The Atonement

[Revelations won]

To all true Christians there is nothing more important to our salvation than "The Atonement of Jesus Christ".

Having said that, is it not therefore extremely important to every individual to understand fully what and how the atonement works for our benefit?

What does the atonement do or does not do?

What is required on our part to receive the full benefits of the atonement?

What and when and by whom did the atonement begin?

Can anyone clearly show all scriptures pertaining to the atonement?

I look forward to hearing your "take" on this most important topic.

Kind regards,
RW

[JoeyKnothead]

Sin is the transgression of God's laws, or commandments:

For sin is the transgression of the law.

However, to commit a sin, one must first recognize that the act is a sin:

To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Originally, man did not know good from evil as he had no law.

Upon being commanded to not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, man had one, and only one, law or commandment! Man was now set up to commit one, and only one sin. It was the only commandment he knew, and thus the only one he could violate. Satan saw to it that man did indeed violate this first commandment that God gave him.

The important thing was not the fruit, but that it was a commandment from God.

God certainly made it understandable as to the consequences of disobeying His commandment because God is just and true:

Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

It’s interesting that the word “sin” really doesn’t appear in the Bible until Genesis 4:7.

Notice that God did not suggest or recommend that man not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He commanded it -- and that is the definition of a law in the Bible. And sin is the breaking of God's laws.

The real choice being made was between choosing to obey or reject the commandments of God.

Adam and Eve showed that they would disobey God.

After they made that decision, it turned out that God had more than one commandment, and their eyes were opened to them.

Do me a favor and respond with a quote so I can know you've brought class into session

Hope the above is sufficient. God bless quotes.

But could A&E really conceive of the ramifications? There's no precedent.

Thanks for the schooling

[myth-one.com]

But could A&E really conceive of the ramifications? There's no precedent.

And the serpent took that into account. It seems like it took very little persuasion from him to entice them to eat from the tree.

On Adam & Eve's sin being passed on to all future humans, I think that could be a simple case of the desires and needs of the human body.

For example, it's easy to create a situation whereby even the most devout person might steal food so that his or her children might survive.
=======================================

If they ate from the tree, they would die. But did they understand & have any knowledge about death?
========================================

Also note that neither the man nor the woman accepted responsibility for their actions. Man blamed his sin on the woman, and indirectly on God for giving him the woman in the first place, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." And the woman blamed her sin on the serpent.

So did they understand accepting personal responsibility?

The whole thing is probably setup for failure, because man was created to eventually replace the original rebellious earthly caretakers. Sin led to their failure and rebellion.

We are here to learn that we should make every effort to resist sin:

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

We learn this lesson by trying our way and failing.

It's the parent/child relationship. Little Jane & John do not learn to not touch the hot stove when their parent tells them not to touch it. They learn to not touch the hot stove by touching it and getting burned.

[JoeyKnothead]

But could A&E really conceive of the ramifications? There's no precedent.

And the serpent took that into account. It seems like it took very little persuasion from him to entice them to eat from the tree.

On Adam & Eve's sin being passed on to all future humans, I think that could be a simple case of the desires and needs of the human body.

For example, it's easy to create a situation whereby even the most devout person might steal food so that his or her children might survive.
=======================================

If they ate from the tree, they would die. But did they understand & have any knowledge about death?
========================================

Also note that neither the man nor the woman accepted responsibility for their actions. Man blamed his sin on the woman, and indirectly on God for giving him the woman in the first place, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." And the woman blamed her sin on the serpent.

So did they understand accepting personal responsibility?

The whole thing is probably setup for failure, because man was created to eventually replace the original rebellious earthly caretakers. Sin led to their failure and rebellion.

We are here to learn that we should make every effort to resist sin:

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

We learn this lesson by trying our way and failing.

It's the parent/child relationship. Little Jane & John do not learn to not touch the hot stove when their parent tells them not to touch it. They learn to not touch the hot stove by touching it and getting burned.

Now I get it, thanks for your time and efforts.

[William]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #33]

It's the parent/child relationship. Little Jane & John do not learn to not touch the hot stove when their parent tells them not to touch it. They learn to not touch the hot stove by touching it and getting burned.

One then need ask if we learn by direct experience, why the addition of a warning which by that, will go unheeded. For we do not learn by warnings, but by experience.

Does a parent somehow think that not to warn of consequence, would be a failure on their part, or is it more about covering oneself in the event of blowback?

As in;

"I tried to warn the child but the child did not listen anyway."

