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

[First Baseman]

Read the books of Romans and Hebrews. Paul covers the subject quite well.

 

[First Baseman]

Hear the Apostles chosen by God and please stop all of this blathering.

 

[MountainPine]

Hear the Apostles chosen by God and please stop all of this blathering.

Oh, the Irony....

 

[First Baseman]

Oh, the Irony....

How about if you make those quotes in context? You'll see that your assumptions about the verses are mistaken.

And I don't care about the Henry James quote so I'm not talking about that.

 

[MountainPine]

How about if you make those quotes in context? You'll see that your assumptions about the verses are mistaken.

And I don't care about the Henry James quote so I'm not talking about that.

Those quotes are my signature.

 

[First Baseman]

Those quotes are my signature.

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[Rise]

Let's look first at what you ignored from my post which undermines many of your premises:

1. I showed how Amos 5, in context, doesn't imply that God hates sacrifice in general, but rather hypocritical worship.

2. Jesus told people to observe the sacrifices.

3. Jesus is plainly stated to be a willing sacrifice on our behalf.

4. God used animal sacrifice and blood to establish his covenant with Abraham.


Now, moving on to the things you did respond to:

No it doesn't. פָרִ֖ים (parim) doesn't just translate as "bulls", but also "fruit", at it's used in Hosea 14:12.

Hosea 14:2.

Parim is a reference to sacrifice, either a literal sacrifice of a bull to go along with the words of their mouth, or a sacrifice of praise from their mouth.

ESV:
Take with you words and return to the LORD; say to him, “Take away all iniquity; accept what is good, and we will pay with bulls the vows of our lips.

NLT:
Bring your confessions, and return to the LORD. Say to him, "Forgive all our sins and graciously receive us, so that we may offer you our praises.

HCSB:
Take words of repentance with you and return to the LORD. Say to Him: "Forgive all our sin and accept what is good, so that we may repay You with praise from our lips.

JPS Tanakh 1917:
Take with you words, And return unto the LORD; Say unto Him: 'Forgive all iniquity, And accept that which is good; So will we render for bullocks the offering of our lips.

Some translators have said "the fruit of our lips", which is an english idiomatic way of saying the outpouring of our lips, or the result that comes forth from our repentence - it has nothing to do with literal fruit. Considering that we do no see the Hebrew word parim used anywhere in scripture to refer to literal fruit, but rather is always associated with animals or sacrifice, we have no reason to conclude that Hosea 14:2 in the Hebrew has anything whatsoever to do with literal fruit.

Even in the LXX, where "calves" is transliterated from μόσχος can also be translated as "a tender, juicy, shoot" or a "sprout".

Hosea 14:2 NET translation of the LXX:
Return to the Lord and repent!
Say to him: “Completely forgive our iniquity;
accept our penitential prayer,
that we may offer the praise of our lips as sacrificial bulls.

καρπός is a word that implies that which results from something. It can refer to one's offspring, the gains of harvest, an action, the effect of something, etc. It can refer to literal fruit, because it is the result of a process, but the context will establish what it is referring to.
http://studybible.info/strongs/G2590

καρπός refers in Hosea 14:2 to what comes out of their lips. Literal fruit does not grow out of people's lips. Contextually it has absolutely nothing to do with literal fruit, but is used figuratively to show the result of their repentance.

Another possible way to translate Hosea 14 is:
Take after your own words, and return to the Lord! Speak to him! so that you should not receive for your iniquities and so that you should receive good things, and we will recompense the fruit of our lips.
http://studybible.info/interlinear/hosea 14

Again, we see the same message: To recompense the result of your lips, the offering of your lips, is to perform acts in keeping with your repentance and vows. Which is why that fact shows through in most English translations.

Translating it as fruit or sprout would be consistent with verse 17, otherwise it would be a contradiction.

That only proves you have no sense of how to read the context of a passage.

Hosea 14:1-8
What is the theme and message here?

I. "Repent".
"Return to Me" (here is where there is a reference to repentence, sacrifice, and either the vow or praise of their lips).

II. "I will heal you.

Then, in THAT context, of bringing healing as a result of their repentence, we see a list of examples of what that healing will look like.
1. God will love them, and turn away His anger.
2. God will refresh Israel like dew. Israel will blossom again, have great splendor, and a pleasing fragrance.
3. People will be shaded by God again.
4. Their harvests will be abundant.
5. They will have fame.

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:

I see nothing in that screed which makes any attempt to directly address Genesis 4:4, which clearly says Abel offered a sacrifice from his flock and God looked favorably on it.

That in itself disproves the author's claim that all the animal sacrifice only came after the flood, because it shows that God looked favorably on animal sacrifice prior to the flood of Noah.

Further disproving the author's interpretation of what is meant by "pleasing aroma" is the fact that it is directly linked with the sacrifice of Christ:

Genesis 8:21
Exodus 29:18
Leviticus 1:9
Numbers 15:3
Ezekiel 20:40-41
Ephesians 5:2
2 Corinthians 2:14-15

This concept of animal sacrifice carrying with it a pleasing aroma is found dozens of times in Leviticus and Numbers alone. That imagery is carried over by Paul to no only to refer to how Christ's sacrifice was a pleasing aroma, but compares how through Christ we become a pleasing aroma.

