Blood atonement.

[Elijah John]

The doctrine of the blood atonement of Christ is the centerpiece of conventional Christianity, and has been for some time. Evangelicals frequently preach "the blood", the Catholic and Orthodox Eucharist is based on the blood sacrifice of Christ. "Are you Washed in the Blood" goes the old Gospel song, etc.

For debate, what are some of the problems of blood atonement? Theological, Scriptural logical etc.

For example, what does blood atonement say about the Father? (assume for this OP that God does exist, and is portrayed in the Bible as the "Father".)

It makes a hero of the Son, but what does the blood sacrifice say about the Father?

Are there logical, Scriptural or theological problems with viewing the execution of Jesus as a "blood atonement"? Please specify.

[Elijah John]

If Christ had a hankering to be a poet, to vie with Homer and Virgil, why O why did he write nothing down, leaving it instead to the confusion of later scribes? Ergo: hoc est enim corpus meum is taken by billions to be what it says. And why not?

It is likely that he didn't see the need to write things down, as he was preaching to what he thought was the last generation. (Mt. 16.28, etc.)

Yes, there is always a danger that poetic language will escape the literal minded, and they will transform metaphor into absurd dogma.

[bluethread]

My point was that when we depart from saying how things are, we enter a world of confusion, build Cathedrals across the world, and believe what is manifestly absurd, when wine is blood and blood is what you want to make it.


If Christ had a hankering to be a poet, to vie with Homer and Virgil, why O why did he write nothing down, leaving it instead to the confusion of later scribes? Ergo: hoc est enim corpus meum is taken by billions to be what it says. And why not?

The problem is that the Roman Church departed from Yeshua's culture back when they rejected Pesach. To the children of Israel, at the time of Yeshua, these were well understood idioms. They reaffirmed them every year, month, week and even day, depending on the idiom. Admittedly, Yeshua did add to them, as he did in combining the two idioms for life in the third cup of the Seder. However, those two idioms were well understood. People tend to be myopic and frame everything according to their time and culture. On e can not really blame the author, when the reader(i.e. the RCC) not only ignores the context, but adamantly rejects it. I am not familiar with the entire reasoning behind the doctrine of transubstantiation. However, no one well versed in the Tanakh can honestly see it as a Torah based doctrine. It appears to me that is the driving force behind much RCC doctrine. The antisemitism of the first millennium is well documented and has clouded RCC and Protestant doctrine ever since.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 14 by ]

bluethread: "Though I am not sure I entirely agree with what 1213 is saying here, it is pretty clear, from the Tanakh(OT), that blood is a metaphor for life, as is wine."

Blood was not meant as a metaphor for life. Blood was life. Of course spirit, wind, breath was life according to another school. Now the apologists claim those are metaphors, but the originators were literalists. You had to bleed the meat so that you would not be consuming the life. You were forbidden to eat strangled animals.

Of course by the time of Jesus, the "life" was not necessarily ordinary life, it was some transcendent life, life as manifested in the heavenly spheres. Thus you had to eat and drink of this heavenly life to ascend from the Earth.

[marco]

Yeah, transubstantiation. That's silly.

It is no sillier than accepting a corpse rose up. One cannot differentiate between one impossibility and another: if it's claimed water became wine or fishes self multiplied to feed thousands then accepting yet another miracle is no big deal. If one accepts miracles, then transubstantiation isn't silly.

That's what a sacrament is, an outward and visible reminder of what God Himself has done for us.

Why rationalise some things and accept others as miracles, mysteries beyond explanation? Yes, some say a sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace.

People are instructed in special interpretations of these horrible words that suggest cannibalism.

Nah, that's an extremely limited way to see it.

Well the Romans saw it that way. The metaphor is ugly.
As for limited interpretation, you see transubstantiation in a limited way too. It seems as if we believe what we want to believe or what we've been fed with. On Tuesdays we go literal and on Thursdays choose spiritual. Such a shame that Jesus liked a paradox, hyperbole and metaphor without writing any explanations.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 14 by ]

bluethread: "Though I am not sure I entirely agree with what 1213 is saying here, it is pretty clear, from the Tanakh(OT), that blood is a metaphor for life, as is wine."

