The Atonement Doctrine (Did Jesus Die For Our Sins?)

[MountainPine]

@q konn @Luca85

Part 1

Christianity teaches that Jesus died for sins of mankind, and the Bible makes it seemingly so. But is the atonement doctrine really compatible with scripture? In this thread, the issue of sacrifice examined in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Anyone who has read the Bible knows that Moses instituted laws of sacrifice as a penalty for sin. The point of these sacrifices was to accrue guilt on the person making the sacrifice so they would not commit the sin again, realizing that it should be them that should be put to death for their sin and not the animal. So it was supposed to be a once and for all means to stop sinning and repent.

“The slaughterings of Elohim are a broken spirit, A heart broken and crushed, O Elohim, These You do not despise.” Psalm 51:17

But the Israelites did not want to repent, rather they wanted to sacrifice animals as a license to keep sinning, and that's why Moses commanded the Israelites to make routine sacrifices. This is why no one can be saved under the Law, because the law of sacrifice was for sinners. Those who practice routine sacrifices remain in a state of sin (Hebrews 10:1-4).

“And Yahweh said to Mosheh, “I have seen this people, and see, it is a stiff-necked people!” Exodus 32:9

“When your fathers tried Me, Have proved Me, though they saw My work. “For forty years I was grieved with that generation, And said, ‘They are a people who go astray in their hearts, And they do not know My ways.” Psalm 95:9-10

“Thus said Yahweh of hosts, the Elohim of Israel, “Add your burnt offerings to your slaughterings and eat meat. “For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, about matters of burnt offerings or slaughterings. “But this word I did command them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I shall be your Elohim, and you be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, so that it be well with you.’ “But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in the counsels, in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward.” Jeremiah 7:21-24

David and the prophets testified that God hates sacrifice.

“Then Shemu’el said, “Does Yahweh delight in burnt offerings and slaughterings, as in obeying the voice of Yahweh? Look, to obey is better than an offering, to heed is better than the fat of rams.” 1 Samuel 15:22

“For I delight in kindness and not slaughtering, and in the knowledge of Elohim more than burnt offerings.” Hosea 6:6

“Since Ephraim has made many altars for sin, they have been altars for sinning to him. “I have written for him numerous matters of My Torah – they were regarded as strange. “As for My offerings: they slaughter flesh and they eat. Yahweh shall not accept them. Now does He remember their crookedness and punish their sins. Let them return to Egypt!” Hosea 8:11-13

“I have hated, I have despised your festivals, and I am not pleased with your assemblies. “Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I do not accept them, nor do I look on your fattened peace offerings. “Take away from Me the noise of your songs, for I do not hear the sound of your stringed instruments. “And let right-ruling roll on like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.” Amos 5:21-24

“With what shall I come before Yahweh, bow myself before the high Elohim? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Is Yahweh pleased with thousands of rams or ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my being? He has declared to you, O man, what is good. And what does Yahweh require of you but to do right, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your Elohim?” Micah 6:6-8

“Hear the word of Yahweh, you rulers of Sodom; give ear to the Torah of our Elohim, you people of Gomorrah! “Of what use to Me are your many slaughterings?” declares Yahweh. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs or goats. “When you come to appear before Me, who has required this from your hand, to trample My courtyards? “Stop bringing futile offerings, incense, it is an abomination to Me. New Moons, Sabbaths, the calling of meetings – I am unable to bear unrighteousness and assembly. “My being hates your New Moons and your appointed times, they are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them. And when you spread out your hands, I hide My eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I do not hear. Your hands have become filled with blood. “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Stop doing evil! “Learn to do good! Seek right-ruling, reprove the oppressor, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow. “Come now, and let us reason together,” says Yahweh. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool. “If you submit and obey, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword,” for the mouth of Yahweh has spoken.” Isaiah 1:10-20

“But whoever slaughters the bull slays a man; whoever slaughters the lamb breaks a dog’s neck; whoever brings a grain offering – pig’s blood; whoever burns incense blesses an idol. Indeed, they have chosen their own ways, and their being delights in their abominations. “I shall also choose their punishments, and bring their fears on them. Because I called, but no one answered. I spoke and they did not hear, and they did evil before My eyes, and chose what was displeasing to Me.” Isaiah 66:3-4

“Slaughtering and meal offering You did not desire; You have opened my ears; Burnt offering and sin offering You did not ask for. Then I said, “See, I have come; In the scroll of the Book it is prescribed for me. I have delighted to do Your pleasure, O my Elohim, And Your Torah is within my heart” Psalm 40:6-8

“I do not take a bull from your house, Nor goats out of your pens. “For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills. “I know all the birds of the mountains, And all moving in My field are Mine. “If I were hungry, I would not speak to you; For the world is Mine, and all that fills it. “Do I eat the flesh of bulls, Or drink the blood of goats? “Offer thanksgiving to Elohim, And pay your vows to the Most High. “And call upon Me in the day of distress – Let Me rescue you, and you esteem Me.” Psalm 50:9-15

“For You do not desire slaughtering, or I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The slaughterings of Elohim are a broken spirit, A heart broken and crushed, O Elohim, These You do not despise.” Psalm 51:16-17

Even Christ himself was opposed to sacrifice. He quoted Hosea:

“But go and learn what this means, ‘I desire compassion and not offering.’ For I did not come to call the righteous to repentance, but sinners.” Matthew 9:13

“And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion and not offering,’ you would not have condemned the blameless.” Matthew 12:7

 

[MountainPine]

Part 2

All God ever wanted from anyone was repentance and obedience, and He always forgave anyone who repented from their sin. He has told the Israelites over and over again to turn from their wickedness and turn to Him. Didn't God forgive the Ninevites when they repented (Jonah 3)? It is absurd to believe that God would have refused to forgive anyone unless the blood of His son was shed. So why does it seem that the New Testament authors testify it?

Obviously, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot assume that God wanted mercy AND demanded His Son to be offered as a sacrifice. God does not change his mind. One of these claims has to be false, and logic demands that the latter is false.

There are many passages in the New Testament that suggest that the Messiah's death was an atonement for sins, but let us examine these passages and apply a different interpretation to them – an interpretation that will not contradict the Old Testament.

