Which theory of atonement do you believe in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement#Main_theories_in_detail

The Old Testament God (which should just be the same God in the new testament. Unless God changed his already perfect form and personality) always had a thing for offerings and sacrifices O.o

I just read Genesis-Joshua.

Despite the flood or the more direct killing of the Egyptians before Joshua, Joshua was the final straw. I could accept that we're not supposed to think so deeply about a world wide genocide with the flood, or even the Egyptian plagues and stuff.

But Joshua was too direct. Exterminating cities, not being allowed to sack it the first time, but being allowed to sack it the second time O.o

These type stories (the same story pretty much, with just being dfiferent versions) made me wonder about the nature of Omnibenevolence and god's Universal moral law. If he can allow exceptions and deny and allow things on his whim, what does that say about the nature of good and bad O.o

I can't imagine what Judges would be like >.<

There's also so many instance of God making people act in a certain way, like strengthening the Pharoh's resolve to refuse Moses. Reading it along with the Illiad and the Odyssey it's really common for these ancient gods to just take away your free will and make you do things. And for these gods to force someone to do something, and then punish them for it just makes no sense >.<

At Akvod:

That would derail the thread more than it currently is. Moreover, I smell that my answers will start a fire hard to put out, because your post, more than a question is a provocation to keep arguing pointlessly (because neither you nor me are going to reject our beliefs... or the lack of them).

At Akvod and Manus Justus:

People already know what I stand up for. I'm not interested in further discussion once I already expressed my opinion and replied 1, 2, 3 or 4 more times.

One big problem with the different views is, that one has a view based on ones faith and another is looking the matter as history, without the faith the first one had.
So, when simplified, basically the Jesus discussion is about "biblical Jesus" and "historical Jesus".

Religion is subjective, as one may notice just by reading this thread, with as many intreprerations as there are people who believe in religion.

The Bible says that Jesus admitted to forbidding to give tribute to Caesar.

And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.  And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.  - Luke 23

Elsewhere, Jesus is quoted as saying:

Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar?  Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's. - Matthew 22

This is a contradiction.  Its obvious that Jesus claims to be King of the Jews and wants to liberate Israel from Rome, including putting an end to tribute to Rome.  However, he is also quoted as saying that one should give tribute to Rome.  These verses are from two different periods of Christian thought, the first being the earliest Christian thought with a desire to end Roman rule and build a Kingdom of God/Israel, and the second being later Christian thought (introduced by Paul) with an appeasement to Roman rule.  Paul altered Christianity to make it more friendly to Roman rule, and in doing so decreased the need for Rome to persecute Christians so that Christianity could grow.

Paul was a major player in Christian thought, and just as all religions (including Christianity) change over time, Paul changed Christianity so that it could survive and later flourish in the Roman Empire.  The Pope is a player in Christian thought today, and over the past few centuries the stance of the church on many issues, such as science, has changed significantly.  The difference here is that Paul's ideas were frozen in time and made into the fundamental basis of Christianity, instead of a later evolution of Christian thought as it truly is.

From what I've learned, arguing about religion on VGchartz will only do these things:

1. Waste the non-religious peoples time
2. Get the thread locked with possible bans
3. Strengthen, or not affect, the religious peoples faith in their personal truth
4. Derail the thread on evolution that the argument always seems to occur on
5. Leave lots of lulz for us who don't give care or think about religion to lulz at

"And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it. - Luke 23"

Really Manus, how much of an admission is that? He doesn't even directly claim to be King of the Jews, but let's skip that because it's implied. Is it, then, also implied that the mob's claims of forbidding people to give tribute to Caesar are also true? Why must that be so?

[edit:  To clarify:  why do you assume the answer to a question Pilate didn't ask based on the answer to a question he did ask?] 

Here's the New American Standard Bible version:

And they began to accuse Him, saying, "We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King." So Pilate asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him and said, "It is as you say."

"Thou sayest it" is like saying "It is as you say" today.  Here Jesus admits to the accusations against him, one being that he is King of the Jews and that he forbid people to pay tribute.  Being the King of Jews and forbidding to pay tribute to Rome are one in the same idea, at this time Israel had a king who paid tribute to Rome, and Jesus and other Jewish Revolutionaries wanted to put an end to this.  Jesus being King of the Jews gives him the authority to put an end to tribute.

A modern example of this would be if the United States captured Fidel Castro, then accused him of wanting to redistribute wealth and of being the leader of the Communist Party.  Castro would admit to being the Communist leader and de facto admit to wanting to redistribute wealth.

Well as long as denying Rome tribute would be a NECESSARY consequence of being King of the Jews ... and not just a separate agenda of Jesus' that you claim is true, because then your quote doesn't show him "admitting" it.

Couldn't agree more.

further evidence: