The principle of atonement

[Checkpoint]

Or is it contrary to it?

A number of questions may be asked and answered on a thread like this.

For example:

What is the principle of atonement?

What part does atonement play in scripture, and in the old and new covenants?

How can we know what does and does not reflect the character [and ways] of God?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 4 by Elijah John]

If you are speaking of blood atonement, I don't like what it says about God's character.

I am speaking of atonement as described and prescribed in the scriptures.

We may or may not like what is written there. What it says is a portrayal of what His character is and is not.

Like it or lump it, it is there.

Without the scriptures we would not know who God is and what His character is.

But I do not believe that He ever required blood-atonement.

Then you are denying and rejecting what scripture tells us, because you "don't like what it says abut God's character".

You seemed to have ignored all the Scriptural support for my position, the references I provided in post #4.

Scripture is contradictory on the matter. Evidence the verses I provided above which give us a less bloodthirsty Father. THAT is the God that I know and love.

Very few Jew believe in the necessity of blood today, and arguably, only a fraction believed in it's necessity after the Temple was destroyed.

Jesus and John (the Baptist) both taught non-bloody means of atonement.

Maimonides himself taught that the sacrifices were transitional only. YHVH tolerated them for a time to wean the ancient Hebrews off of a Pagan form of worship.

The Prophets seem to be of a similar mindset, as was King David.

The thinking goes, "well, at least they will be sacrificing to YHVH, and not some false God, this will do for a time"

And the transition was not from animal sacrifice to human sacrifice with Jesus.

It was a transition from animal sacrifice to higher forms of worship, worthy of YHVH, who wanted "mercy and not sacrifice" a humble and contrite heart and not blood...in short, worshiping YHVH in Spirit and in truth".

I find it baffling as to why so many are wed to the idea that God needs blood, when Scripture provides clear alternatives.

You really supposed the Almighty cannot find it within His nature to forgive the contrite without the necessity of being "bought with blood"?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 11 by Elijah John]

You seemed to have ignored all the Scriptural support for my position, the references I provided in post #4.

Scripture is contradictory on the matter. Evidence the verses I provided above which give us a less bloodthirsty Father. THAT is the God that I know and love.

Says the poster who freely ignores myriad scriptures he does not agree with.

I do not ignore those verses you provided, but see how they are intended to be taken.
They fit into the plan and ways of God, and do not contradict other verses when viewed in the light of the whole of scripture.

The God I know and love had an eternal purpose, and carried it out in a progressive way, centering it on His chosen Son and us chosen ones, in and by him.

First the natural, the shadow, then the spiritual, the reality.

[JehovahsWitness]

What is in post #3 fills in nicely as being ny explanation.

Jehovah's four cardinal qualities
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 944#869944
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 620#840620

Principle of atonement (onewithim)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 947#869947



QUESTION: How can the principles of atonement, as expressed in both the Hebrew and the Christian bibles, be seen as an expression of God's cardinal qualities?

LOVE: Jehovah made an arrangement at great cost to himself to repay the "debt"of sin and death incurred upon Adam's offspring by his (Adam's) sin (Rom 5:12). Like captives kidnapped and condemned to death, all humans became slaves to sin's effects (sickness and death) with no way out. All cancers, illnesses, physical, emotional handicaps indeed all human suffering stemmed from Adam's sin and it was Jehovah's immense love for the children of Adam moved him to put in place an arrangement by which he could legitimately save faithful humans from this sad eventuality.

The atonement sacrifices, indeed all of the animal sacrifices of the Hebrew scriptures served to illustrate this possibility and render it and understandable to humans. The sacrifices of old from that of Abel on, introduced the correct notion of God covering and atoning sin with the life of another being, so that they could again enjoy a relationship with Jehovah. The ransom (the ultimate sacrifice) is the greatest expression of love ever made (see John 3:16)

POWER: That Jehovah can eliminate inherited sin and all its effects is testimony to his great power. If love motivates God to do something to help mankind, His power makes it possible. No doctor, surgeon, scientist, savant has the power to eliminate what the bible calls mankinds '"last enemy" no human can escape it, namely death (see 1 Cor 15:26). Death is the result of being born with sin and only Almighty God JEHOVAH the creator has the power to remove this. Something he will do during the 1000 year reign of Christ. The Hebrew sacrificial arrangement was a testiment to God's ability both to choose a special nation to demonstrate in a small way that future time, a picture of the blessings mankind would enjoy when God would ultimately wipe out all sin and death through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus.

