Paul's atonement theology

[Elijah John]

Was Paul's atonement theology intended as a metaphor?

Is his theology taken too literally, and has it calcified into legalistic dogma?

Or do Trinitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses understand it exactly as Paul intended?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Jehovah's Witnesses, Trinitarian and practically every Christian that has ever lived has accepted the basic Christian teaching that Jesus died for the redemption of mankind. His literal death, as symbolized by the outpouring of his blood, is commemorated earthwide when Christians commemorate the memorial of his death. It was on the occassion of commanding the above all three of the Gospels report Jesus as saying

MATTHEW 26:28
for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many. NLT

MARK 14:24
He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

LUKE 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. NIV

The Jehovah's Witness view is that what Paul wrote was not only in harmony with Jesus as quoted above but with the basic premise of the entire Christian Greek scriptures (see below)

1 PETER 1:18-19
For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

REVELATION 7:14
And I said to him, My Lord, you know. And he said to me, These are those who came from great suffering and they have purified their garments and whitened them in the blood of The Lamb. - Aramaic Bible in Plain English

*While neither James and Jude directly refer to the blood sacrifice of Jesus, both make reference to Jesus' key position in the lives of Christians

1 JOHN 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Personally I believe, and this is just my opinion, that God will judge everyone in relation to his position towards Christ and for this reason I would not personally want to be the type of "Christian" that rejects the blood of Christ for fear I could find myself inadvertedly fighting on the side of the antichrist. My own interpretation of 1 John 2:22 which says Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. leads me to this most serious conclusion about what I would avoid in my life personally.




JW

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Jehovah's Witnesses, Trinitarian and practically every Christian that has ever lived has accepted the basic Christian teaching that Jesus died for the redemption of mankind. His literal death, as symbolized by the outpouring of his blood, is commemorated earthwide when Christians commemorate the memorial of his death. It was on the occassion of commanding the above all three of the Gospels report Jesus as saying

MATTHEW 26:28
for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many. NLT

MARK 14:24
He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

LUKE 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. NIV

The Jehovah's Witness view is that what Paul wrote was not only in harmony with Jesus as quoted above but with the basic premise of the entire Christian Greek scriptures (see below)

1 PETER 1:18-19
For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

REVELATION 7:14
And I said to him, My Lord, you know. And he said to me, These are those who came from great suffering and they have purified their garments and whitened them in the blood of The Lamb. - Aramaic Bible in Plain English

*While neither James and Jude directly refer to the blood sacrifice of Jesus, both make reference to Jesus' key position in the lives of Christians

1 JOHN 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Personally I believe, and this is just my opinion, that God will judge everyone in relation to his position towards Christ and for this reason I would not personally want to be the type of "Christian" that rejects the blood of Christ for fear I could find myself inadvertedly fighting on the side of the antichrist. My own interpretation of 1 John 2:22 which says Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. leads me to this most serious conclusion about what I would avoid in my life personally.




JW

Why do you suppose the Synoptic writers did not expound on the blood theology to the degree that Paul did? Just curious, and not a rhetorical question.

Yes, Jesus was annointed of God, therefore he is Christ. But you and I both agree that Christ is not God.

And it was Christ who quoted Hosea and preached "I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

But thanks for your concern. Just remember that "everyone who calls on the name of YHVH {Our Father, and the Father of Christ} will be saved." Even, (if not especially) Jehovah's Witnesses.

[JehovahsWitness]

Why do you suppose the Synoptic writers did not expound on the blood theology to the degree that Paul did?

Thank you for your implied admission, although I doubt you will ever actually be able to squeeze out a explicit admission that "Yes, all four gospels do indeed report Jesus himself as saying he would give a blood sacrifice" as this I presume such an admission would destroy your position that this is a "Paul only theology". Indeed I should think it would be quite embarassing to openly admit the existence of both Matthews and Marks explicit statements expounding on the matter

"Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many. - Matthew 20:28

"For even the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister+ and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many." - Mark 10:45

In view of the above, I think its quite predictable for those that reject the explicit statements of all four gospel writers to resort to the position of "O well yes, they all spoke of Jesus' human (blood) sacrifice for mankind's sin - something I will never admit publically - but not AS MUCH as Paul" This in my opinion is a particularly weak position to take, if it is being asked as an attempt to minimalize their statements. After all how many times does a Policeman have to say it is illegal to drink-drive for it to be true? One could go to Univercity to study law where a Professor will expound on the reasons, the legal consequences and the details of that law, but that doesn't make it more or less true, it just means one better understands it. Truth is not truth by repetition or concensus, truth is absolute and nothing is detracted from it by only having been said once.

That said, I think God was to choose "A Professor" to expound explain the legalities and consequences of the truth that Jesus did (in his own words) give his blood for the redemtion of mankind. Thus the other bible writers while supporting this undeniable bible truth by their statments (see above) , spoke less about it because

#1 They saw fit to wait for Almighty God to choose which of them would be selected to expound on it further.

#2 Matthew, Mark and Luke and John all accepted the divine choice of Paul for that mission.

*Luke not only accepted he reported on the veracity of the Divine Choice of Paul by supernatural intervention and supported that one (Paul) in his (Paul's) ministry and Peter explicity endorsed Paul's writings (Although not a bible writer, Peter was a close personal associate of Jesus and an eyewitenss of his (Jesus) ministry)


JW

[liamconnor]

Was Paul's atonement theology intended as a metaphor?

Is his theology taken too literally, and has it calcified into legalistic dogma?

Or do Trinitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses understand it exactly as Paul intended?