Let's begin with John 3:16:

“For Elohim so loved the world that He gave His only brought-forth Son, so that everyone who believes in Him should not perish but possess everlasting life.”

One would immediately focus on the word “gave” and interpret it to mean “God created Jesus to be put to death for our benefit.” Instead of this, try interpreting the word “gave” as “God sent his Son to an extremely dangerous environment where it was certain he would be murdered for preaching the truth.” This interpretation agrees with the rest of the accounts of both the Old and New Testaments.


“[E]ven as the Son of Adam did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:28

“Ransom” is the key word here. A ransom is a payment made to free hostages. If we subscribe to the atonement doctrine, then clearly the ransom that Jesus paid was to God himself. If this was the case, then this would mean that God is a malicious, blood-thirsty tyrant who holds all people prisoner until he gets what he wants, which is the murder of an innocent man.

Consider instead that the ransom Christ pays is to the god of this world, Satan. That is to say, by his lies and malicious teachings (of which was the teachings of the Pharisees was that which Christ directly combated during His ministry), Satan has ensnared the whole world. The only way to break his spell over people was for Christ to preach the truth, and for people to see him resurrected. The resurrection was important because it established his teachings and confirmed his promise of everlasting life to those who believe in Him.

“For this is My blood, that of the renewed covenant, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Matthew 26:28

On the surface this can mean His blood is shed, thus sins are forgiven. But there is a deeper meaning to it. His blood is shed → He is resurrected → His followers are sealed with certainty in the truth of his teachings and gives them the willingness to spread them no matter what the personal cost → this combination of faith in Christ's teachings and righteous actions in spreading the Gospel lead to forgiveness of sins and salvation for those who believe.

The second interpretation being that his blood is a metaphor for his family of disciples (Matthew 12:50) being “shed” or “poured out” as in poured out into the world preaching the Word so that anyone who hears and believes it will repent and be forgiven.


“For when we were still weak, Messiah in due time died for the wicked. For one shall hardly die for a righteous one, though possibly for a good one someone would even have the courage to die. But Elohim proves His own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Messiah died for us. Much more then, having now been declared right by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” Romans 5:6-9

When the wicked hear the message of the Gospels they will repent from their wickedness to be forgiven. They would hear that the Messiah was resurrected as a reward for obedience (Hebrews 5:8-9), therefore they would also turn to obedience/righteousness to merit the same reward. Notice Paul uses the word “were” which is conveying the past-tense, meaning they are no longer sinners, but have repented and are now saved from God's wrath.


“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.” 1 Peter 2:24

Romans 8:3 says that he “condemned sin in the flesh,” which means that when he “bore our sins” it means that he destroyed our sins. Only this makes sense considering what the rest of the verse says. What need is there to "live for righteousness" if Jesus did all the work for us through his death? Verse 21 says “For to this you were called, because Messiah also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps.” What excuse do Christians have?


“Therefore, coming into the world, He says, “Slaughtering and meal offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me.” Hebrews 10:5

This is quoted from Psalm 40:6, however, Psalm 40:6 doesn't mention “but a body You have prepared for Me.” This is evidence that the Bible has been tampered with by the clergy of the early Roman church in order to incorporate their malicious atonement doctrine into the Bible.


“And, according to the Torah, almost all is cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” Hebrews 9:22

As mentioned earlier, the Israelites who were under the Law had to make sacrifices for atonement, and they were bound to it because they didn't want to stop sinning. The death of Christ, though, was the death of sin to those who believed.

“For Messiah has not entered into a Set-apart Place made by hand – figures of the true – but into the heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of Elohim on our behalf, not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters into the Set-apart Place year by year with blood not his own. For if so, He would have had to suffer often, since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the offering of Himself.” Hebrews 9:24-26

There are only two passages in scripture that actually say that the Messiah's death was an atoning sacrifice:

“whom Elohim set forth as an atonement, through belief in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His tolerance Elohim had passed over the sins that had taken place before to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He is righteous and declares righteous the one who has belief in Yahushua.” Romans 3:25-26

“And He Himself is an atoning offering for our sins, and not for ours only but also for all the world.” 1 John 2:2

In this case, Christ's death was an atonement only in the sense that those who believe consider his death necessary for his resurrection which gives them certainty that they would be rewarded if they repent, and if they do they are saved.

In conclusion the Messiah died and was resurrected to demonstrate the reward for righteousness and obedience to the Word. Sinners who hear the Word and believe that God raised Him from the dead will turn to obedience to obtain the same reward, thus repenting from their sins to be forgiven and sin no more. This is the actual meaning to the rest of the verses that seemingly support the atonement doctrine, which are:

1 Corinthians 15:3; Ephesians 1:7, 2:13; Colossians 1:14, 20; Hebrews 9:14, 13:12, 20; Revelation 1:5, 7:14, 12:11

 

[MountainPine]

Part 3

What about Isaiah 53? Christians think it refers to Christ. The chapter describes a suffering servant whom was “oppressed and afflicted,” “made Himself an offering for guilt,” and “bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors,” and that “God was pleased to crush him.” Christians say this chapter is about Jesus, and Jews say it's about Israel. The truth is that this chapter has both a historical and prophetic interpretation, meaning it's about both Israel and Christ.

The account of this servant begins in chapter 41 when God says that Israel/Jacob is his servant (verse 8) and is repeated in chapters 42-45, 48-49, and 52.

Here are some examples:

“But now hear, O Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen.” Isaiah 44:1

“For the sake of Jacob My servant, and of Israel My chosen, I also call you by your name, I give you a title, though you have not known Me.” Isaiah 45:4

“And He said to Me, ‘You are My servant, O Israel, in whom I am adorned” Isaiah 49:3

Israel was originally supposed to be a set-apart nation of priests to teach the Torah unto the nations (Exodus 19:5-6). Israel being the righteous servant of Yahweh, had knowledge of the Torah and justified many (Isaiah 53:11) to all who listened, but the nations (Gentiles) were wicked in their ways. So when it says “he was despised” it means that Israel was despised by the Gentiles because they blamed Israel for their treatment.

“Bore the sins of many” and “God laid on him the iniquity of us all” should not be interpreted literally. In the Torah, the Levitical priests were commanded to “bear the iniquity” for the Israelites' sin, lest the Israelites bear their own sins and die (Numbers 18:22-23), but this does not mean the priests died in their stead. It means they were in charge of purging the sin.

