If Jesus of the Bible died, he came to die for the sins of his father or his sins if he is God.

As much as I would like to refute all points raised by the Con, I am not going to deviate from the topic. If Jesus died for sins, whose sin?. Instead of trying to prove or disprove whether Jesus is God or the Trinity is true, I'm going to stay on the topic as the topic of this debate does not call for proving the Godship of Jesus or concept of trinity. I'm going to assume the con wants to consume more words hence the deviation. In the book of Psalm chapter 106, we read in verse 37-40; 37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, 38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. 39 Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions. 40 Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance. If God was angry at some people because they shed the blood of the innocent, sacrificed their children, it makes sense that God would do exactly the same thing. Killing innocent Jesus, sacrificing his supposed son. I would like to ask the Con, "If you happen to be alive during the supposed arrest of Jesus, if it is in your capacity to save Jesus, would you save him or not? Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus claimed to have come to die for mankind. If one is not send to humanity, he cannot die for humanity. must know that the Christians' belief that Jesus came to die for the sins of humanity is scripturally legless.It has no place in the bible.If someone came to die for the sins of humanity,He must have been sent to the whole of mankind,let us see those Jesus was sent to. In the book of Matthew chapter 15 verse 22,We read "And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil" The reader should bear in mind that we are trying to figure out if Jesus was sent to a particular group of people or to the whole of humanity using his words as a case study. In verse 23 of the same chapter,we read, "But he answered her not a word..." It may interest the reader to know why Jesus didn't answer her,she meets a similar but more harsh reaction from Jesus' disciples.The continuation of verse 23 reads, "...And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us." There are three things to note here. i) The woman was a Canaanite not an Israelite ii) Jesus didn't answer her a word iii) The disciples of Jesus asked him to send her away In verse 24 of the same chapter,Jesus said, "... I AM NOT SENT BUT UNTO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL" Here Jesus claimed to have been sent to only the Israelites.We may disregard Matthew 15:24 as being true calling it a slip of tongue but Matthew 10:5-6 proves that Jesus was sent to the Israelites and not to mankind.we read, "5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, GO NOT INTO THE WAY OF THE GENTILES, AND INTO ANY CITY OF THE SAMARITANS ENTER YE NOT 6 But GO RATHER TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. Here we see Jesus asking his disciples not to preach to the gentiles nor go into any city of the samaritans but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.we may then ask,"WHY ISRAEL?".Did Jesus considered the gentiles unworthy of salvation? Was he a racist? Or was he just sent to the people of Israel? I leave the reader to answer these questions. The bible says in Deuteronomy 24:16, "The father shall not be put to death for the children,neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin " We can also read in Exekiel 18:20, "The soul that sinneth shall die.The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. These verses are refuting the idea that anyone shall die for the sins commited by another,we read further in Ezekiel chapter 18,verse 21 says "But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed,and keep all my statutes,and do that which is lawful and right,he shall surely live,he shall not die." Verse 22 says, "All his transgressions that he hath committed,they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live" A christian reading this should ponder as these verses portray the loving nature of God not a supposed creator that holds all mankind responsible for the sins commited by two people and would not forgive the people till he kills his supposed only begotten son.Verse 23 of Ezekiel chapter 20 says, "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways,and live?" The reader should not hesitate to ask anyone preaching that Jesus must die for us to be saved to answer this question the bible said God asked in Ezekiel 18:23.God wants sincere repentance not a bloody sacrifice.https://www.biblegateway.com... Jesus whom the christians claim came to die for their sins taught his disciples to pray this way, "Our father,who hath in heaven hallowed be thy name,thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven give us,this day our daily bread and FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US..." One may ask,why is Jesus whose mission was to come on earth to die for our sins enjoining his disciples to ask God for forgiveness of their sins?.Was Jesus aware not of his mission?. Jesus said in Luke 5:32; "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." http://biblehub.com... Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus claimed to have died for the sins of mankind rather he emphasized on the need to repent. One may wonder why a powerful God would not forgive humans except innocent blood is shed albeit these humans still need to ask for forgiveness though Jesus died for their sins. The Con wrote, "When a person sinned, only innocent blood could have been used to reconcile man with God, therefore explaining the use of a HEALTHY animal." I wonder where the Con is taking his own doctrine from. I have quoted verses above to show that not sacrifice but repentance. Isaiah 1:11-17 says, "11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. 12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? 13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. 14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. " http://biblehub.com... Why then does the Con think God cannot forgive our sins without shedding of blood, isn't that limiting God? If the claim that Jesus died for sins is true, He died not for the sins of humanity rather he died for his sins or the sins of his father. I don't believe God can sin, my argument is more or less a Satire. As I have explained in the second round, Jesus died for his sins of his father's BY BIBLICAL STANDARDS IN LIGHT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE COUPLED WITH THE DEFINITION OF MURDER AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. Thank you!