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.

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 rhat 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](https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/) Mark 1:41, Jesus is angry once again which is another sin)
+ human nature atonement is inconsistent with pauline christology that God died on the cross.

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 establsihes that salvation is based upon mercy of the lord and NOT sacrifice. Matthew 19:16-22 even establishes that Jesus said that salvation is attained by keeping the commandements and NOT by sacrifice.

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 teo points against this :

1- John is late so is inevitably high vulnerability to pauline theology.


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.

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 of the book and the phrase 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 commandements and NOT sacrifice. His disciples even preached a similar message that God's mercy NOT sacrifice is the framework for our salvation in Acts 3:19 and in Acts 8:22.

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 througha tonement of Jesus is intorudced is in Acts 13:13-18 by ... Paul. 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 while the disiciples and the real apostles were more concerned about Jerusalem. Also the apostles and disciples were extremely skeptical of Paul's apostleship in one passage of Acts that I can not remember.


Not meant to offend anyone but to make you reconsider your beliefs.

What do christians have to say?