In the same way, Christ “bore the sins of many”, meaning he was in charge of purging the sins, and he did so by preaching the Word: “by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many”

Christians think that Isaiah 53 is prophesying an atonement sacrifice because the contemporary English translations read “But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our crookednesses.” for verse 5, and “For the transgression of My people He was stricken.” for verse 8, and they think it implies substitution – that this servant died in the stead of everyone else because they have sinned.

The problem with this notion is that both the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint actually read “because of” – meaning the sins of the people is what caused the servant to be stricken. The set-apart nation of Israel was damaged and destroyed because of the Israelites' apostasy.

Verse 9 reads: “And He was appointed a grave with the wrong, and with the rich at His death, because He had done no violence, nor was deceit in His mouth”

Isaiah had a negative view on the rich because in those days the rich stole from others and oppressed the poor. Babylon is the “rich," which took the Israelites into captivity, and Israel as a nation died there. Israel made his grave with the wicked – he died along with the wicked nations that were also conquered by Babylon, such as Philistia, Egypt, Moab, Edom, and more. (Jeremiah 25)

Verse 9 also refers to Christ in a metaphorical sense due to the fact that “no violence or deceit was found in His mouth.” His grave was an isolated tomb which they gave to wicked men, as righteous men were buried with their fathers.

Isaiah 53:9 is quoted by Peter in his epistle (1 Peter 2:22), but is quoted in the prophetic or synchronistical sense, as Christ was a single representation of what the entire nation of Israel was supposed to be when God founded it via Moses. The quotation from Isaiah 53:4 in Matthew 8:17 is also sychronistical. In both cases, neither Peter or Matthew intended for their audience to think that the entire chapter of Isaiah 53 is about Christ.

Isaiah 53 cannot literally be attributed to Christ as evidenced by verse 10:

“But Yahweh was pleased to crush Him, He laid sickness on Him, that when He made Himself an offering for guilt, He would see a seed, He would prolong His days and the pleasure of Yahweh prosper in His hand.”

Where “seed” is read, both the Hebrew word זֶרַע (zera), and the Greek word σπέρμα (sperma) from the Septuagint are used and translated as “sperm” or “semen”. This implies physical descendants and not so-called “spiritual” or “adopted” descendants as Christians interpret it as.

God crushed or afflicted suffering on the nation of Israel as a way to purge them from sin. A crushed heart and a broken spirit is the offering for guilt (Psalm 51:17). God was pleased to crush their hearts because he wanted Israel to repent. If he (Israel) did so, then he would have his days prolonged and see his seed.

Isaiah did not have Christ in mind when he wrote chapters 52 and 53, he was clearly not describing a future atonement sacrifice for the sins of the world, otherwise the passage would be inconsistent with the previous chapters where it says Israel/Jacob is the servant. However, Isaiah wrote under the inspiration of God, and God did have Christ in mind, and this is why some of the verses have prophetic meaning in relation to Christ, but these prophetic interpretations are syncs.

Isaiah 53 is quoted in Acts 8:32-33 where a eunuch read a passage from it to Philip. Many assume that Philip believed that Isaiah 53 refers to Christ because it says: “I ask you, about whom does the prophet say this, about himself or about some other?” And Philip opening his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, brought to him the Good News: Yahushua!”

But this does not mean that Philip taught the eunuch that Isaiah 53 was about Christ. The Good News was the message of Christ rather than the person of Christ. It is also absurd to think that this event was instantaneous. Philip spent hours explaining to the eunuch about the Good News as they went through the whole book of Isaiah. This is evidenced by verse 36 when the eunuch asks about baptism, in which he got the idea from Isaiah 1:16:

“Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Stop doing evil!”

If the atonement doctrine were true then that means everyone who has sinned are saved through Jesus whether they believe in him or not.

“But the favourable gift is not like the trespass. For if by the one man’s trespass many died, much more the favour of Elohim, and the gift in favour of the one Man, Yahushua Messiah, overflowed to many.” Romans 5:15

“Many” is interpreted as “all men” by Christians. This means (according to Christians' logic) that ALL men who sin are saved through the Messiah's death whether they are Christians or not because all men have sinned because of Adam's trespass, thus all men will receive favor from God, whether or not they believe.

Traditional Christian doctrine teaches that Jesus became the manifestation of sin on the cross, and by this, Christianity makes Jesus out to be the son of perdition, the man of sin (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

When Christ recited Psalm 22:1 “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”, it doesn't mean that God actually forsook him because he became sin, it only seemed that way to Christ because of the intense pain he was suffering. The Messiah has never been the manifestation of sin.

The passage in 2 Corinthians 5:21 states:

“For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of Elohim.”

But this does not mean that He became the manifestation of sin, it is a metaphor which means that sin was put to death in those who believe in order that the righteousness of God dwell in them. This does not mean that Christ's death removed the punishment for sin. Those who still sin do not have the righteousness of God, regardless if they “believe in Jesus”.

Christians like to say that Jesus died for past, present, and future sins. This is just an outright and deliberate contravention of scripture. They quote Hebrews 10:12 to support this:

“But He, having offered one slaughter offering for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of Elohim”

But as mentioned previously, Hebrews 9:26 states that “He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin”

So Hebrews 10:12 is actually inferring that sin is dead – the sin dwelling in those who heard the Word and believed died when they repented, so they could live righteously, as Romans 6 says that the believers are dead to sin and are alive in Christ.

Anyone who says “Jesus died for my sins” and continues to sin is ideologically constantly impaling Christ to the cross every time they sin, over and over again. It would mean that if you had lived in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, you would have necessarily participated in the Messiah's death so you could be saved. Thus, the people who subscribe to the atonement doctrine are murderers at heart.

“But why do you call Me ‘Master, Master,’ and do not do what I say?” Luke 6:46

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Master, Master,’ shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of My Father in the heavens. “Many shall say to Me in that day, ‘Master, Master, have we not prophesied in Your Name, and cast out demons in Your Name, and done many mighty works in Your Name?’ “And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from Me, you who work lawlessness!” Matthew 7:21-23

If one is standing trial for a crime, can one simply bribe the judge with his son's blood and expect to get off the hook? Obviously not. No one dies for anyone else's sin. Sinners die for their own sins.