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?

As I already pointed out, that argument is taking the Bible out of context. God only is said in the Bible to detest sacrifice that is done in hypocrisy, with a heart that is intent on sinning without repentence.

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.

You have no scriptural basis for anything you just claimed.
It's an invention out of your own mind. The wishful thinking of someone who is trying to find a way to ignore what scripture plainly states.

It is also contradicted by the fact that God establishes in Exodus 12:2-4 a yearly feast where they are to sacrifice a lamb for each household.

This is not a one time act because they are rushed and don't have red paint. I've come across some pretty absurd statements before, but I do believe yours is at the top of that list.

Passover is not even about slaughtering a lamb. It's about commemorating God's breaking of Egypt's rule over the Israelites

Sacrifice is a foundation of the Bible from beginning to end. Indeed, the sacrifice of a lamb specifically is also fround from Genesis to Revelation.

Sacrifice was there from the beginning:

Genesis 3:21
God made skins for Adam and Eve after the fall, which would have required killing an animal.
(The fig leaf work of their hands wasn't going to cut it. This is a picture of how only a blood sacrifice can cover, "make atonement", for sin)
Hebrews 9:22

Genesis 4:4
Abel sacrifices from his flock.

Revelation 13:8
The lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


The sacrifice of a Lamb is seen from Genesis to Revelation:

Genesis 22:7:8
Issac had an understanding that a sacrifice involved a lamb.
This is a prophetic picture of Jesus, God's son offered as a sacrifice for us.

Exodus 12:2-4
God establishes a yearly feast which involves the sacrifice of a lamb.

Leviticus 5:6-7
A lamb sacrifice is required to be offered for sin.

Numbers 28:3
Israel is required to sacrifice a lamb twice a day, every day, at the tabernacle.

1 Samuel 7:9
Samuel sacrifices a lamb.

1 Chronicles 29:20-22
David involved in mass sacrifice of lambs.

2 Chronicles 29:20-22
Hezekiah sacrifices lambs.

2 Chronicles 30:15-17
2 Chronicles 35:1
Passover is being observed long after the time of Moses, after the time of David, with the sacrifice of lambs.

Ezra 6:20
Passover lamb still sacrificed after returning form exile.

Ezekiel 46:4
Lambs are still sacrificed in future rebuilt Jerusalem temple.

Mark 14:12
Luke 22:7
Lambs still sacrificed for passover feast during the time of Jesus.

John 1:29
John 1:36
Acts 8:32
1 Corinthians 5:7
1 Peter 1:19
Ephesians 5:2
Revelation 5:6-8
Revelation 5:12-13
Revelation 12:11
Revelation 13:8
Jesus is that lamb.

The blood of the lamb protecting people from death in Exodus is a shadow of Christ to come, how His blood gives us victory over death.
John 10:28
John 3:16
1 Corinthians 15:55-57

and of a flight that was so rushed that they didn't have time for their bread to rise

God specifically commanded them to eat unleavened bread, and said it would from that point on be a yearly feast they were to keep. Exodus 12:14-15. It wasn't just something that happened because they were rushed.

Like every other ritual God ordained for Israel to do, it is a symbolic parallel of a higher spiritual truth.
Hebrews 8:5
Colossians 2:17

1 Corinthians 5:6-8





I'm sure I could go through the whole book just like that. Everything you've posted that deals with this book so far is full of patently false absurdities which can be easily disproven by looking at the fullness of what scripture says. You just have to be willing to let the Bible speak for itself, instead of trying to force a vegan agenda into the Bible.

 

[First Baseman]

Yes. The Bible must be taken as a whole to even begin to understand what it is saying. The OT and NT go together, they aren't separate books that speak of 2 different Gods. They are one and the same. The OT leads into the NT. In Hebrews Paul explains why the law was instituted and how it all fits in together.

 

[rosends]

Just a couple of notes --
1. Hosea 14:2 has Parim as bulls, not fruits
2. Vicarious atonement doesn't exist in Judaism. While there are talmudic statements about what appears to be vicarious atonement, anyone who studies the talmud (as opposed to superficially qoting it) would know that the mechanism being discussed is VERY different.

 

[MountainPine]

That doesn't answer my question.

Think about the wisdom of the two passages. Jews and Muslims consider eating pork to be a sin, and strict orthodox Jews also consider eating bottom-feeders (crab, shrimp, etc.) to be a sin. Certain Hindus consider eating beef to be a sin. So eating any of these would cause them to stumble. Eating any meat would offend ethical vegetarians, and consuming meat and dairy products would offend vegans. Therefore, a plant-based diet would be the only diet that would be respectable to all men. No one can or will ever argue that not eating animal products is immoral. One could argue that the latter passage is only a reference to eating meat offered to idols, as that is what the chapter is about; however, the speech in the last verse (v. 13) is not confined to the subject of food offered to idols, but is more abundant. He is not saying, "I will not eat food offered to idols," he is saying, "I will not eat meat because it offends my brother." This indicates that Paul was a vegetarian.

