Does disbelief in the atoning cross

[Elijah John]

Is it fair to suggest that if one does not believe Jesus died to "pay for" our sins then one must have contempt for Jesus?

Or to suggest that "we too would have him crucified"?

Is believing that Jesus died to "pay for" our sins, the only way to find meaning in an otherwise horrific event like his crucifixion?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]


It could be contempt, abject blasphemy but it could also simply be ignorance. Satan delights in undermining God's purposes and methods, so naturally Satan would be happy for people to misunderstand or reject God's greatest gift to mankind. The bible also speaks of the ANTICHRIST, not an individual but a class of people that teach falsehoods about Christ and the gospel, so misrepresentation of Jesus would again be part of that class.

Still, in the end while there is no forgiveness for blasphemy against the holy spirit, even Paul admitted to being a blasphemer against Christ, so only God can judge . God is merciful and will give every single individual the opportunity to learn and recognize the precious position his son plays in salvation, but learn they must.

ACTS 4:12
Let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, [...] there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.

[ttruscott]

That He died for our sin is in the Book: 1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, to which MacLaren is moved to say in his exposition of this verse:

‘He died for our sins.’ Now, if the Apostle had only said ‘He died for us,’ that might conceivably have meant that, in a multitude of different ways of example, appeal to our pity and compassion and the like, His death was of use to mankind. But when he says ‘He died for our sins,’ I take leave to think that that expression has no meaning, unless it means that He died as the expiation and sacrifice for men’s sins. I ask you, in what intelligible sense could Christ ‘die for our sins’ unless He died as bearing their punishment and as bearing it for us? And then, finally, ‘He died and rose . . . according to the Scriptures,’ and so fulfilled the divine purposes revealed from of old.

Also, according to the Scriptures means it is has been prophesied for the future, perhaps like in: Isaiah 53:5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. which many see as support for Paul's doctrine of atonement.

Romans 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. would seem to be supported by Isaiah 53:4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. well enough that we have no need to find other interpretations that allow us to reject His atoning death, especially since few realized He would die and therefore had no understanding of what the event meant.

Obviously the apostles need a Paul to teach them the meaning of what they had seen after rejecting the idea for so long:
Matt 16:20 Then He admonished the disciples not to tell anyone that He was the Christ. 21 From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!� he said. “This shall never happen to You!�… and not just Paul but Peter the denier also: 1 Peter 2:24 "He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed." and John in 1 John 3:5 But you know that the Christ appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin....

Christ taught His death - others taught the meaning of that death. Should we not believe? Is not to deny this to deny Jesus did anything except to repeat some nice platitudes?

Does it show contempt? It certainly shows that the denier is out of touch with and knows not the Christ who died for our sin, eh?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]


It could be contempt, abject blasphemy but it could also simply be ignorance. Satan delights in undermining God's purposes and methods, so naturally Satan would be happy for people to misunderstand or reject God's greatest gift to mankind. The bible also speaks of the ANTICHRIST, not an individual but a class of people that teach falsehoods about Christ and the gospel, so misrepresentation of Jesus would again be part of that class.

Still, in the end while there is no forgiveness for blasphemy against the holy spirit, even Paul admitted to being a blasphemer against Christ, so only God can judge . God is merciful and will give every single individual the opportunity to learn and recognize the precious position his son plays in salvation, but learn they must.

ACTS 4:12
Let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, [...] there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.

Actually there is another name that can be invoked for salvation. The greatest name of all, above even Jesus' name. "Jehovah".

Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of your name; deliver us, and forgive our sins, for your name's sake.

(Psalm 79.9)

And this:

I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.

(Isaiah 43.25)

Jesus is not Jehovah, we both agree on that much.

So those are the only valid choices from your pov, blasphemy, contempt or ignorance? And those who don't hold with Paul's teaching regarding the atonement are the "anti-christ"?

That would mean the other apostles, and the writers of the Didache. And the Ebionites and the other early Judaizers who represent the earliest form of Christianity.

How 'bout this interpretation, Jesus death was an heroic martyrdom. He died for bravely being a testimony for the truth against the Temple system.

And his resurrection was God's vindication for his holy heroism. And an inspiring example on how God will vindicate His followers as well, no matter how bad things may appear to get.

Suffering persecution for the sake of the Kingdom brings God's vindication, as the crucifixion-resurrection episode demonstrates in the extreme.

But this interpretation holds, without necessitating belief in the absurdity that the Father supposedly needed His Son's blood-sacrifice in order to be able to forgive. "Adamic" or actual sin.

Nothing about this interpretation is blasphemous, nor is it contempt for what Jesus underwent. Ignorant? Perhaps but I don't think so.

[JehovahsWitness]

But this interpretation holds, without necessitating belief in the absurdity that the Father supposedly needed His Son's blood-sacrifice in order to be able to forgive. "Adamic" or actual sin.

Are you suggesting I or any Jehovah's Witnesses have ever suggested God "needs" anything? The fact is God is entirely self-sufficient and needs nothing and nobody.

That said, however he has and will always respect his own righteous standards, and the ransom reflects this. This interpretation reflects explicit bible truths without necessitating belief in the absurdity that the Father supposedly did not redeem mankind through his son as taugth by some "fringe" christian independents.

JW

[marco]

Is it fair to suggest that if one does not believe Jesus died to "pay for" our sins then one must have contempt for Jesus?

Or to suggest that "we too would have him crucified"?

