jesus preached, then Paul preached a false Gospel because he said : " There is none who is righteous ... no NOT EVEN ONE". If Jesus said there are righteous people (but he did not necessarily come for them) and paul says there are no righteous people ... Whose gospel will you believe? 2- salvation of sinners is through repentance NOT sacrifice 3- Jesus' entire purpose and reason why he exists is to be a messenger and a reminder for sinners to repent for their sins against God NOT TO ACT AS A SACRIFICE. This would have been the perfect opportunity for Jesus to say something like : " I have come as sacrifice for many" or "The son of man will pay the penalty for your sins". Rather he said very explicitly on the topic of salvation (read the context) that sinners should repent. No mention of any sort of sacrifice. 4- Jesus admits that there are righteous people, how could there be righteous people if we are all sinners who have original sin in each and every one of us? Finally, Jesus puts it clear in Luke 11. The disciples ask Jesus how do we pray. Jesus says in the fourth verse that when his followers pray they should say " Our father who art in heaven ... Forgive our sins as we forgive those who have sinned against us". If our sins are forgiven by the father through pious prayer and repentance as Jesus preached for the thousandth time now, why is the sacrifice necessary?

Three verses might come up in objection to the third point which are mark 16:16, Luke 9:55–56 and John 3:16.

The first two verses are forgeries and later additions that prove the bible is corrupted and not divinely inspired aince mere men can clearly just add and take away from it. Codex sinaiticus and codex vaticanus are the two oldest bibles we have and they do not include those two passages. ( https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/ ) ( http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&chapter=16&lid=en&side=r&verse=8&zoomSlider=0 ) ( http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=35&chapter=9&lid=en&side=r&verse=54&zoomSlider=0)

The luke passage does not include but he came to save them which further proves that the idea of christ's atonment is probably a later development.

Now for 3:16 from John my main three points against this :

1- John is very late (100's) so inevitable high vulnerability to pauline theology is indisputable.

2- I care more about how Jesus said salvation is achieved (not by sacrifice but by mercy and keepin the commandements) than I care about how John thought that salvation is achieved.

3- John simply says that we should believe in the son / Jesus so that we could have eternal life. That's all he says. All he says is that if we believe in Jesus, we will have eternal life. But not even the muslims object to this. If we believe in Jesus and his message of monotheism and repentance (John 17:3 and Luke 5:32) then we will have eternal life in heaven.

Some might say that mark 16:8 has a little writing and blank space under which indicates that the markan ressurection is left on prupose but here are the problems :

First of all, The reason that the rest of the page is left blank after mark 16:8 is because that was the end of the book and the centered phrase after the last verse indicates the end of the book. Here is the end of matthew as well where after the last verse, the column is left blank and the exact same phrase is written. ( http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=33&chapter=28&lid=en&side=r&verse=20&zoomSlider=0). Did Matthew's book intentionally leave out something we do not know as well? Luke's book also has that ending. If you look to the far left of the image, it has the eaxact same phrase as the end of the book of mark which is "book title" and it as well leaves the rest of the column blank after the last verse of its book. (http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=35&chapter=24&lid=en&side=r&verse=53&zoomSlider=0). Did Luke's book as well intentionally leave out something we do not know of? The supposed blank space after the last verse indicates the end of the book as seen in Matthew and Luke which all 3 have the same phrase written after the last verse followed by blank space in the remainder of the column indicating the end of the book. John is the same story with space left blank in the remainder of the column after the last verse and with the same phrase indicating that the book has come to an end. (http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=36&chapter=21&lid=en&side=r&verse=25&zoomSlider=0)

The problem is that the main tenant of your faith is left out in the main and oldest source (Gospel of Mark) which other gospels copied and are based upon in the 2 oldest bibles we have which means the ressurection is a later fabrication that more likely than not did not happen since it is not Mark (according to the two oldest, most reliable and most complete bibles), it follows necessarily that it should not be in Matthew and Luke as well who copied most of their account off Mark.

It is obvious that Jesus taught that salvation is based on mercy and following the commandments and NOT sacrifice. (Matthew 9:13, Matthew 19:16-20, Luke 18:18-20, Mark 10:7-11, Luke 15, multiple other passages which are consistent with Old testament salvation in Hosea 6:6) + (All verses which display him saying salvation is by sacrifice or by baptism like mark 16:16 or John 3:16 are either later on fabrications and additions as proven by the codex sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus or they were written very late (john 3:16) allowing for an exponentially greater opportunity to be influenced by pauline theology or they were simply the words of man and other men around Jesus and not the words of Jesus himself). His disciples even preached a similar message that God's mercy + Repentance NOT sacrifice are the framework for our salvation in Acts 3:19 and in Acts 8:22 which is consistent with Jesus' teachings which denoted that salvation of sinners is through repentance NOT sacrifice in Matthew 9:13 (KJV) and Luke 5:32.

The message of Jesus and his early followers got corrupted by Paul who taught that Jesus flipped the bill and died for our sins. The first documented case where Jesus is said to be the saviour and the doctrine of salavation through atonement of Jesus is intorudced is in Acts 13:13-18 by ... Paul who was challenging the contrary and opposition beliefs of the Jerusalem crowd who were actually preached to by Peter and the disciples. Paul is challenging the beliefs of Jerusalem as they were taught and preached by Peter, James, other disciples. Paul wrote christianity and the only reason that "Christians" follow pauline theology rather than Jesus and his disciples and his early followers (Ebionites, who believe Jesus was only a prophet and not God) are because Paul was much more evangelical and wrote letters to plenty of regions allowing his false gospel to spread like wildfire. He was more concerned with his false gospel reaching the far and most promiment regions and the greater kingdoms while the disiciples and the real apostles were more concerned about Jerusalem and just preaching there. Also the apostles and disciples were extremely skeptical of Paul's apostleship in one passage of Acts that I can not remember.

"Christians" might as well rename themselves to Pualians or Churchians. Paul literally advocated for slavery and misogyny for his false gospel to appeal to the Romans, Ephesians, etc. Why do you follow this man over Jesus, his disciples and his early followers (ebionites) who never preached such oppression.

This is not the first time that "christians" or as I like to call them, churchians, choose paul or the church over Jesus and his disciples. Take for example, Matthew 23:9, Jesus tells his disciples, "And do not call anyone on Earth "father", for you all have one father and he is God in heaven". What do orthodox christians and Copts say to their high ranking religious leaders?

Edit : Added even more verses and words of Jesus himself not that churchians will care anyways.