“Fathers are not put to death for their children, and children are not put to death for their fathers, each is to die for his own sin.” Deuteronomy 24:16

“And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before the throne, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged from what was written in the books, according to their works. [. . .] And if anyone was not found written in the Book of Life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:12, 15

The conclusion is that repentance is what brings the forgiveness of sins, and obedience (faith) is what preserves it; not by condemning an innocent and righteous man to humiliation, torture, and death.

“[T]hough being a Son, He learned obedience by what He suffered. And having been perfected, He became the Causer of everlasting deliverance to all those obeying Him.” Hebrews 5:8-9

 

[Deidre]

This is an interesting thread, and take on Jesus' death and resurrection. Jesus said however 'I'm the way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by me.' (John 14:6) So we can assume that this means that in order for God to be 'willing' to forgive us of our sins, we should follow His Son. So, from a Christian perspective, you are partially right in that repentance comes from within us...the will to ask for forgiveness, the will to turn from wrong doing, etc. But, that is only possible at all because Christ paved the way. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for Christ to have paved the way. (my opinion)

 

[MountainPine]

This is the meaning of John 14:6:

“יהושע said to him, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14:6

What is the Way, the Truth, and the Life?

“Blessed are the perfect in the way, Who walk in the Torah of יהוה!” Psalm 119:1

“Your righteousness is righteousness forever, And Your Torah is truth.” Psalm 119:142

“The Torah of the wise is a fountain of life, Turning one away from the snares of death.” Proverbs 13:14

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete. “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done.” Matthew 5:17-18

Jesus was the living representation of the Torah, the ideal example of one perfected in the Word of God. He was what God wanted the Israelites to be like in the first place (Exodus 19:5-6). His purpose was to draw the lost sheep of Israel back to God (Matthew 15:24). I don't agree with your notion that everyone needs Jesus to repent. Again, didn't God forgive the Ninevites when they repented? All the Old Testament scripture I posted proves that God wanted Israel to repent, and would have forgiven them if they had.

 

[Deidre]

This is the meaning of John 14:6:

“יהושע said to him, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14:6

What is the Way, the Truth, and the Life?

“Blessed are the perfect in the way, Who walk in the Torah of יהוה!” Psalm 119:1

“Your righteousness is righteousness forever, And Your Torah is truth.” Psalm 119:142

“The Torah of the wise is a fountain of life, Turning one away from the snares of death.” Proverbs 13:14

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete. “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done.” Matthew 5:17-18

Jesus was the living representation of the Torah, the ideal example of one perfected in the Word of God. He was what God wanted the Israelites to be like in the first place (Exodus 19:5-6). His purpose was to draw the lost sheep of Israel back to God (Matthew 15:24). I don't agree with your notion that everyone needs Jesus to repent. Again, didn't God forgive the Ninevites when they repented? All the Old Testament scripture I posted proves that God wanted Israel to repent, and would have done so if they had.

This is very interesting, and a different 'interpretation' than I've been exposed to before...I have to sleep lol but want to continue tomorrow, because you bring up some very good points. Especially the last paragraph.

 

[Yoshua]

If the atonement doctrine were true then that means everyone who has sinned are saved through Jesus whether they believe in him or not.

Hi Mountain,

Is there an issue that the atonement referred to Christ is untrue?

“And He Himself is an atoning offering for our sins, and not for ours only but also for all the world.” 1 John 2:2

Hebrews 9:12 - Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

Anyone who says “Jesus died for my sins” and continues to sin is ideologically constantly impaling Christ to the cross every time they sin, over and over again. It would mean that if you had lived in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, you would have necessarily participated in the Messiah's death so you could be saved. Thus, the people who subscribe to the atonement doctrine are murderers at heart.

I believed this is the reason why Jesus also answered how many times we will forgive others. That does not mean we should continue to sin as follower of Christ.

Thanks

 

[wizanda]

.

Well done with your analysis, lot of great points in there....

If you accept Pharisaic Christianity which is based on the false writings of John, Paul and Simon the stone (petros); then they all put jesus was a sin offering, sent as an atonement....Where they all use Isaiah 53 to substantiate it.

Yet if you follow Yeshua in the synoptic gospels, then he came to teach the knowledge of God.

There is only one misquoted verse at the last supper in Matthew, which claims you can get atonement from his blood; yet the other two synoptic gospels don't have it in.

People quote him saying 'he gave his life as a ransom'; yet miss the context of the sentence, which is talking about 'he who is greatest among you, is he who serves' by teaching, so he is giving his life as a ransom teaching the message of God, and asking his disciples to do the same.

Isaiah 53 was fulfilled by Yeshua, yet it says 'we made him into a sin sacrifice', as he didn't do that himself, it was done after, and he even said in the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, that the Pharisees would tell people you got free inheritance from his death; yet they'd receive nothing, and be utterly condemned for it instead, as they've made a covenant with death.

Though saying John is falsified, it is written from an inside view of what the Pharisee's believed; so we hear that Caiaphas being high priest, decided that jesus was to die as a sin offering for the world.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am a firm believer in the moral influence view of the atonement. This suggests that the purpose of Jesus life, was to bring a positive moral change to humanity through his example, life's work and teachings. and his death and resurrection.

This was the usual understanding in the early church and it has been taught through much of Christian history.
The substitutional, ransom, satisfaction and penal substitution, theories. as advanced by Anselm in the 11th century and by others later. Gave way again to the earlier "Moral Influence" theory expounded by Augustine. Which again since the 18th century has been the principal belief held by liberal Christians including the Anglicans.

Atonement literally means the state of being "At One With" or reconciled with, as in reconciled with God.

 

[Estro Felino]

“Ransom” is the key word here. A ransom is a payment made to free hostages. If we subscribe to the atonement doctrine, then clearly the ransom that Jesus paid was to God himself. If this was the case, then this would mean that God is a malicious, blood-thirsty tyrant who holds all people prisoner until he gets what he wants, which is the murder of an innocent man.
.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Not even the worst of the criminals deserves to die on a cross. Because desiring the physical suffering of a man, even if it deals with the most wicked man ever, is devilish and anti-Christian.
When Christians say: "Jesus's sacrifice was necessary. His blood has saved us" I say to myself :"Step back, Satan".
Because in God's mind, torture and murder don't exist. They exist in evil minds; and ancient people, like the ancient Romans, who invented crucifixion as an instrument of torture, were certainly evil and Satan's slaves.