Blood was not meant as a metaphor for life. Blood was life. Of course spirit, wind, breath was life according to another school. Now the apologists claim those are metaphors, but the originators were literalists. You had to bleed the meat so that you would not be consuming the life. You were forbidden to eat strangled animals.

Of course by the time of Jesus, the "life" was not necessarily ordinary life, it was some transcendent life, life as manifested in the heavenly spheres. Thus you had to eat and drink of this heavenly life to ascend from the Earth.

That is how metaphors are used. A metaphor is stated in place of something it represents. A simile is comparative. One can have plenty of blood and die anyway. It is metaphorical for life, because it drains out when one dies from being cut or stabbed. Transfusions did not exist, so that kind of symbolism does not apply. It is metaphorical for the retention or lose of life, wine is metaphorical for the joy of life. The word for wind, breath (ruach) also refers to spirit, because it is an unseen indicator of life. As marco points out, there is a poetic flavor to all of this. However, that is not because Hebrew is meant to be hard to understand. It is because, like all ancient languages, it is rooted in mythopoetic oral tradition. They were not literalists.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 25 by bluethread]

Bluethread: �One can have plenty of blood and die anyway.�

Yes, but even primitive people noticed that if you lose enough, you die. Therefore: Blood is life. And if you stop breathing, you die. Therefore spirit, breath, wind, are also life. And at the moment of death it is also common to produce a flatulence, an “evil spirit�. If you could make someone belch or fart you would get a reputation for casting out evil spirits. It certainly couldn't be denied that could make some people feel better.

Bluethread: �It is metaphorical for life, because it drains out when one dies from being cut or stabbed.�

To you it's a metaphor, but to a superstitious bronze age goat herder it was an obvious literal fact. It was obvious to a primitive person that only a moron would deny it. And it didn't just happen when someone was cut or stabbed, it could also be a hemorrhaging lung or intestine.

Bluethread: �It is metaphorical for the retention or lose of life, wine is metaphorical for the joy of life.�

Wine has analgesic properties and is a reasonably cheap way to change consciousness. Ergo, it was religious, magical. There was a whole cult of holy drunkenness. And then there was sex...

Bluethread: � The word for wind, breath (ruach) also refers to spirit, because it is an unseen indicator of life. As marco points out, there is a poetic flavor to all of this. However, that is not because Hebrew is meant to be hard to understand. It is because, like all ancient languages, it is rooted in mythopoetic oral tradition. They were not literalists.�

You are not a literalist. The folks who wrote the old testament were literalists. Modern religious folks, or at least most of them, know that those old stories can't possibly be literally true. But they can't just admit they are just primitive superstitious nonsense, because they have to be “the inerrant word of God�, so today the "faithful" call them metaphors. To paraphrase the late Bishop Pike, they throw out the baby and keep the bathwater. I would say they throw out the diaper and keep the... Well, that's a metaphor.

[ttruscott]

Such a shame that Jesus liked a paradox, hyperbole and metaphor without writing any explanations.

You forget (?) that sinners will not accept Him though He rise from the dead or left a mountain of writing...we have the bible from Him already and it is not honoured.

You want to convince me that His writings would have been revered in light of Paul's scorching analysis of how those under HIS wrath treat the proof of HIS divinity and HIS power which he described in his letter Romans 1? I am not convinced...

The mysteries of the bible are to turn us to seeking HIM and not to our own understanding of what the words might mean. It is GOD who is our saviour, not HIS writings.

[marco]

You forget (?) that sinners will not accept Him though He rise from the dead or left a mountain of writing...we have the bible from Him already and it is not honoured.

Yes, well we're not dealing with plane hijackers or murderers, just ordinary, intelligent readers. They don't have to be sinners.

You want to convince me that His writings would have been revered in light of Paul's scorching analysis of how those under HIS wrath treat the proof of HIS divinity and HIS power which he described in his letter Romans 1? I am not convinced...

I don't see any analysis, just hysterical accusation against idolaters. He makes the point: "Claiming to be wise, they became fools," not seeing it can apply to himself. He creates a fiction and calls it Truth.

The mysteries of the bible are to turn us to seeking HIM and not to our own understanding of what the words might mean. It is GOD who is our saviour, not HIS writings.

Well they have the opposite effect. The babbling in many passages speaks more of primitive minds than of God. Can anyone read the rubbish about Job without sighing?


