Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?

I don't see it as egotistical at all but it does make the god look really stupid.

While I am certainly not a JW, it is reasonable that a God cannot die. Unless the whole Jesus story is nothing but a farce and a joke then Jesus, while living on earth and from the moment of his birth until after his death was not a god but simply, totally and only human.

Actually Jesus is not even the first example of resurrection in the Bible.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that Jesus is NOT the only or even the first resurrection in the Bible and it is also yet another example of misrepresenting what the Bible actually says.It is the ascension that is different but even there, Jesus is not unique or even the first.Have you ever read the Bible Faith?

There is no "Fall" in the Bible. Nor is there any "inheritable sin nature" in the Bible. Yet the Bible clearly shows examples of Jesus sinning.I understand that Christianity has often been marketed like your spiel and that spiel is a great way to con the rubes but it is not Biblical.

You quote Paul yet Paul never says what passages he is using. They certainly don't refer to the Genesis 2&3 fable since that is NOT a Fall according to the God in the story and in fact if anything it is a rise.You really haven't actually read the Bible have you Faith.You are also using another of those Bibles that adds words I see.So much for honesty or a literal Bible.Now granted Paul did a lot of just making shit up when he was trying to market his new franchise, but the passage in Romans is just another example of unsupported assertion.

If you actually read Genesis 2&3 there is no sin involved. In fact until after Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they would have been incapable of knowing they should obey God over any other individual, death already existed, there is no sin that is passed down to all men, and in fact as I said, the God character in the story sees just the opposite of man falling, rather man becoming like a god.If Paul is using the Genesis story as the basis of those passages you took out of context, then Paul is simply wrong. mistaken or making shit up.There is nothing in Genesis 2&3 that says or even implies that "all their progeny were born with the sin nature, all of us born in sin, sinners and inclined to sin from birth because of their original sin."You are simply making that up or repeating stuff someone made up and sold you.If you would like I will, as you know, be happy to post all of Genesis 2&3 so you can actually read it.

Before you can know to obey you first need to know right and wrong. Odd that anyone should have to spell out something so obvious.Until Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge they had no way to know they should obey God over the Serpent, particularly since the Serpent character told the truth and the God character did not. Bullshit. Utter bullshit.The fact that God created a Tree that would prevent death shows that death already existed or the God character again is simply asinine.Actually the God character in the story says as soon as you eat from the Tree you will die, but we know that didn't happen.The God character in the story was afraid though that man would now eat from the Tree of Life and so become immortal as well as having the same knowledge of what's right and what's wrong as God and so the God character chased them out of the Garden of Eden. But that did not change Adam and Eve in anyway OR introduce death. That is simply not in the story.In the story Adam and Eve would have died anyway UNLESS they ate from the Tree of Life.You really do need to learn to read what is actually written Faith. More bullshit Faith. The Old Testament says what it says. The New Testament cannot in any way alter the meaning of what was already written.Further, they did not die from eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they die because the God character in the story prevents them from eating from the Tree of Life.Honestly, the God character in the story is an immoral ass who creates an attractive nuisance, denies Adam and Eve the tools needed to know they should obey the God character and then punishes them for doing what He set them up to do.If there are any sins in the Genesis 2&3 fable it is the God character sinning.And that still has jack shit to do with any "sin nature".

Sorry but that is NOT what the story actually says Faith, you are just once again making shit up and misrepresenting what the Bible actually says.There is nothing in the story that says they lost any connection with God and in fact, God continues to visit them, to talk to them, to make clothes for them, to bless them. There is nothing in the Genesis 2&3 fable that says or implies that the wages of sin is death. Again Faith you are just making shit up and misrepresenting what the Bible says. There is nothing in the Genesis 2&3 fable that implies that they would have or ever were evil, and in fact it shows just the opposite. Once they had the tools to know they had done wrong they were sorry and afraid.As the God character says:

quote:

---

"22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

​

23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

​

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

---

There is nothing there about becoming evil or that Satan is evil. In fact the Old Testament says that Satan is obedient and only does what God tells Satan to do.The difference Faith is that I read what is actually there while you misinterpret what is actually there.

No contract was possible between God and Adam or God and Eve in the fable recounted in Genesis 2. To even think a contract was possible is absurd.

I'm not sure hate is the right word. They stoned Stephen because he was a blasphemer. Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

Stephen was a character in a story. The writer is telling propaganda, marketing a new product but without acknowledging it really was a new product.Truth had nothing to do with the reality.The Bible is not about Truth, rather it is about marketing a new religion while coopting the older religion.

Did I use the word "corrupting"?Jesus did not and does not meet any of the criteria for the Jewish messiah. So you say. From the some Christian marketing position I assume. But like Jesus, the audience were not Christians but Jews.

Yes, we know that is how the writer of Acts sold the story, but is that anything other than propaganda?

It is the word of man. The authors may well have been inspired but they were just men, often writing absurdities, nonsense, stuff that is just plain wrong. When it comes to the New Testament it is primarily marketing.There is a difference between being biased and propaganda though and being false. The story of Stephen is told in Acts from the point of view of someone actively trying to document the early Christian perspective, to market the new product Christianity.