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?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 68 by Elijah John]

You want anyone to answer, and I have already answered. (Post #3.) How can I keep answering over and over?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 69 by onewithhim]

That's a legalistic answer to the OP, but not to my questions and challenges of the OP.

Blood-atonement theology makes God's grace and mercy a legalistic transaction and does not paint a good picture of the Father, but rather only the heroism of the Son.

It is also dependent on a literal belief in the Adam and Eve story.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 69 by onewithhim]

That's a legalistic answer to the OP, but not to my questions and challenges of the OP.

Blood-atonement theology makes God's grace and mercy a legalistic transaction and does not paint a good picture of the Father, but rather only the heroism of the Son.

It is also dependent on a literal belief in the Adam and Eve story.

The picture is the one scripture paints, from Genesis to Revelation.

Questions and challenges that incorporate rejection of verses, or writers, or a rewriting or reading of them, can never be answered to your satisfaction.

The metaphorical message of the Adam and Eve story is the firm and clear foundation of the principle and applicability of atonement.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 69 by onewithhim]

That's a legalistic answer to the OP, but not to my questions and challenges of the OP.

Blood-atonement theology makes God's grace and mercy a legalistic transaction and does not paint a good picture of the Father, but rather only the heroism of the Son.

It is also dependent on a literal belief in the Adam and Eve story.

"Legalistic" or not, I think it's a pretty good answer to your questions. And it is Bible-based.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 4 by Elijah John]

There are many verses in Scripture that indicate YHVH prefers other things to blood-sacrifice.

Things such as mercy, knowledge of God, and contrition:
(Micah 6.6-6.8, Hosea 6.6, Psalm 40.6, Psalm 51.16-17, Proverbs 21.3, Isaiah 1.10-13a, Isaiah 66.2b-4a,Jeremiah 7.21-13, Matthew 9.13,12.7, Mark 12.33, just to name a few)

"prefers" is the operative word on this issue.

Both are part of God's plan, both are stated in the Law. One is outward ritual, the other is inward righteousness.

The time would come when animal sacrifices were rendered obsolete and no longer appropriate, but none of your verses are about that.

They are about preference and priority, not about legitimacy.

[more today or tomorrow]

Correction; not until my eyes will again
be comfortable on the net.

Sooner or later, hopefully.

Until then, Checkpoint, (and may your recovery be swift and complete) I post for your future benefit and for others.

Not only a matter of God's preference, if one reviews those verses carefully, you will find that God does not reqiure, does not delight in blood of animals, (and certainly does not need them to compel His merciful nature). In Jeremiah 7, YHVH mocks the very idea that He needs blood to drink, or flesh to eat.

And in the Psalm, David says "a broken and contrite Spirit you will not despise". He said that in contrast to sacrifice.

The sacrifices grew obsolete not because a "better" (read human) sacrifice came along with the person of Jesus, but because of Spiritual evolution and enlightenment as the Prophets taught that YHVH doesn't need, nor does He desire blood-sacfirice.

John (the Baptist) and Jesus taught this as well. Again, where is the mention of blood in the Lord's prayer? Where is the matter of sacrifice mentioned in the Beattitudes or in the Parables? Yet the Father's mercy is taught in all those places.

Seems Jesus himself taught a non-bloody, non sacrificial means of atonement, based on direct access (non-Temple) to the Father requiring only humility and contrition and a willingness to forgive others.

Isn't this good news? That the Father is not "He who must be appeased" with blood? But freely forgives the contrite?

Isn't it good news that Scripture itself teaches remedy for sin that does not involve bloody sacrifice of any kind?

Seems Jesus own vision of YHVH was far more benevolent than the writer of Leviticus or the author of Hebrews.

All this leads me to wonder why conventional Christians cling to the primitive and barbaric notion that God needs the shedding of blood (animal or human) in order to forgive.

Especially when Scripture itself provides the alternative.

And Jesus certainly emphasized the metaphor of "Father" in order to teach God's mercy. What kind of father requires blood in order to forgive his children?

Yes, the author of Hebrews (falsely) claims that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin".

Seems John the Baptist also did not get the memo, as he performed baptisms of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

That was a subversive act, offering forgiveness with no need for the Temple, and no need for bloody sacrifice. Just simple repentance.

That is pretty much what you always write on this subject.

Constant repetition does not make it right.

Your basis and your assumptions are seen in the words you choose.

Such as: "spiritual evolution and enligtenment", seems", "the primitive and barbaric notion", "Hebrews (falsely) claims".

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 4 by Elijah John]

There are many verses in Scripture that indicate YHVH prefers other things to blood-sacrifice.

Things such as mercy, knowledge of God, and contrition:
(Micah 6.6-6.8, Hosea 6.6, Psalm 40.6, Psalm 51.16-17, Proverbs 21.3, Isaiah 1.10-13a, Isaiah 66.2b-4a,Jeremiah 7.21-13, Matthew 9.13,12.7, Mark 12.33, just to name a few)

"prefers" is the operative word on this issue.

Both are part of God's plan, both are stated in the Law. One is outward ritual, the other is inward righteousness.

The time would come when animal sacrifices were rendered obsolete and no longer appropriate, but none of your verses are about that.

They are about preference and priority, not about legitimacy.

[more today or tomorrow]

Correction; not until my eyes will again
be comfortable on the net.

Sooner or later, hopefully.

Until then, Checkpoint, (and may your recovery be swift and complete) I post for your future benefit and for others.

Not only a matter of God's preference, if one reviews those verses carefully, you will find that God does not reqiure, does not delight in blood of animals, (and certainly does not need them to compel His merciful nature). In Jeremiah 7, YHVH mocks the very idea that He needs blood to drink, or flesh to eat.

And in the Psalm, David says "a broken and contrite Spirit you will not despise". He said that in contrast to sacrifice.

The sacrifices grew obsolete not because a "better" (read human) sacrifice came along with the person of Jesus, but because of Spiritual evolution and enlightenment as the Prophets taught that YHVH doesn't need, nor does He desire blood-sacfirice.

John (the Baptist) and Jesus taught this as well. Again, where is the mention of blood in the Lord's prayer? Where is the matter of sacrifice mentioned in the Beattitudes or in the Parables? Yet the Father's mercy is taught in all those places.

Seems Jesus himself taught a non-bloody, non sacrificial means of atonement, based on direct access (non-Temple) to the Father requiring only humility and contrition and a willingness to forgive others.

Isn't this good news? That the Father is not "He who must be appeased" with blood? But freely forgives the contrite?

Isn't it good news that Scripture itself teaches remedy for sin that does not involve bloody sacrifice of any kind?

Seems Jesus own vision of YHVH was far more benevolent than the writer of Leviticus or the author of Hebrews.

All this leads me to wonder why conventional Christians cling to the primitive and barbaric notion that God needs the shedding of blood (animal or human) in order to forgive.

Especially when Scripture itself provides the alternative.

And Jesus certainly emphasized the metaphor of "Father" in order to teach God's mercy. What kind of father requires blood in order to forgive his children?

Yes, the author of Hebrews (falsely) claims that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin".

Seems John the Baptist also did not get the memo, as he performed baptisms of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

That was a subversive act, offering forgiveness with no need for the Temple, and no need for bloody sacrifice. Just simple repentance.

That is pretty much what you always write on this subject.

Constant repetition does not make it right.

Your basis and your assumptions are seen in the words you choose.

Such as: "spiritual evolution and enligtenment", seems", "the primitive and barbaric notion", "Hebrews (falsely) claims".

Even if I have repeated myself, your accusation is not refutation. Please address the substance of my position.

Once again, in sum...even if YHVH only prefers simple repentance (and the like) to blood-sacrifice, doesn't that in and of itself render blood-sacrifice as superfluous?

Yes, my choice of words reflects my bias, (we all have them)..but how is it when pagans practice human or animal sacrifice, it is considered "primitive and barbaric", but when Jews and Christians (with Christ) practice those same things, they are somehow not only permissible, but pleasing to God?