Consider instead that the ransom Christ pays is to the god of this world, Satan. That is to say, by his lies and malicious teachings (of which was the teachings of the Pharisees was that which Christ directly combated during His ministry), Satan has ensnared the whole world. The only way to break his spell over people was for Christ to preach the truth, and for people to see him resurrected. The resurrection was important because it established his teachings and confirmed his promise of everlasting life to those who believe in Him

Exactly. Bravo, bravo, bravo. Christians are obsessed with Jesus's death as if it was the means by which man can be saved. I can only see Jesus's merits, when he forgave his perpetrators on the cross. Considering that one can be saved through Jesus's merits is illogical and meaningless. It is logical to believe we are saved by our own merits.
And repentance is essential to obtain this. Repentance is not sufficient; one must change their life too, in order to attain salvation. It's resurrection, the key-concept of Christianity, because repenting and changing life are like a resurrection of the soul. As if we resurrected from evil.

In conclusion the Messiah died and was resurrected to demonstrate the reward for righteousness and obedience to the Word. Sinners who hear the Word and believe that God raised Him from the dead will turn to obedience to obtain the same reward, thus repenting from their sins to be forgiven and sin no more. This is the actual meaning to the rest of the verses that seemingly support the atonement doctrine, which are:

You are trying to "save" Saint Paul by justifying his twisted logic about atonement, especially in his Epistle to the Romans. As I am a Pelagian and I believe in the uselessness of faith, I totally disagree with Saint Paul, who certainly was a good apostle, but he misunderstood the significance of Jesus's coming. I am not telling he lacked humility, but he should have focused on the meaning of the parables (especially the parable of the Vineyard and the two sons).
In that parable it is clear that God saves the ones who do works, regardless of their faith.

Anyone who says “Jesus died for my sins” and continues to sin is ideologically constantly impaling Christ to the cross every time they sin, over and over again. It would mean that if you had lived in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, you would have necessarily participated in the Messiah's death so you could be saved. Thus, the people who subscribe to the atonement doctrine are murderers at heart.

Exactly. That's what I always say to the Christians I debate with. If I lived in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, I wouldn't have wanted Jesus to die to get my salvation. I would have said:
"I want to earn salvation by my own merits. The atrocious suffering of a man isn't worth my salvation: I love Jesus so much, that I would never want him to suffer at all. And if my merits are not sufficient, I don't care about going to Hell."
It can sound an extremist vision, but we Pelagians believe in free will as the only means to determine our future in the afterlife.

 

[MountainPine]

If you accept Pharisaic Christianity which is based on the false writings of John, Paul and Simon the stone (petros); then they all put jesus was a sin offering, sent as an atonement....Where they all use Isaiah 53 to substantiate it.

I'm curious to know why you think the Gospel of John is "Pharisaic" considering John records Jesus telling the Pharisees off in John 8:21-47. I personally believe that Mark and Luke do not belong as canon because they are plagiarisms of Matthew. You can see why I think that here.

As for Paul, many people think he was a false apostle because, for the primary reason, he taught his audience that the Law was void. What Anti-Paulinists (as I call them) fail to consider is that his ministry was to the Gentiles, not the Israelites. The book of Romans was for the Romans and no one else. The book of Galatians was for the Galatians and no one else, etc. Another thing too is when Paul says "works of Torah" he is not referring to the Torah itself, but the works (routine practice). There's a difference between following the letter of the Torah as a doctrine, and observing the Torah and understanding it's wisdom and spiritual message. The letter alone is not sufficient, but the Spirit + the letter is the goal. If your heart is not in the right place, then your works are vain. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for neglecting "weightier matters of the law" i.e. they were only focused on the details rather than the wisdom of the law.

It is also possible that Paul was speaking of a different law, the law of the land (of the Romans, etc.). The Romans probably believed that they could be saved by doing good works according to the law of Caesar. Paul testified himself that the Law of Moses was good and spiritual (Romans 7:12-14). I don't think Paul's ministry contradicted Jesus' considering Jesus' ministry was for the Israelites (Matthew 15:24) and Paul's was for the Gentiles. The Gentiles were not given the covenants of Abraham and Moses, so they were not bound to the same rules.

 

[wizanda]

I'm curious to know why you think the Gospel of John is "Pharisaic"

Because a large percentage of John is private conversations that took place between the high council, and specifically the Pharisees.

The main context of John is jesus came as a lamb to be a sacrifice for the world, that stems from Pharisaic thinking, that the death of the prophets acted as sin sacrifices.

The concepts within John of jesus claiming to be the great "I Am", doesn't exist in the other gospels, and is the pharisees idea of the Messiah at that time.

The gospel of John completely contradicts Yeshua in the synoptic gospels.

What Anti-Paulinists (as I call them) fail to consider is that his ministry was to the Gentiles, not the Israelites.

Even in considering who Paul is writing to, and in doing creating his own church....

We still have to bring it back to a base level, and compare does Paul contradict Yeshua's teachings within the synoptic gospels.

 

[Brian Schuh]

All innocent and righteous blood atones for sin for a generation's sin. When there are no righteous people in a generation to die for that generation, school children die for that generation's sin. If the Temple was rebuilt in Jerusalem, then innocent lambs would die, which is better than human martyrs. This is all in the Talmud.

One big problem with Christianity is this notion of a human sacrifice. God made it clear to Abraham, that He doesn't want human sacrifice when Abe tried to kill his son.

Everyone would agree, that given a choice, it is better to offer animal sacrifices, than to rely on martyrs and untimely deaths of school children.

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

Well done with your analysis, lot of great points in there....

If you accept Pharisaic Christianity which is based on the false writings of John, Paul and Simon the stone (petros); then they all put jesus was a sin offering, sent as an atonement....Where they all use Isaiah 53 to substantiate it.

Yet if you follow Yeshua in the synoptic gospels, then he came to teach the knowledge of God.