WISDOM: The arrangement for a ransom for mankind was an huge testimony to JEHOVAH'S unmeasurable wisdom. Wisdom is the practical application of knowledge, if knowing a speeding car coming straight at you will cause injury or death, wisdom is getting out of the way. When Adam sinned he damaged himself (both phsyically and spiritually) and tragically all his children inherited that "damage" (we call that damage, "sin"). How to reverse that situation? Humans had to be born through Adam to be human, but all children born of Adam were condemned to die because they were ... born through Adam. Mankind found itself between a rock and a hard place, there was no way out. But who could have envisioned appointing a "second Adam" finding a way to legitimately give mankind the choice of having another "Father"? By providing Jesus, a human that would to give the his life for condemned mankind and legitimately adopt Adam's children, God showed that he is as the bible says "wise alone"! (Rom 16:27)

But how could Adam's descendents produce a human that could pay the price of Adam, since all humans would be imperfect and fall short ? By transfering a life of a trusted spirit creature to the womb of a virgin girl and protecting that life from any influence of her own "damaged" genetic code so that which is born is 100% human but without sin (Ps 49:7). Even the angels praised God for such a miraculously wise application of his knowlege upon the announcement of this wonderous event.

Wisdom is above all practical: for that special human to be born he had to be born to a woman, a woman that would be part of a nation. The nation had to be both protected, educated and prepared to receive the coming "new Father" of all humankind. To educated and protect them, Jehovah put in place a temple system of worship. The atonement power of sacrifices being central to that system. Thanks to that system the Israelites (the chosen nation) would understand the nature of sin (what is a sin and what is its effects on a human) and sacrifice (why is a blood (life) sacrifice necessary for the atonement of sin). So both in the preparation (Hebrew scriptures) and in the exectution (the Christian bible), Jehovah's amazing wisdom was manifest.

JUSTICE: Justice is basically doing what is right and good. Justice without love can be harsh, love without justices is ineffective. Thus when Adam sinned God was by his own perfect standards obliged to exercise the just (right) punishment as previously announced. But how could he justifiably extend his love to Adam's children? Bending or worse ignoring his own standards of justice (that sin leads to death) could only result in more sin, but how to legitimately (ie act in a way that respected his perfect standards) extend mercy to the children? The answer was in paying the debt himself. What judge imposes a penalty and then goes on to provide the means to pay the penalty? Only a judge that is both loving and just.

The ransom sacifice and its atoning power anabled God to apply the punishment and save the children at the same time, something that is the perfect expression of divine justice. The Hebrew system of sacrifices did the same thing on a small scale enabling the sinner to enjoy forgiveness and have a clean standing before God while ensuring that the sin was not condoned or tolerated. Divine justice demands that some sins of a a deliberate and premediated wrongdoing that endangered the lives of others, would not be atoned for. This both protected the nation and its most vulnerable, ensured that there was a nation to which the Messiah could be born and demonstrated God being a God of justice will not tolerate evil. So the ransom and the temple based system demonstrated the perfection of God's justice.


CONCLUSION: Jehovah God is a perfect God, we see this through his dealings with mankind and honest hearted people are moved to worship Jehovah for his goodness (compare Deut 32:4).


For a full explanation of these and other divine qualities please see the publication "Draw close to Jehovah" (free audio & download at jw.org)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102002059



[youtube][/youtube]

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 11 by Elijah John]

Jesus and John (the Baptist) both taught non-bloody means of atonement.

What they taught was a non-bloody way of living for God and pleasing Him.

But that was not all, and not a "means of atonement".

They also taught atonement through Jesus being the one who would "give his life as a ransom for many"[Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45], and as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"[John 1:29,36].
[

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 11 by Elijah John]

I find it baffling as to why so many are wed to the idea that God needs blood, when Scripture provides clear alternatives.

