Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site aecom.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!aecom!teitz
From: teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: QUESTIONS FROM A FRIEND
Message-ID: <1206@aecom.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Mar-85 12:42:21 EST
Article-I.D.: aecom.1206
Posted: Tue Mar  5 12:42:21 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Mar-85 16:54:50 EST
References: <109@gymble.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY
Lines: 24

> >God supposedly sent his only son, Jesus, to die for man's sins.  Why?
> >If god is omnipotent, he could have just forgiven us.  Why "kill" his
> >son?  But Jesus really didn't die.  He went to heaven, which is better
> >than being on earth.  Then what was God so upset about?
> 
> I'm not sure I quite follow what you mean.  God is upset by sin, and would
> be so if Christ died or not.  God is angry at the killing of Jesus
> because it was murder, regardless of what good resulted.
> 
> >It seems God was making a sacrifice.  To whom?  Himself?  Huh?  Is there
> >a more powerful being?  If so, God can't be omnipotent.
> 
> To himself.  Strange-sounding stuff like this is one reason for having the
> doctrine of the trinity.  The basic idea is that God wanted a perfect
> sacrifice for sin, but of course, only he himself could come up with one.
> This perfect sacrifice was God's gift to man.
> 

	The Jewish perspective is much easier to follow. Jesus was a man like
 any other person, and died just as others die. His death was in no way an
 atonement more than any other person's death is. One doesn't need the idea
 of trinity.

				Eliyahu Teitz.