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?

[brianbbs67]

God truly begs for us to repent and come to Him. Throughout the OT. Nothing else required but returning to Him. (This is addressed to Hebrews) But, as we know He dealt with other nations too. Here is one example.

http://biblehub.com/isaiah/1-18.htm

[Justin108]

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?

Yes, All things are possible with God, we must not limit the Almighty with our human thinking. Something may seem impossible in our human terms but perfectly possible for the Almighty.

JW

If all things are possible to the Almighty, then why the need for a sacrifice at all? Why not atone for our sins without a sacrifice?

And before you start posting links to other debates, don't bother. Either actually answer my question directly, or don't bother responding.

LINE ONE: There is a difference between that which is possible and that which is beneficial.

How is killing Jesus beneficial in and of itself? What benefit do we gain from Jesus' death that cannot be gained without Jesus' death, keeping in mind God's omnipotence?

LINE TWO: Regarding the queston of the morality of what is possible regarding the ransom, please see my earlier post on this topic
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 933#848933

Do you have trouble with reading? Or is it more a struggle with comprehension?

And before you start posting links to other debates, don't bother. Either actually answer my question directly, or don't bother responding.

[Justin108]

It is not about whether or not Christ is God.

It is not about whether or not it will make sense to us.

It is not "human sacrifice, an abomination", but about a ransom made by a redeemer as announced by the angel of God; Matthew 1:20-21.

Well, Christ was a man, right? And his death is understood to be the sacrifice for our sin. So how is that not a form of human sacrifice?

Human sacrifice is an abomination..There is no provision for acceptable human sacrifice in Mosaic law.

Self sacrifice is not an abomination. The sacrifice of another is an abomination.

Where in scripture does it make the exception that human sacrifice is acceptable as long as you sacrifice yourself?

[Justin108]

Please demonstrate that the atonement makes sense, whether Jesus was God or whether he was a man. The OP is suggesting that either way, the atonement does not make sense.

How? You want me to take a brain scan with a picture of a light bult going of in my mind? A perfect "life for a life" makes sense to me.

Suppose Jack murders and rapes a little girl. Jack is sentenced to death. Jack's mother does not want Jack to die and so she offers to take the death sentence herself. The court allows this. Jack's mother is executed and Jack lives a free and happy life.

Does this make sense to you? This is, after all, a life for a life.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 23 by Justin108]

LINE ONE The analogy does not apply.

LINE TWO The reason for the above is that biblically the ransom is a sacrifice that atones for inherited sin, not wilful deliberate murder or any OTHER wilfull sinful actions (Num 35:31).

LINE THREE For more on the principle of "atonement" please continue reading the LINK below
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 30#p906230


This is not a one line answer as it consists of three lines.


JW



FURTHER READING Jehovah Provides “a Ransom in Exchange for Many�
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102002037

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 23 by Justin108]

LINE ONE The analogy does not apply.

Another reason is because Adam, the original perpetrator is not released from his transgression. "Jack" is not getting away to have a free life. Yet all the damage that "Jack" left in his wake needs to be repaired. That is what the atonement legally accomplishes.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 23 by Justin108]

LINE ONE The analogy does not apply.

Another reason is because Adam, the original perpetrator is not released from his transgression. "Jack" is not getting away to have a free life. Yet all the damage that "Jack" left in his wake needs to be repaired. That is what the atonement legally accomplishes.

Exactly even in the paradise, ie after the atoning value of the ransom has been fully applied, if someone were to rape and kill someone they would have to pay for their crime. The ransom has nothing to do with deliberated premeditated and willfull sin, it doesn't cover for that.

I don't think many people understand what Jesus random sacrifice actually is , which is not surprising as in my experience people generally haven't understood the issues raised in Eden.

JW

[2timothy316]

I don't think many people understand what Jesus random sacrifice actually is , which is not surprising as in my experience people generally haven't understood the issues raised in Eden.

Well, we both know who's at fault for that. (2 Timothy 3:13)

The sad thing is when they are corrected they don't believe it. It's like the hate they have for that wrongful teaching that has been taught for 1000's of years is just so much fun to hate that they can't let it go. So it just keeps coming up over and over. :yapyap:

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 23 by Justin108]

LINE ONE The analogy does not apply.

LINE TWO The reason for the above is that biblically the ransom is a sacrifice that atones for inherited sin, not wilful deliberate murder or any OTHER wilfull sinful actions (Num 35:31).

LINE THREE For more on the principle of "atonement" please continue reading the LINK below
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 230#906230


This is not a one line answer as it consists of three lines.


JW



FURTHER READING Jehovah Provides “a Ransom in Exchange for Many�
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102002037

So then, if there is no such thing as "inherited guilt" or "orignal sin", if the Garden story is myth and not literal fact, then is Christ's atoning sacrifice "in vain"? (to borrow a line from Paul)

Does the ransom cover only orignal and not actual sin? Adam's sin, (and the guilt that he passed on to his decendants) but not our own?

Seems humans are quite capable of sinning even if there were no such people as Adam and Eve, especially given that we all have free will of our own.

Does JW atonment theology, (and Christian atonement theology in general) depend entirely on the existance of a literal Adam and Eve?

[Elijah John]

LINE TWO The reason for the above is that biblically the ransom is a sacrifice that atones for inherited sin, not wilful deliberate murder or any OTHER wilfull sinful actions (Num 35:31).


JW

That verse says nothing about deliberate vs. unintentional sin. Only that a murderer must be put to death.

And besides, OT sacrifices covered actual sin, and (unless I missed it), nothing about "inherited guilt" of Adam's sin.