You really supposed the Almighty cannot find it within His nature to forgive the contrite without the necessity of being "bought with blood"?

What is baffling is why anyone would choose to deny the principle of atonement, and the means scripture reiterates so many times, and then imagines he finds another way, and wonders why so few embrace what flies in the face of what God has clearly said and done.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 11 by Elijah John]

I find it baffling as to why so many are wed to the idea that God needs blood, when Scripture provides clear alternatives.

You really supposed the Almighty cannot find it within His nature to forgive the contrite without the necessity of being "bought with blood"?

What is baffling is why anyone would choose to deny the principle of atonement, and the means scripture reiterates so many times, and then imagines he finds another way, and wonders why so few embrace what flies in the face of what God has clearly said and done.

Again, you are ignoring the Bible references which support my position in post # 4.

Let's focus on this for now. Where is any reference to blood in the Lord's prayer? Either animal or human? Yet forgiveness is taught there....non-bloody forgiveness.

Where are the references to blood in the Parables, or in the Beattitudes? Forgiveness is taught there as well. Non-bloody forgiveness.

I'm not pulling this out of my imagination as you suggest. Forgiveness based on simple repentance and non-bloody means is taught all throughout the Bible.

Why do you suppose Jesus makes no mention of "the blood" in the Lord's prayer?

Also, what do you think the principle of blood-atonement says about the character of the Father?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 11 by Elijah John]

You seemed to have ignored all the Scriptural support for my position, the references I provided in post #4.

Scripture is contradictory on the matter. Evidence the verses I provided above which give us a less bloodthirsty Father. THAT is the God that I know and love.

Says the poster who freely ignores myriad scriptures he does not agree with.

I do not ignore those verses you provided, but see how they are intended to be taken.
They fit into the plan and ways of God, and do not contradict other verses when viewed in the light of the whole of scripture.

The God I know and love had an eternal purpose, and carried it out in a progressive way, centering it on His chosen Son and us chosen ones, in and by him.

First the natural, the shadow, then the spiritual, the reality.

I am not ignoring them, I admit that blood-atonement is also taught in the Bible. And that is a major (not a petty) Bible contradiction. Blood atonement verses contradict non-bloody means of atonement which is also taught in the Bible.

And where the Bible contradicts, we are compelled to choose which passages to embrace, and which to disregard.

Or else to engage in theological and linguistic gymnastics in our attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable..

I choose the passages which indicate a higher form or worship and devotion, namely that God desires mercy and not sacrifice.

Blood atonement is a pagan vestige which the ancient Hebrews outgrew with the help and enlightenment of the prophets.

Including Isaiah, Jeremiah, King David, Micah, Hosea, Samuel, John the Baptist AND Jesus himself.

Paul, attempting to find meaning in the death of the Messiah, is the one who speculated that his martydom was a blood-atonement.

But if that were so, and Jesus died to "pay for" our sins, why didn't he do so on an authorized altar? At the hands of a Priest?

If you want to view his martyrdom as a legalistic "atonement" hadn't you ought to play by the legalistic rules of blood-atonement?

The cross is not an altar.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 11 by Elijah John]

Jesus and John (the Baptist) both taught non-bloody means of atonement.

What they taught was a non-bloody way of living for God and pleasing Him.

But that was not all, and not a "means of atonement".

Are you then, making a distinction between "atonement" and the forgiveness of sins?

John performed baptism's of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. (Luke 3.3)

Sure sounds like atonement to me.

[ttruscott]

If you are speaking of blood atoneBlood-atonement, human or animal, is a Pagan vestige. A vestige which Jews outgrew with the help and enlightenment of the Prophets.

And Jesus himself, a Jew, Prophetically taught non-bloody means of atonement as the verses above indicate.

Does Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. refer to the "suffering" Messiah?

Peter and Paul thought so:
Romans 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our trespasses and was raised to life for our justification.

1 Peter 2:24 He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. "By His stripes you are healed.�
and referred to Christ as that Messiah.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 16 by Elijah John]

Again, you are ignoring the Bible references which support my position in post # 4. o

I will write a post on these later this week.

In the meantime I will answer your other postings as time permits.