And out of this debris we have the theory of blood atonement, which makes no sense. A guy from some remote corner stayed in that remote corner, abused the authorities and was arrested and sanctioned, then various groups claim the poor soul died to help Marie Curie, centuries later, or perhaps Nelson Mandela in prison. Why when we need a cure for cancer do people waste their energies on silliness?

[PinSeeker]

If one accepts miracles, then transubstantiation isn't silly.

Miracles do not occur since Jesus walked the earth. There is no need for them, as God has given us everything we need since Jesus's death and resurrection.

"Silly" was probably not a good way to put it. Just wrong. Think about it Marco. Jesus instituted communion. If he had actually cut off his finger and sliced it up before He said "This is my body"... and actually drained some of his blood into the cup before he said "This is my blood..." then I might think it was not "silly" or wrong, because then it would be supported by Scripture. If He had done that, I feel pretty sure it would be in Scripture, much like the explicitness of the wine having been turned into water. But the fact is, it's not in Scripture.

Matthew: "While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body.�' And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.'"

Mark: "While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, 'Take it; this is My body.' And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, 'This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.'�

Luke: "And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, 'Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.' And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.'"

John: John writes about the Last Supper, but doesn't relate this part of it. Considering the purpose for which he wrote -- he didn't really focus on events in and of themselves, he focused on the spiritual impacts of the events -- this is very logical.

And Paul relates it in 1 Corinthians: "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."

There is no Biblical basis for believing in transubstantiation. In Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians, it's referred to as bread and wine, and only bread and wine. Again, if transubstantiation had occurred, it would be explicit, as it was when the water was turned to wine.

Why rationalise some things and accept others as miracles, mysteries beyond explanation?

Because those other miracles are supported by Scripture. And I don't "rationalize."

Yes, some say a sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace.

Well, if there are some that say that, they're wrong, too. a sacrament is an outward reminder for us as we do it and a means for proclaiming his death until He comes again.

Nah, that's an extremely limited way to see it.

Well the Romans saw it that way. The metaphor is ugly.

The Romans, Marco, were not present at the Last Supper. Nobody was, except for Jesus's disciples. If you're talking about Roman Catholics, yes, they believe in transubstantiation, and they're very much mistaken. That doesn't necessarily make them "not Christians," but they're wrong.

As for limited interpretation, you see transubstantiation in a limited way too.

No, I just see it for what it is: unsubstantiated by Scripture, and thus wrong.

It's really kind of funny, you know? All you atheists can do is just throw stuff against walls and hope they stick. And they never do. But that doesn't stop you from continuing to do it. What's the definition of insanity again?

[marco]

Miracles do not occur since Jesus walked the earth. There is no need for them, as God has given us everything we need since Jesus's death and resurrection.

The miracles effected by Jesus had little to do with the benefits of his resurrection; they were humanitarian. Billions believe that if you ask, you will receive, and so they pray for assistance, even today, and occasionally their prayers are answered, which hardly surprises the devout. The bar on miracles seems to be a false extrapolation from something or other.

much like the explicitness of the wine having been turned into water. But the fact is, it's not in Scripture.

Well we are to understand that Jesus did miraculously change water into wine. The words "This is my body" and "This is my blood" are offered as Christ's words. When asked if she believed in transubstantiation, Elizabeth 1 cautiously (and I am recalling from years back): "'Twas Christ himself that spake it; He took the bread and brake it; What Christ Himself did make it; This I believe, and take it."

And so if indeed a miracle is done at consecration it might explain the words in Corinthians:


"For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." It seems a huge penalty for a mere piece of bread.

Your belief that miracles don't occur today is not Scriptural either. People make deductions and given they are asked to believe water became wine, dead became living, it's a short skip to transubstantiation. If anything it indicates remarkable faith in Christ's ability. "Faith can move mountains."

It's really kind of funny, you know? All you atheists can do is just throw stuff against walls and hope they stick. And they never do. But that doesn't stop you from continuing to do it. What's the definition of insanity again?

Ah, yes, insanity ..... General Wolfe was called mad and King George (not the mad one) suggested he should bite his other generals.


An ability to read the Bible does not, unfortunately, accompany an ability to understand what one has read, be one atheist or believer. Go well.