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]

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.

Yes excellent point. My point is that the idea that Christs death was unrelated to the notion of redemption (atonement & salvation) is foreign to most bible believing Christians.

[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.

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.

Actually, I'm sure there are atheists here who do interpret Scripture as supporting the blood-atonement position, but that doesn't not necessitate their belief in the doctrine.

I think Marco has successfully refuted the notion that the Synoptic writers taught Jesus' blood atonement. They may have believed it, but they did not teach it, at least not explictly, and only hinted at it in a verse or two.

Why would they barely touch on it if blood atonement was such an important doctrine?

That leaves us with John and Paul. Correct me if I missed it, but neither does John mention blood atonement in his Gospel. So it seems it was all up to Paul, or mostly anyway, to explain or to invent the notion.

And if one wants to tie Jesus martyrdom to the OT tradition of priestly, blood-sacrifice, then one must be precise in order to extract that theological "pound of flesh". Precise to the degree that Priest, Temple and altar are essential to the redemptive transaction. Jesus, by contrast, died on a Pagan executioner's cross. JW's are big on legalistic precision, it is surprising they stop short here.

Also, whether or not you care, atheists are more than welcome to weigh in, even on things they do not necessarily believe. All reasonable perspectives are welcome here, even in the TD&D forum. Even those of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

In fact, sometimes atheists have more objective understanding and reading of Scripture, because they do not "have a dog in the fight". Their insights are often refreshing and are certainly welcome.

[polonius]

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?

RESPONSE: It demonstrates that Jesus' death was actually punishment for the crime of insurrection.

The "atonement" explanation created by Paul about 25 years later tries to give a religious explanation for Jesus' execution.

[marco]

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 am surprised that you have departed from scorning the majority view. We will soon be accepting that the numerical superiority of Roman Catholicism, and its longevity, beats other Christian claims.

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.

We are arguing the meaning of a passage not the number of Catholics in the world. The vast majority derives its view from what it has been told. Normally you'd care for rare opinion viewpoint, but perhaps this one doesn't quite fit your prescription. Ah, well!

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 14 by marco]

Yes I see were you are coming from. Thanks so much for your input; it certainly give everyone something to think about. I will readily admit you did indeed post a point.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Correct me if I missed it, but neither does John mention blood atonement in his Gospel.

JOHN 1:29
The next day [John the Baptist] he saw Jesus coming toward him, and he said: See, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

JOHN 6: 51, 54
I [Jesus] will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world. ... Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life

JOHN 10: 14, 15
man and does not care for the sheep. I am the fine shepherd. I know my sheep and my sheep know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I surrender my life in behalf of the sheep.

Of the (depending on how one counts them) eight (or 10) seperate writers of the "New Testament", all but three of them make direct and explicit reference to Jesus in relation to redemtion from sin and/or blood sacrifice

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

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.

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.

1 JOHN 2:2
[Jesus] is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins yet not for ours only but also for the whole worlds

REVELATION 7:14
These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

*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 It is generally accepted that the writer of the book of Acts was the gospel writer Luke

ACTS
There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.

RELATED POSTS

Why do the gospels not discuss the notion of the ransom in more detail?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 493#887493

[Checkpoint]

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?

RESPONSE: It demonstrates that Jesus' death was actually punishment for the crime of insurrection.

The "atonement" explanation created by Paul about 25 years later tries to give a religious explanation for Jesus' execution.

His death was directly carried out by the Roman Empire, yes.

But it was a direct result of Jewish petition. Without that Jewish factor Rome would have been unaware of any need for his punishment.

That is the human historical reason it happened.

God used it as the way His divine spiritual reason, atonement by ransom, was indirectly carried out.

Paul did not create the atonement explanation; rather, God did long before Paul or Jesus arrived on the scene.

[Elijah John]

ACTS
There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.

Thank you for those examples, yes, John does allude to the blood as do most of the NT authors. At least passing references.

But as I have pointed out before, and we no doubt disagree, the OT and the Gospels contain many contradictory passages.

But let's focus on the quote for your reference here. "No other name" but Jesus for salvation? What about Jehovah? Seems King David and many others found salvation in the name of Jehovah.

And he appealed to Jehovah for salvation without working "Jesus" into the process.

[myth-one.com]

"No other name" but Jesus for salvation? What about Jehovah? Seems King David and many others found salvation in the name of Jehovah.

And he appealed to Jehovah for salvation without working "Jesus" into the process.

David, and the others are presently dead and buried:

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. (Acts 2:29)

For David is not ascended unto the heavens... (Acts 2:34)

[polonius]

Checkpoint posted:

His death was directly carried out by the Roman Empire, yes. But it was a direct result of Jewish petition. Without that Jewish factor Rome would have been unaware of any need for his punishment.
That is the human historical reason it happened. God used it as the way His divine spiritual reason, atonement by ransom, was indirectly carried out.
Paul did not create the atonement explanation; rather, God did long before Paul or Jesus arrived on the scene.

RESPONSE: What historical evidence do you have of any such Jewish petition ??? Since Rome had military personal observing the Jewish population, it is reasonable to expect that they knew that Jesus and his followers claimed that he was the promised messiah who would sit on the throne of Israel and return the rule to Israel. Hence his crucifixion for insurrection.

Acts: 16-7 When they had gathered together they asked him, Lord, are you at this time going* to restore the kingdom to Israel? He answered them, It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority.

The Roman leadership was intolerant of insurrection and crucified those who supported it. It was one of two crimes for which crucifixion was used.

From Wikipedia:

Plutarch, Appian and Florus all claim that Spartacus died during the battle, but Appian also reports that his body was never found.[44] Six thousand survivors of the revolt captured by the legions of Crassus were crucified, lining the Appian Way from Rome to Capua

No petition. Just a claim of kingship.