There is only one misquoted verse at the last supper in Matthew, which claims you can get atonement from his blood; yet the other two synoptic gospels don't have it in.

People quote him saying 'he gave his life as a ransom'; yet miss the context of the sentence, which is talking about 'he who is greatest among you, is he who serves' by teaching, so he is giving his life as a ransom teaching the message of God, and asking his disciples to do the same.

Isaiah 53 was fulfilled by Yeshua, yet it says 'we made him into a sin sacrifice', as he didn't do that himself, it was done after, and he even said in the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, that the Pharisees would tell people you got free inheritance from his death; yet they'd receive nothing, and be utterly condemned for it instead, as they've made a covenant with death.

Though saying John is falsified, it is written from an inside view of what the Pharisee's believed; so we hear that Caiaphas being high priest, decided that jesus was to die as a sin offering for the world.

The disciples limit Christ's potential inside themselves because they had not come into being with Christ. He who speaks the word of Christ becomes Christ and all the hidden things are revealed to him. This is only possible if you accept the word of God as your own. Something that the disciples lacked in knowledge. Whoever drinks from my mouth will come into my way. I will become that person and that person will become me. The disciples lacked perspective, instead of making the word of God their own, they made God master over themselves, declaring themselves unworthy for the presence of the Holy Spirit within. The point of Christ is to become Christ; as the spirit comes to be because of the body.

 

[Muffled]

Hi Mountain,

Is there an issue that the atonement referred to Christ is untrue?

“And He Himself is an atoning offering for our sins, and not for ours only but also for all the world.” 1 John 2:2

Hebrews 9:12 - Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

I believed this is the reason why Jesus also answered how many times we will forgive others. That does not mean we should continue to sin as follower of Christ.

Thanks

I believe the atonement is for everyone but not everyone accepts it and I also believe atonement is not salvation from sin.

 

[Muffled]

from the OP: Anyone who has read the Bible knows that Moses instituted laws of sacrifice as a penalty for sin.

Sorry I believe I don't know this and I have read the Bible many times. Do you have a reference?

 

[Rise]

You have grossly misrepresented and misinterpeted the scripture.

For example, you cite Psalm 51:17 as proof that God hates sacrifice, but then ignore Psalm 51:19 where it says God will once again delight in David’s sacrifice of bulls upon the altar.

God looked favorably on Abel’s animals sacrifice:
Genesis 4:4

God refers to the animal sacrifice of Noah as a “sweet savor”.
Genesis 8:20-21

In many other places the sacrifices ordained by God are said to be a sweet savor or pleasing aroma to God;
One example: Leviticus 1:9

Amos 5 also disproves your assertion that these verses are about God hating sacrifice in general. It talks about God also despising their festivals and their songs. It would be wrong to conclude that means God hates music and singing, especially in worship to Him.
Psalm 96:1
Psalm 96:9
Psalm 100:2
Revelation 7:11
Revelation 19:4
Revelation 5:13

Context is key. In all the scriptures you cited the common theme is that the Israelites are living wicked lives yet going through all the religious motions and thinking the are ok because they do that. In proper context, there is absolutely nothing in scripture that would suggest God hates the act of sacrifice in general, but it’s quite clear what He hates is religious hypocrisy. We see the same thing with Jesus when He strongly rebukes the religious hypocrits.

You are also wrong to take the statements of Jesus out of context in the same way by claiming Jesus was against sacrifice in general.

Not only did he actually tell people to observe the sacrifices:
Luke 5:14

But He made himself a sacrifice for us:
Luke 22:19
Matthew 26:28
John 10:18
Romans 3:25
Revelation 13:8

Matthew 26:28 makes sense when you realize that God used a blood sacrifice as part of establishing His covenant with Abraham:
Genesis 15:9-10
Genesis 15:17-18

And it is a lamb slain, with it’s blood applied, that protects Israel from death:
Exodus 12:3
Exodus 12:6-8

, Christ's death was an atonement only in the sense that t] In this case hose who believe consider his death necessary for his resurrection which gives them certainty that they would be rewarded if they repent, and if they do they are saved.

There is nothing at all in scripture that would lead to that conclusion. You quoted many things that very plainly and explicitly state Christ’s death was a sacrifice for sins, yet then go on to suggest that the scripture doesn’t mean what it says without giving us any scriptural reason to believe that could be true.

Your entire argument is based on a bad foundation of wrongly intrepreting the scripture to say that God hates all sacrifice. Therefore you wrongly go on to conclude that the dozens of scriptures dealing with the sacrifice of Christ must not actually mean what they say.

You then invent an alternative way of understanding those verses that actually has no basis in scripture whatsoever. It’s a complete fabrication on our part.

 

[Rise]

All innocent and righteous blood atones for sin for a generation's sin. When there are no righteous people in a generation to die for that generation, school children die for that generation's sin. If the Temple was rebuilt in Jerusalem, then innocent lambs would die, which is better than human martyrs. This is all in the Talmud.

That's Talmudic, not Biblical.

The concept that only the death of a sinless person can atone for the sinner comes from the concept of the unblemished lamb being offered as a sacrifice for sinners.

It is a picture and foreshadow of what was to come in Christ:
Hebrews 1

No one but Christ could actually make that decision to be sacrificed on behalf of the world because everyone else was born under the power of sin. But Jesus did not have Adam as His father.
Psalm 51:5
Romans 3:9-12
Romans 3:23-24

One big problem with Christianity is this notion of a human sacrifice. God made it clear to Abraham, that He doesn't want human sacrifice when Abe tried to kill his son.

You have a wrong idea of what happened in that account.

God was the one who told Abraham to sacrifice Issac. It wasn't Abraham's idea.
Genesis 22:2

Abraham obeyed because he expected Issac to be resurrected, such was the extent of his faith.
Hebrews 11:17-19

Issac was also a grown man by this time. He was willing to be sacrificed. He wasn't forced to do it.

This is all a picture of Christ willingly sacrificing himself and coming back to life.

 

[MountainPine]

For example, you cite Psalm 51:17 as proof that God hates sacrifice, but then ignore Psalm 51:19 where it says God will once again delight in David’s sacrifice of bulls upon the altar.