Or;

"If I hadn't of warned them, I would be just as guilty as they are"

I think the problem with analogy which attempts to have me view The Creator in relation to human parents [and their responsibilities] is naturally problematic.

I think it is far better to just accept that we were placed here in harms way to learn through direct experience and there is no requirement to play any blame-game, because no one is actually to blame because nothin untoward is being done, if indeed one understands that there is nothing untoward about nature.

So one might ask something along the lines of;

"Does that mean it is natural to sin"

And assuming sin means "to go against what is natural" then the answer is "no."

And since it is natural to want to know this and that, and name things along the way, because we come into this world ignorant of anything to do with it, we need to allow ourselves a lot of headroom as it were, and don't come down hard on each other, as we have dome throughout most of human history.

So.

"Is it natural to want to know good and evil?"

I would argue "No it is not" because we over-extend our capacity to discern while wanting to know this and that, and name things along the way, and in that, we over-react, by then assigning the extra layer on top of what already is natural, and thus make nature appear to us to being, unnatural.

Sure, being hunted by a lion is not an ideal situation to be in, but it is still a natural enough one, so in that, need not be labeled "evil", as the lion pounces on you. Even that the Lion slays you and feeds on your carcass, it is natural enough and need not be labelled "good", even that the lion staves off hunger for another few days.

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #33]

It's the parent/child relationship. Little Jane & John do not learn to not touch the hot stove when their parent tells them not to touch it. They learn to not touch the hot stove by touching it and getting burned.

One then need ask if we learn by direct experience, why the addition of a warning which by that, will go unheeded. For we do not learn by warnings, but by experience.

At each repetition, we gain more respect for the parent in that he or she is right as we found out the hard way.

[William]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #33]

It's the parent/child relationship. Little Jane & John do not learn to not touch the hot stove when their parent tells them not to touch it. They learn to not touch the hot stove by touching it and getting burned.

One then need ask if we learn by direct experience, why the addition of a warning which by that, will go unheeded. For we do not learn by warnings, but by experience.

At each repetition, we gain more respect for the parent in that he or she is right as we found out the hard way.

How does this help the parent? Is there a need for validation that "I told you so" is in order, that no blame can be put on the parent, but all blame can be placed on the Child.

Why the need for blame at all? What is, is as it is - natural enough for that.

The need to blame appears to derive from insecurity on the parents part, which is then transferred upon those who were "told so" but "did not listen".

Could it be that the parent placed the child in harms way because of the parents own insecurity?

Perhaps by conflating The Creator with the limitations of human parents through analogy, we veer away from the actual truth of the matter.

If we simply understood that there is no blame to allocate because;

1: No warning was given
2: No one went against any warning because [1]

then we might move closer to the truth through that realization.

[myth-one.com]

If we simply understood that there is no blame to allocate because;

1: No warning was given
2: No one went against any warning because [1]

then we might move closer to the truth through that realization.

Any parent who knows of dangers, but refuses to give advice about how to avoid those dangers to their children, are failures at parenting.

[onewithhim]

Dear OWH,

Revelations won wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:34 am
Dear onewithhim,

You said: "Jesus paid for our sins, sins that we cannot help because we inherited the faulty genetic makeup of Adam (that he attained after he rebelled). Because of Adam's rebellion he was on the road to death, as he was warned would happen if he disobeyed. He lost his perfection and the sin he carried on caused him to grow old and die before he was 1,000 years old. (A day to Jehovah.) We have the tendency to sin because of inheritance from Adam.

My response: Your statement that we "inherited the faulty genetic makeup of Adam (that he attained after he rebelled)." is utterly false. This is nothing but a false claim which you are clearly unable to defend. But feel free to do so as I find this claim most amazing. Please produce first the genetic makeup of Adam before the fall and next provide the genetic makeup of Adam after the fall....I can hardly wait to see your scientific proof of your claim!.

Dear onewithhim, you made the above claim regarding Adams genetic makeup. I asked you to provide scientific proof of your claim. You have provided nothing to support your wild genetic claim. If you cannot answer directly, then please provide evidence from a previous topic giving post number and date. If you cannot provide proof, then this claim of yours amounts to nothing but untruth and something from a figment of your imagination.

Let us hear a truthful response from you on your claim.

Kind regards,
RW



Dear RW,

Of course I can't prove what Adam's genetic makeup was. I use my brain to REASON. (Isaiah 1:18, KJV) Romans 5:18 and 19 tells us what happened to cause Adam's progeny to die.