The question is a bit vague for someone like me. After all, "Theology" is a broad term, and begs the question, "What parts have been calcified into legalistic dogma"?

I think one aspect of his theology has been taken literal where metaphor dominates: precisely in his atonement theology. The metaphorical terms are these: Redemption and Justification. Paul has borrowed language from his environment and history. Redemption is Slave language; Justification, legal. Both terms describe what Christ's sacrifice has done (i.e., the effects) but fail to describe the means. That is, they tell us the "what", but not the "how".

When one studies Paul in depth one sees that underlying the terms "justification" and "redemption" one finds the mystical notion of "New Creation", whereby Christians spiritually die with Christ in his death and are raised with Christ in his resurrection. Paul employs economic and legalistic language to describe the results of this mystical union.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Jehovah's Witnesses, Trinitarian and practically every Christian that has ever lived has accepted the basic Christian teaching that Jesus died for the redemption of mankind. His literal death, as symbolized by the outpouring of his blood, is commemorated earthwide when Christians commemorate the memorial of his death. It was on the occassion of commanding the above all three of the Gospels report Jesus as saying

MATTHEW 26:28
for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many. NLT

MARK 14:24
He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

LUKE 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. NIV

QUESTIONS:

1. Were any of these writers there when Jesus allegedly made these statements?

2. Were any of these claims made sooner than 40 years after his death?

The Jehovah's Witness view is that what Paul wrote was not only in harmony with Jesus as quoted above but with the basic premise of the entire Christian Greek scriptures (see below)

Thank you for telling us The Jehovah's Witness view .

1 PETER 1:18-19
For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

REVELATION 7:14
And I said to him, My Lord, you know. And he said to me, These are those who came from great suffering and they have purified their garments and whitened them in the blood of The Lamb. - Aramaic Bible in Plain English

*While neither James and Jude directly refer to the blood sacrifice of Jesus, both make reference to Jesus' key position in the lives of Christians

Were they trying to make converts?

1 JOHN 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Personally I believe, and this is just my opinion, that God will judge everyone in relation to his position towards Christ and for this reason I would not personally want to be the type of "Christian" that rejects the blood of Christ for fear I could find myself inadvertedly fighting on the side of the antichrist. My own interpretation of 1 John 2:22 which says Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. leads me to this most serious conclusion about what I would avoid in my life personally.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your personal opinion.

Wasn't Jesus executed by the Romans for being an insurrectionist, i.e. implying that he was king of the Jews?

[marco]

Jehovah's Witnesses, Trinitarian and practically every Christian that has ever lived has accepted the basic Christian teaching that Jesus died for the redemption of mankind.

You quote the second part of Christ's announcement. The first part, from Luke 22:19

is
King James Bible
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

This last instruction creates a problem. The normal take on what has been said would be that Jesus is willingly dying, as other martyrs have done, for what he believes. Do this in remembrance - or imitation -of me may mean carry out an empty ceremony of breaking bread but let it have the meaning that I died for the beliefs I give you. It could also mean that we should lay down our lives for what we believe. It is very hard to extract the meaning: I am dying to redeem mankind. It doesn't remotely say this, except through wishing. Roman Catholics take a literal interpretation which means the celebrant at mass performs a Eucharistic miracle.

[myth-one.com]

Jehovah's Witnesses, Trinitarian and practically every Christian that has ever lived has accepted the basic Christian teaching that Jesus died for the redemption of mankind.

At best, Jesus' death was one step towards the redemption of mankind.

But you (JehovahsWitness) and I both agree that Christ is not God.

Correct, Jesus was a man; and was appointed to die like all mankind:

And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Hebrews 9:27)

If Jesus' death was appointed as a consequence of His being a man, how can it atone for anything other than His being a man?

It certainly does not save any other man from dying. We will all die -- as appointed.

===================================================================

The one, and only one, difference between Jesus and other humans, is that Jesus lived a sinless human life.

Under the Old Testament the wages of sin is death, but He never sinned, thus His name is written in the Book of Life as an heir of everlasting life.

The death which is the wages of our sins is not our appointed first death -- but is called the "second death" in the scriptures:

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8)

So the name Jesus Christ is written into the Book of Life as an inheritor of everlasting spiritual life.

However, He will not accept His just reward and inheritance, but will offer it as a gift to those who believe in Him as their Savior under terms of the New Testament Covenant.

By believing in Jesus, we become joint heirs with Jesus Christ and our names are written into the Book of Life along with His.

Thus everlasting life becomes a gift of God through Jesus Christ:

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

The steps which together provide redemption for the sins of mankind are:

1 -- The Word became flesh as Jesus.

2 -- Jesus lived a sinless human life.

3 -- Jesus died and became an heir to everlasting life under the Old Testament.

4 -- Jesus gives His earned reward of everlasting life as a gift to those who accept Him as their Savior under terms of the New Testament Covenant.

[JehovahsWitness]

Wasn't Jesus executed by the Romans for being an insurrectionist, i.e. implying that he was king of the Jews?

What exactly has that got to do with the question of biblical atonement?

[JehovahsWitness]

Jehovah's Witnesses, Trinitarian and practically every Christian that has ever lived has accepted the basic Christian teaching that Jesus died for the redemption of mankind.

You quote the second part of Christ's announcement. The first part, from Luke 22:19

is
King James Bible
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

So what?!

Whatever the context, by far the marjority of Christan believers have interpreted the totality of the passages (in context) as being related in some way to the notion of atonement (which is the point of the OP) and my point. I have yet to meet a Catholic that doesn't believe Jesus died for the redeption of sin but I will admit however, that it would be a rare atheist indeed that would hold this same position and rarer still for me to care.