No it doesn't. פָרִ֖ים (parim) doesn't just translate as "bulls", but also "fruit", at it's used in Hosea 14:12. Even in the LXX, where "calves" is transliterated from μόσχος can also be translated as "a tender, juicy, shoot" or a "sprout". Translating it as fruit or sprout would be consistent with verse 17, otherwise it would be a contradiction.

God looked favorably on Abel’s animals sacrifice:
Genesis 4:4

If you read the Hebrew, as you know, you'll get a different context of what was happening, a context that you deliberately choose to ignore because of your cognitive dissonance. Quoting from The Abomination of Desolation, page 229-230:

Now ha’adam [‘of the earth,’ or ‘the Adam’] had Eve. His wife conceived and brought forth Qayin [‘acquired’] and said, “I have gotten a man against Yahweh.” And again (she) brought forth his brother Hebel [‘vanity’]. Hebel became (a) tender (of) flocks [or sheep], but Qayin became a servant [or slave, laborer] ha’adamah [‘of men,’ or ‘the Adamites’]. And the end of (the) time came [And the time to make presentations came], and Qayin brought fruit ha’adamah [of men, the Adamites] (as his) offering (to) Yahweh. Hebel also brought his birthright, the best of his flock. Yahweh regarded [or looked upon] Hebel and his offering, and not Qayin and his offering. Qayin became very fallen in his face [or Qayin’s countenance fell]. Yahweh said to Qayin, “Why are you angry? Why has your face [or countenance] fallen? If (you) do not (do) well, (you) will not be swelled [or exalted], and if (you) do not (do) well, you lie in the doorway of sin and your master.” And Qayin told Hebel his brother to come to the field [i.e., away from the settlement]. And Qayin rose up to [against] Hebel his brother and killed him. And Yahweh said to Qayin, “Where is Hebel your brother?” And (he) said, “(I) know not. My brother’s keeper (am) I?” And (he, Yahweh) said, “What have (you) done(?) (The) sound of your brother’s blood
is crying about ha’adamah [of men, the Adamites]. Now cursed [cut off] are you from ha’adamah [of men, the Adamites] who have opened (your) mouth to receive your brother’s blood (from) your hand. When (you) work ha’adamah [of men, the Adamites] will no longer give (you) fruit. (A) vagrant wanderer you have become in the land.”

When it comes to Scripture, you can always be certain that its language is so complex and written from such an intelligent and cryptic perspective as to be rich in layered meanings. Clearly the man’s name was not really Adam, but the writer of the narrative made a play on words specifically to make this association here and explain events which had happened thousands of years earlier and which he only knew about from his anecdotal sources. It makes sense that the layered meanings of a dead language like ancient Hebrew would be completely lost in translation. The word adamah is indeed not the same as adam, and has the meaning normally ascribed to it, but it is the feminine form and root of adam. So in order to get the right meaning, we have to consider the context.

The context is that of Genesis 1:22 and 27, where Adam and Eve are told to “be fruitful and increase” their numbers, which we know is not just a one-time use, as the exact same figure of speech is repeated to Noah and his family in 9:7, and actually means “bring forth fruit from the ground.” There is a double meaning here: If we do not suppose that the “offerings” were of food, then this necessarily means that the “fruit” which Cain presented to Yahweh (or to the gods) were his own children, and that Abel was doing exactly the same. ‘Offering’ is synonymous with ‘presentation,’ and only takes on its religious connotation when it is understood to have a religious context, which we are disputing as plainly absurd. The word for ‘shepherd’ here should be taken, as it is throughout Scripture, as ‘father’ (as in, ‘priest’) or ‘teacher’ (of righteousness). The ‘choice’ is also used throughout the prophetic books to describe people upon whom the religious leaders have preyed, and we also know that the Church has laid claim to “pastoral” duties over its “flock” since its very beginnings, right to the present. So considering that the same word is rendered ‘fat’ in the KJV, the carnivorous bias and outright stupidity and malice of the evil shepherds, among whom the KJV translators were happy to count
themselves, ought to be self-evident.

 

[MountainPine]

God refers to the animal sacrifice of Noah as a “sweet savor”.
Genesis 8:20-21

Was it God, or was it the translators? Quoting from The Abomination of Desolation, pages 832-834 *Hebrew words written left to right due to a copy/paste error):

There are actually two possible interpretations of this peculiar passage, and therefore two ways which we need to debunk the premise of the objection in order to dispel all doubts about the veracity of our position. The first relates to the greater context of Scripture. The second, which is the one we have presented briefly in Chapter 6, relates to textual analysis of the term in
its own context, in isolation from the rest of Scripture.

The term in question is חחינה (hanîhoah, H5207) חיר (rêah, H7381). Twenty-six of the thirty instances of חיר (‘odor’) in the Hebrew Tanakh are in the Pentateuch. Only five passages use it at all apart from the description of חחינה (‘soothing’), and this one uses it both ways, so we can infer from other passages that it is meant to say ‘soothing smell,’ the way it is used twenty-two times in Leviticus and Numbers alone, always pertaining to sacrifice. The fact that it is meant to apply to Noah’s sacrifice is evident both in the context of Genesis 8, and in its use elsewhere in Scripture, so this is not in question.

Of the remaining four instances, two are in Song of Songs and used poetically to describe Solomon’s sexual escapes, and are therefore irrelevant to us. The other two use it with חחינה (hanîhoah) —particularly in the forms חחינ (nîhoah) and םהיחוחינ (nîhowehem). This last one is particularly problematic, as it has significance to both possible interpretations. Both of these
instances are in Ezekiel, so these are the key to understanding what was inferred from the Pentateuch in later generations, while Hebrew was still a living language, and therefore what the actual meaning in Genesis 8 is.

Genesis 5:29 explicitly states that Noah’s name derives from the same origin as H5207. Of course, that was not really his name, and the much older neo-Sumerian texts refer to him as Utnapishtim, which means ‘he found life,’ the Hebrew equivalent of which bears no resemblance to Noah in terms of its pronunciation or its meaning. Whatever Noah’s real name was, we simply are not privy to that information, so we are left to infer that the writer of Genesis gave him the name of Noah on account of this episode, as a way of associating the sacrifices described in Numbers and Leviticus with him, for he is the one who evidently instituted the practice, or is at
least the first who is recorded as having performed it. This fact is the best substantiation we have for determining how the sacrificial system developed under Moses’ direction, when Moses himself was against it (as was God), because the authorship of Genesis is attributed either to Moses or to someone very close to him. It also shows that Moses’ system was intended to be temporary, just as Noah’s single sacrifice was temporary.