"As through one trespass the result to all men was condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift cam upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

How was a previously perfect man, destined to live forever, able to pass on perfection to his children after he was condemned? Wouldn't a scientific mind say it's in the DNA? Adam was condemned after he sinned, so he was damaged somehow to not be able to pass on perfection to his offspring. Isn't it logical to think that his DNA was involved? A damaged person cannot pass on perfection and life.

Regards to you,
OWH

Thank you for your response. My response is as follows:

Scientific proof requires evidence and verified testing to prove a theory to be true or false. If all scientific discovery were based on just reasoning we would have a heck of a mess. In the first place one would have to establish that the “reasoning” in the first place was correct and supported.

In the instant matter your deductive reasoning is not supported, but in fact the evidence to the contrary is supported as will be shown hereafter.

1. Your theory is that God intended Adam and Eve to remain forever in the Garden of Eden.

2. Fact: Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil or understanding the consequences thereof for they had no experience or foundation upon which to base their decisions for as the scripture says, “their eyes were not yet opened”

3. Your premise is based on your railing accusation that Adam rebelled against God in choosing to partake of the fruit. I would heartily disagree with your accusations against Adam. One must remember that Eve had partaken of the fruit first and that God had commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth. So Adam had the difficult choice of remaining a lone man in the garden of eden and be unable to be with his wife and have no posterity or he could made a choice to have his eyes opened and remain with Eve outside the garden and fulfill God’s commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

4. Further your argument is faulty since you claim that ones DNA became faulty by making a wrong decision. On the basis of your thinking it would be apparent that according to your premise Eves DNA had already become damaged. It is therefore very obvious that if Adam had not partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that if they had any offspring that their posterity would all have faulty or “damaged DNA”.

5. As further evidence I raise the issue of Enoch who was taken into heaven without tasting death…….

6. You claim that anyone who ”inherited this so called “Damaged gene or DNA from Adam cannot be made perfect”

Jesus Christ was begotten in the flesh from God the Father and from a mortal mother (Mary). Mary would also have inherited this so called damaged DNA and any of her offspring would also have inherited this damaged DNA and therefore could not become perfect.

Hebrews 5:
8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

As I see it you obviously according to your claim in opposition to the scriptures that Jesus Christ was not made perfect and is not the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.
Kind regards,
RW

How can you say that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil? That is blatantly false. There is nothing in the account that leads us to believe that they were blindly innocent of all knowledge. Would you send your children off into new territory without advising them of the lay of the land, so to speak? We have no reason to think that Jehovah did not inform A&E about what to expect and how to avoid any difficulties. We can't say that Jehovah did not have long informative conversations with them. He had met with Adam in the garden even long before Eve was created. Do you think they just talked about how cute panda bears were? Let's be reasonable. You cannot say how much Adam did or didn't know, as you will say of me. Since God is love, and presented as such in the Bible, we would have to surmise that He would warn his creation about any evil that may confront them, as well as the best way to live and be happy.

When they rebelled, they knew full well what they were doing, otherwise God would not bring judgment upon innocent, child-like people. The Scripture says that "Adam was not deceived." (I Timothy 2:14) He knew what he was doing and that it would bring death upon them. (And surely he would have had another woman created for him, had he refused to take the fruit.)

Did anyone read my post above on the subject of Adam and Eve having full knowledge of what was good, for their benefit, and what was detrimental? They were not uninformed children.

[William]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #38]

How does this help the parent? Is there a need for validation that "I told you so" is in order, that no blame can be put on the parent, but all blame can be placed on the Child.

Why the need for blame at all? What is, is as it is - natural enough for that.

The need to blame appears to derive from insecurity on the parents part, which is then transferred upon those who were "told so" but "did not listen".

Could it be that the parent placed the child in harms way because of the parents own insecurity?

Perhaps by conflating The Creator with the limitations of human parents through analogy, we veer away from the actual truth of the matter.

If we simply understood that there is no blame to allocate because;

1: No warning was given
2: No one went against any warning because [1]

then we might move closer to the truth through that realization.

Any parent who knows of dangers, but refuses to give advice about how to avoid those dangers to their children, are failures at parenting.

Do you think The Creator is bound by the same conditions as human parents? As I said, perhaps by conflating The Creator with the limitations of human parents through analogy, we veer away from the actual truth of the matter.

[myth-one.com]

Do you think The Creator is bound by the same conditions as human parents?

No, He's bound by higher requirements.

He must be just and true, and He cannot lie:

Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. Revelation 13:3

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; Titus 1:2