The atonement

[Elijah John]

Does the atonement of Christ make any sense?

Consider the option that Christ is God. Why would God need to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to give Himself permission to forgive the contrite?

And if Christ is not God, does it make sense that one man,.even a perfect one could atone for the sins of all of humankind by his temporary death?

Also, if Christ is not God but a man, how is that not human sacrifice, an abomination?

After all. even a perfect man is still a man, right?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 37 by TripleZ]

Parroting orthodoxy does not address the questions of the OP. I understand the theology, but do not see how that in and of itself answers any of the pertinent questions.

That orthodoxy, that theology, stems from an acceptance and grasp of what scripture consistently teaches, from Genesis to Revelation.

Your questions stem from your wholesale rejection of every such scripture.

Therefore any answers we give will never seem sensible to you.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 37 by TripleZ]

Parroting orthodoxy does not address the questions of the OP. I understand the theology, but do not see how that in and of itself answers any of the pertinent questions.

That orthodoxy, that theology, stems from an acceptance and grasp of what scripture consistently teaches, from Genesis to Revelation.

Your questions stem from your wholesale rejection of every such scripture.

Therefore any answers we give will never seem sensible to you.

How do those Scriptures solve the logical problems created by the doctrine of the atonement?

Please demonstrate to me how each verse thrown my way applies to the OP. Show me the relevance to the problems raised in the OP regarding orthodox notions. How do the Scriptures cited solve those problems, other than "the Bible says..." Again, how do those Scriptures answer these problems:

-If Jesus is God, then why does God need to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to give Himself permission to forgive the contrite. How does that make any sense?

-If Jesus is not God but a special human being, how is considering his martyrdom an "atoning sacrifice" not a form of human sacrifice? How is it not a pagan notion?

Even orthodoxy, is seems, is an interpretation of Scripture.

Example, is Jesus God? Trinitarian orthodoxy insists on the notion. But folks such as Jehovah's Witness, HJ scholars and others, (who also study and quote Scripture) have concluded that he is not.

[TripleZ]

Does the atonement of Christ make any sense?

Consider the option that Christ is God. Why would God need to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to give Himself permission to forgive the contrite?

And if Christ is not God, does it make sense that one man,.even a perfect one could atone for the sins of all of humankind by his temporary death?

Also, if Christ is not God but a man, how is that not human sacrifice, an abomination?

After all. even a perfect man is still a man, right?

ok, first of all, do you understand what " atonement " really means ?
,, it is all about " making ourselves RIGHT with God again " like as Adam WAS, before he sinned..
The problem is that we alone as human beings can never make ourselves right with God..as humans there is nothing that we can DO in and of ourself!...

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 41 by Elijah John]

Please demonstrate to me how each verse thrown my way applies to the OP. Show me the relevance to the problems raised in the OP regarding orthodox notions. How do the Scriptures cited solve those problems, other than "the Bible says..."

This illustrates my point.

What "the Bible says" is reflected in "orthodox notions", on this issue.

The problems you raise relate, not so much to what "the Bible says", but to your own inability to recognise the authority and authenticity of those scriptures.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 41 by Elijah John]

-If Jesus is not God but a special human being, how is considering his martyrdom an "atoning sacrifice" not a form of human sacrifice? How is it not a pagan notion?

Even orthodoxy, is seems, is an interpretation of Scripture.

Example, is Jesus God? Trinitarian orthodoxy insists on the notion. But folks such as Jehovah's Witness, HJ scholars and others, (who also study and quote Scripture) have concluded that he is not.

Sacrifice concepts and actions are either counterfeit or real.

God is real, and what He models or instructs is real. All else is counterfeit, whatever its source.

We all interpret what we read, including you and I.

It is called hermeneutics.

[TripleZ]

Does the atonement of Christ make any sense?

Consider the option that Christ is God. Why would God need to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to give Himself permission to forgive the contrite?

And if Christ is not God, does it make sense that one man,.even a perfect one could atone for the sins of all of humankind by his temporary death?

Also, if Christ is not God but a man, how is that not human sacrifice, an abomination?

After all. even a perfect man is still a man, right?

do you mean to say, the atonement BY Yeshua the Messiah, instead of " of Yeshua " ?

but you go on and on with this " if ", guess work everywhere, why ?
Suppositions are just that, guess work,

If Jesus this ? and, If Jesus that ? may be that ? and, maybe this ? etc; etc; ? what gives ?
Just show us the Scripture/s then we will know what you are asking us ?
Thank you..