That being the case, the term “soothing aroma” was a constant reminder of the fallen state of Man, as a throwback to the days of Noah. It is as if Moses, in writing Genesis and choosing a name for Noah, intended to convey that the practice of eating meat is what caused the Flood, and that it would lead to further calamity if it became widespread again. This would have been understood by the prophets, though not by the ignorant priests, and this is where Ezekiel (as a prophet and a knowledgeable priest) comes in.
In this, the first of the two possible interpretations, the term in question (חחינה חיר, rêah hanîhoah) is a description only, and implies nothing that would make it pleasing or acceptable to God. We invoke the greater context of Scripture to demonstrate this. Yahweh, through Ezekiel, blatantly calls it a “sin” (or “trespass”) which reviles God and provokes him to wrath. These are God’s own descriptions of it, according to Ezekiel.

“And I also gave them up to laws that were not good, and right-rulings by which they would not live. And I defiled them by their own gifts, as they passed all their first-born through the fire, so that I might stun them, so that they know that I am הוהי. Therefore, son of man, speak to the house of Yisra’ĕl, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus said the Master הוהי, “In this your fathers have further reviled Me, by committing trespass against Me. When I brought them into the land for which I had lifted My hand in an oath to give them, and they saw all the high hills and all the thick trees, they offered their slaughterings there and provoked Me with their offerings there. And they sent up their sweet fragrance [חחינה חיר]. there and poured out their drink offerings there.”’” Ezekiel 20:25-28

Needless to say, it does not follow from the mere use of “soothing aroma” in Genesis 8:21 that God approves of sacrifice/flesh-eating, unless God has a severe case of schizophrenia. As for the second possible interpretation, wherein we have isolated the meaning of rêah hanîhoah, this is actually necessary for understanding the true meaning of the text, and therefore how it fits into the greater context. In other words, to explain what the meaning of this peculiar phrase is in this particular context is to explain the meaning of its use in all contexts in Scripture.

As for the second interpretation, as delivered in Chapter 6 without this lengthier explanation, the meaning of rêah hanîhoah in the context of Genesis 8:21 is obfuscated by the meaning of hanîhoah, evidently due to the choice of Noah for the name of the patriarch. Normal translations typically use “burnt offering” throughout the Old Testament, so this should show that the translations recognize that something is amiss in their understanding of the passage. A cross-reference with Isaiah 34 will show that our rendering of ‘the stench of rotting corpses’ is valid, and it should be understood that this is certainly in keeping with the Genesis 8 narrative,
where all land animals save those aboard the Ark were killed by the Flood and submerged for several months, obviously putrefying.

It is clear that the writer intended to say that God smelled the “stench of death” and decided he would never perform this act again. But God did not repent of killing the men he did; he repented of cursing the ground. This strongly implies that the ground was made unholy by the rotting corpses.

The fact that hanîhoah should indeed be translated as ‘of death’ rather than ‘pleasant’ or ‘sweet,’ etc., is perfectly evident in the prefixed preposition (the ה). If it were ‘pleasant,’ that would be H5276. Other related words corroborate the fact that it is death which is being spoken of, and that there is no positive connotation, except in the sense that someone who has died has “gone home” or is “resting,” and his survivors are consoled. Such words, with their short definitions in Strong’s, include 5091 (lamented, related to 5092: wailing), 5106 (hinder), 5115 (home), 5116 (pasture), 5117 (rest), 5150 (comfort, compassion), 5162 (sorry), 5163 (consolation), 5181 (descend [as in nephilim]), 5183 (rest of death), 5207 (comfort) and 5208 (sacrifices). So which one makes more sense: that God smelled the “sweet aroma” of something he says everywhere else that he detests, but suddenly changed his mind, so that he both liked it and decided he did not want to do it again, or that he smelled the “stench of death” and was so appalled that he regretted what Man had forced him to do?

One could argue that the use of rêah hanîhoah in Genesis 8:21 is no different than any other use of the term ‘soothing aroma.’ However, keeping in mind the meaning of the name of Noah itself, the term actually means, literally, ‘the smell of Noah.’ Nîhoah is clearly just the longer form of Noah; the word hanîhoah means ‘of Noah.’ This is clearly demonstrated by the use of חחינ (nîhoah) in Ezekiel 6:13, which is arbitrarily given a different rendering, usually pertaining to incense, thus demonstrating the bias of the translators, though it is the same phrase in Hebrew, minus the ה which designates the preposition, ‘of.’ So every use of “sweet fragrance” or “sweet aroma,” “sweet savor,” etc., is actually supposed to be read as ‘Noah’s smell,’ as in, ‘the fragrance of Noah’s sacrificial offering.’ To apply any sort of moral justification to this practice just because one man (Moses) who also adamantly detested it seems to have used an adjective to describe it (like saying that strawberries are “sweet,” without giving any indication
of whether or not the speaker actually likes strawberries), when in fact he only used the appropriate name to indicate possession, while the rest of Scripture has no shortage of denunciations of it, is absurd.

And it is a lamb slain, with it’s blood applied, that protects Israel from death:

Except that the lambs slain in Exodus 12 is not a sacrifice. The Israelites left Egypt in haste. They didn't have time to buy paint, so painting lamb's blood on their door posts was the quickest way they could prepare for the angel of death's coming. Passover is not even about slaughtering a lamb. It's about commemorating God's breaking of Egypt's rule over the Israelites, and of a flight that was so rushed that they didn't have time for their bread to rise.

As for everything else, I'm not going to address. Clearly you are doing the very thing you're accusing me of, altering scripture to make it justify your malevolent atonement doctrine while continuing to sin. You murder the very man you say is your beloved Savior everyday by your refusal to repent. You don't care about anything I have presented, and I don't think you'll care about what I've said in this post. You're an unrepentant troll who enjoys arguing, especially by twisting scripture to cause confusion for others and quarrels with those who have a legit message.