Is believing that Jesus died to "pay for" our sins, the only way to find meaning in an otherwise horrific event like his crucifixion?

The notion that our sins crucify Christ is pious sentimentality. It is hard to see how somebody dying on a cross relates in any way to people getting "saved."

Were Christ active today in one of the staunch Muslim countries he would not be crucified but beheaded. He happened to preach at a time when crucifixion was the standard method of killing criminals. We can find plenty of meaning in Christ's preaching without associating the Roman punishment with heaven. Other preachers, through the centuries, have met death by horrendous means - some more horrendous than crucifixion.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 4 by Elijah John]

# QUESTION Do scriptures that point to Jehovah as the source of Salvation contradict those that indicate salvations comes only through Jesus?

Some see a conflict between the fact that the bible says that people must call on Jehovah's name to be saved but at the same time points out that Jesus name alone is the one by which people must get saved" (see Acts 4:12). Actually there is no conflict at all, one neither has to resort to a trinitarian positon for reject Jesus appointed role in God's purposes to resolve this issue.

John 12:44 report Jesus as explaining ""Whoever believes in me does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me."

So beilef in Jesus (as represented by the recognition of his "name" or authority) is synonymous with belief in Jehovah. How so? While Jehovah's authority is second to nobody, he has appointed Jesus as his representative. Sent to earth as JEHOVAH's envoy, Jesus became the means or the instrument by which Jehovah administered his purpose to save mankind. Thus while Jehovah is the initiator and the ultimate source of salvation, if one wants to "call on JEHOVAH'S name" to be saved, one must call on the name of he who is a "mediator" between mankind and Jehovah, namely Jesus.

To illustrate: If in the face of an approaching storm a person sought protection in a strong tower, but there was one entrance to the tower, the door. Which is greater the door or the tower? We would have to recognise the door without the actual tower would provide little protection in itself. But if there were only one access to the protective property of the tower the door becomes essential.

In a similar way, Jehovah is, by Jesus' own admission "greater" than him and Jehovah's name is therefore naturally higher than Jesus'. That said, since Jehovah has "given" mankind a "door" or an access to His salvation, namely Jesus, it can rightly be said there is no other name by which man can get saved. In short the name of Jesus is the only access to the "tower" of Jehovah's salvation.

Does that mean that the righteous men an women that lived before Jesus are condemned?

Not at all. Jehovah expressed again and again his appreciation for the acts of faith of men and women of the past, from Abel to John the Baptist. Yet, as much as Jehovah loved them, they remained imperfect sinful individuals whose righteous acts could not free them from sin and death. Such ones have the happy prospect of being ressurrected to life on this our planet earth during Christ's milleniul 1000 year reign where no doubt they will delight in putting faith in the ransom and being guided back to perfection and everlasting life.




CONCLUSION: Ransom deniers who wish to use the fact that the name of JEHOVAH represents Him alone as being the ultimate source of all salvation to reject the ransom do so without solid scriptural support.

JW

Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of your name; deliver us, and forgive our sins, for your name's sake.
(Psalm 79.9)

And this:
Quote:
I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.
(Isaiah 43.25)

Jesus is "Lord" (owner)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 019#830019

[ttruscott]

Is it fair to suggest that if one does not believe Jesus died to "pay for" our sins then one must have contempt for Jesus?

Or to suggest that "we too would have him crucified"?

Is believing that Jesus died to "pay for" our sins, the only way to find meaning in an otherwise horrific event like his crucifixion?

The notion that our sins crucify Christ is pious sentimentality.

IF an elect is under the promise of salvation found in Christ and that elect and no other sins, then Christ would have died on the cross for that one person. OF course Christians believe our sins put Christ on the cross - what else could?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 7 by JehovahsWitness]

The Name itself is the door. King David and others called directly upon YHVH, by name and we can too. David did not go through Jesus, he simply called upon the name of the LORD, YHVH and was forgiven, delivered and saved.

And he speaks to us today, imploring us over and over and over again in the Psalms to "give thanks to the name of YHVH, to call upon the name of YHVH, and to praise the name of YHVH.

No mediator needed, for Jehovah forgives for His own sake and for His name's sake:

I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.

(Isaiah 43.25)

And again:

Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of your name; deliver us and forgive our sins, for your name's sake.

(Psalm 79.9)

And we are both familiar with the verses which indicate that "whosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved/delivered."

And that is without mediation, for:

YHVH is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth.

(Psalm 145.18)

Jesus' mediation is not needed to bring YHVH close to us, only invoking the Almighty by name, with sincerity. (in truth).

King David shows us the way, without mentioning Jesus....at all

[onewithhim]

Is it fair to suggest that if one does not believe Jesus died to "pay for" our sins then one must have contempt for Jesus?

Or to suggest that "we too would have him crucified"?

Is believing that Jesus died to "pay for" our sins, the only way to find meaning in an otherwise horrific event like his crucifixion?

I would say "yes," that Jesus' paying for our sins is the only way to find meaning in an otherwise horrific event.

But I don't subscribe to the idea that we, as well, would have him crucified. No.

Not believing in Jesus' sacrifice doesn't necessarily mean having contempt for Jesus. To me it just means that a person hasn't yet come to an understanding of what Jesus' death really entails.

That reminds me.....the celebration of the Memorial of Jesus' Death is coming up on the 11th of April. Please consider going. If you haven't gotten an invitation in your door, call the nearest Kingdom Hall and find out exactly where and when the Memorial will be.