[marco]

If Jesus this ? and, If Jesus that ? may be that ? and, maybe this ? etc; etc; ? what gives ?
Just show us the Scripture/s then we will know what you are asking us ?
Thank you..

It would be wonderful if quoting Scripture clarified all problems. We do have to interpet and where information is missing, we do have to guess. The problems around the census that incomprehensibly required Joseph, and his pregnant spouse, to travel a vast distance are not easily answered. Roman Catholics take the words: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church," as their authority for the papacy. Words require interpretation - I suppose yours is as good as the next person's, but let us not pretend we have solid fact.

[showme]

Does the atonement of Christ make any sense?

Consider the option that Christ is God. Why would God need to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to give Himself permission to forgive the contrite?

And if Christ is not God, does it make sense that one man,.even a perfect one could atone for the sins of all of humankind by his temporary death?

Also, if Christ is not God but a man, how is that not human sacrifice, an abomination?

After all. even a perfect man is still a man, right?

ok, first of all, do you understand what " atonement " really means ?
,, it is all about " making ourselves RIGHT with God again " like as Adam WAS, before he sinned..
The problem is that we alone as human beings can never make ourselves right with God..as humans there is nothing that we can DO in and of ourself!...

That is not in line with the gospel of Yeshua, which is to "repent", and "seek His righteousness", and "His kingdom", and as for the prophets, one must turn from wickedness to righteousness (Ez 18:27) to "save his life". But go ahead, and hold on the false gospel of the false prophet Paul, as that is apparently your only hope, despite it being a false hope.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 41 by Elijah John]

Please demonstrate to me how each verse thrown my way applies to the OP. Show me the relevance to the problems raised in the OP regarding orthodox notions. How do the Scriptures cited solve those problems, other than "the Bible says..."

This illustrates my point.

What "the Bible says" is reflected in "orthodox notions", on this issue.

The problems you raise relate, not so much to what "the Bible says", but to your own inability to recognise the authority and authenticity of those scriptures.

When the Bible contradicts the Bible, what are we to do?* What happens to it's authority. Authority in every detail? Including permission to keep and beat slaves half to death? Because someone interprets Scripture differently than another, or sides with one passage vs. another when they contradict, does not mean they are unable to recognize the authority of the Bible. One need not consider the Bible infallible to recognize it's authority, anymore than one must consider a nation's leader perfect to recognize their authority. As HJ scholars would say, it is entirely possible, (and even preferable) to "take the Bible seriously without taking it literally".

Once again, orthodoxy is an interpretation. People of good faith look at the same Scriptures and come up with different conclusions. John 17.3, for example. I look at that vese and read that there is only one God, namely the Father. Many Evangelicals, somehow, see the verse as saying both Jesus and the Father are God.

* The author of Hebrews, for example says "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin". Yet John the Baptist performed "baptisms of repentance for the forgiveness of sins"

Seems John taught God's forgiveness without the shedding of blood, based on simple repentance!

Basically, it comes down to this. I see simple repentance and forgiveness from God as presenting far fewer logical problems than the doctrine of substitutionary, blood atonement.

The problems with the latter have been presented and debated many time and in many ways on these boards.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 41 by Elijah John]

Please demonstrate to me how each verse thrown my way applies to the OP. Show me the relevance to the problems raised in the OP regarding orthodox notions. How do the Scriptures cited solve those problems, other than "the Bible says..."

This illustrates my point.

What "the Bible says" is reflected in "orthodox notions", on this issue.

The problems you raise relate, not so much to what "the Bible says", but to your own inability to recognise the authority and authenticity of those scriptures.

When the Bible contradicts the Bible, what are we to do?* What happens to it's authority. Authority in every detail? Including permission to keep and beat slaves half to death? Because someone interprets Scripture differently than another, or sides with one passage vs. another when they contradict, does not mean they are unable to recognize the authority of the Bible. One need not consider the Bible infallible to recognize it's authority, anymore than one must consider a nation's leader perfect to recognize their authority. As HJ scholars would say, it is entirely possible, (and even preferable) to "take the Bible seriously without taking it literally".

Once again, orthodoxy is an interpretation. People of good faith look at the same Scriptures and come up with different conclusions. John 17.3, for example. I look at that vese and read that there is only one God, namely the Father. Many Evangelicals, somehow, see the verse as saying both Jesus and the Father are God.

That is all very well, if debatable, but your questions arise, not from apparent contradiction as such, but from your total rejection of the very concept of ransom through any form of sacrifice.

Which means a failure to recognise the authenticity of all relevant verses.



*