This God YHVH is different from the pagan deities. Not only does He not require blood-atonement, he has contempt for such things. (Jeremiah 7 etc.)

My suspicion is that conventional Christians cling to* primitive and barbaric notions such as bloody-sacrifice, out of conditioning and also because they see such a thing as somehow tied to the concept of "Grace" as opposed to "works".

But how is that a logical necessity?

-----

* (cling to even in the face of clear, Biblical alternatives as illustrated in an earlier post)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 74 by Elijah John]

I still say that the answer greatly lies in what I offered in my post #3, legalistic as it is.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 4 by Elijah John]



Checkpoint posted

That is pretty much what you always write on this subject.

Constant repetition does not make it right.

Your basis and your assumptions are seen in the words you choose.

Such as: "spiritual evolution and enligtenment", seems", "the primitive and barbaric notion", "Hebrews (falsely) claims".

Your answer was

Even if I have repeated myself, your accusation is not refutation. Please address the substance of my position.

Once again, in sum...even if YHVH only prefers simple repentance (and the like) to blood-sacrifice, doesn't that in and of itself render blood-sacrifice as superfluous?

Yes, my choice of words reflects my bias, (we all have them)..but how is it when pagans practice human or animal sacrifice, it is considered "primitive and barbaric", but when Jews and Christians (with Christ) practice those same things, they are somehow not only permissible, but pleasing to God?

This God YHVH is different from the pagan deities. Not only does He not require blood-atonement, he has contempt for such things. (Jeremiah 7 etc.)

My suspicion is that conventional Christians cling to* primitive and barbaric notions such as bloody-sacrifice, out of conditioning and also because they see such a thing as somehow tied to the concept of "Grace" as opposed to "works".

But how is that a logical necessity?

Accusation? Substance?

Yes, this God, YHVH, is so diferent from pagan deities, and your attempt to associate Him with their human sacrifices is to demean Him and His name.

Human sacrifices are a "barbaric notion" indeed.

But atonement by animal sacrifice and then by the voluntary giving of the life of Jesus for redemption, are what God makes very clear as the only way, His way, to meet the essential need of atonement created by wrong choices.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 76 by Checkpoint]

Excellent point, Checkpoint. I wonder, now that all of the cards are on the table, what people think of God's character now. Is He really so unreasonable and even downright blood thirsty?

[Justin108]

The principle of atonement: People are in need of sin "covering" (the meaning of the Hebrew word "kaphar")---atonement---due to inherited sin

Why would God design sin to be inheritable in the first place?

The responsibility for this does not rest with God but with the person himself.

Of course it lies with God. It's God's poor design that led to me being born with sin.

Adam lost his life and also his human perfection, thereby forcing onto his offspring a state of imperfection and eventual death. (Rom.5:12) We deal with a legal principle here, now.

Any legal principle that punishes the children for the sins of the father (Adam) is unjust.

The principle that we are concerned with right at this moment is that like must go for like, exact atonement---an eye for an eye, etc.

If eye for an eye was the principle being followed here, Adam would be the only one paying as Adam is the one who sinned. Instead, we all end up paying for Adam's sin. This is not an eye for an eye.

As one reference work puts it: "As used in the Bible, 'atonement' has the basic thought of 'cover' or 'exchange,' and that which is given in exchange for, or as a 'cover' for, another thing must be its DUPLICATE.

But why are we the ones who should pay for this? How did this become our debt?

No imperfect human could provide such a covering or atonement to restore perfect human life to any or all of mankind.

Why was perfection taken away in the first place? Why did God allow the sins of one man to corrupt our entire species? Why aren't we all born perfect and given the same chance as Adam? If I end up losing my perfection, let it be as a result of my own sin, not of my forefather's.

Jehovah thought of this remedy for what Adam did, and, in keeping with His principles

So far this principle makes absolutely no sense. It's utterly unjust, demanding the innocent pay for the sins of the guilty.