As for Romans 14:2-3, "One indeed believes to eat all food, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. He that eats, let him not despise him who does not eat, and he that does not eat, let him not judge him who eats, for Elohim received him." inferring that Paul was describing vegans as "weak," but this is not the case. Vegetables are not the only things that vegans eat, as they also eat fruit, grains, nuts, etc. First of all, the Bible differentiates between "food" and "flesh". The King James Bible says "meat" in place of food, but the KJV is archaic and many of the words do not have the same context as those in modern English. "Meat" had the meaning of "food" back in 1611, and "flesh" had the meaning of "meat." There isn't a single instance in the Bible where "food" and "meat/flesh" are used interchangeably. So the context of "all food" only encompasses that which is grown, not killed.

Here is a proper understanding of the rest of Romans 14, with commentary in brackets (quoting from the ISR version):

I know and am persuaded in the Master יהושע that none at all is common [i.e. “unclean”] of itself. [That which is created is good in and of itself.] But to him who regards whatever to be common, to him it is common. [If you have a problem with the idea of eating a certain food, you should avoid it. Eating meat is wrong to someone who merely thinks it is.] And if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. [If you are eating meat and your brother does not approve, you are selfishly and unnecessarily causing your brother to stumble.] Do not by your food ruin the one for whom Messiah died. Do not then allow your good to be spoken of as evil. [If what you are doing is seen as wrong and creates division, do not do it, even if you think it is right.] For the reign of Elohim is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Set-apart Spirit. [Do not do it, for the sake of keeping peace, which is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. If you are being guided by your own fleshly impulses, then you are not being guided by the Holy Spirit.] For he who is serving Messiah in these matters is well-pleasing to Elohim and approved by men. [You will not be despised if you do the right thing.] So, then, let us pursue the matters of peace and the matters for building up one another. [Let us all be vegetarians so no one has any reason to complain.] Do not destroy the work of Elohim for the sake of food. [Do not put your carnivorous tastes ahead of the establishment of the kingdom of heaven, which, as the goal of the work of God, is antithetical to animal slaughter.] All indeed are clean, but evil to that man who eats so as to cause stumbling. [Everything is a pure creation, but it is wrong to eat whatever causes dissension, i.e. meat.] It is good not to eat meat or drink wine, nor to do whatever by which your brother stumbles. [Abstinence from flesh and abstinence from alcohol both constitute righteous pursuits. This policy also applies to other habits which could cause people to think badly of you.] Do you have belief? Have it to yourself before Elohim. [Are you righteous? Then let God see you be righteous by being obedient to him.] Blessed is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. [Blessed is the one who does not accrue demerit by eating something which he finds acceptable when his neighbor does not, which brings him under judgment the same way as if he had done something which his own conscience was against. The implication is that if my conscience tells me it is wrong, you should not do it, just as if your conscience had told you the same. For all you know, my conscience is more aligned to God’s will, because I am further advanced in my knowledge than you are.] But he who doubts, if he eats, is condemned, because it is not of belief [whoever is troubled by conscience over his sin is condemned by it, because he has been disobedient], and all that is not of belief is sin. [The one who eats what is forbidden does so in disobedience. Therefore it is a sin, even if your conscience does not tell you it is.] Romans 14:14-23

Here is a proper understanding of 1 Corinthians 8, with commentary:

So then, concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is no matter at all in the world, and that there is no other Elohim but one. [As a note, in the modern context this applies especially to kosher meats, which is to say virtually all meats you will find at any supermarket except for pork products—and we do not mean to say that these are kosher by the Bible’s standards, but they are labeled as such if they meet the conventional requirements. We would also point out that the logos and other icons of packaged foods and restaurant chains typically center around the modern equivalents of the ancient idols, especially where it concerns meat and dairy production. These typically portray an anthropomorphized animal that appears to be or is even stated to be “happy” and laughing or smiling. We might say that this is just several steps along the path of the Golden Calf episode. Whether meat-eaters realize it or not, they are certainly in the habit of worshiping the companies and the restaurant chains which they support as consumers and patrons.] For even if there are so-called mighty ones, whether in heaven or on earth—as there are many mighty ones and many masters—for us there is one Elohim, the Father, from whom all came and for whom we live, and one Master יהושע Messiah, through whom all came and through whom we live. [cf. “By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.”] However, not all have this knowledge. [Not everyone understands this. In the modern context, Christians have assumed the doctrine of monotheism, because there is one God for them, though there are indeed many gods and many baals to chose from, but they have failed to recognize the more complicated truth behind pantheism due to this assumption, and to their ignorance of the more esoteric teachings of Christianity.] But some, being aware of the idol, until now eat it as having been offered to an idol, so their conscience, being weak, is defiled. [But the converts to Christianity, as opposed to the adepts/elect, due to their associations with Jewish dogmas and rituals, are ignorant of God’s will, and the sinful lusts and lifestyles they had prior to their conversion have caused them to remain in sin by eating food which is unclean.] But food does not commend us to Elohim [We will not attain salvation merely by eating the right foods if our spirit is lacking], for we are none the better if we eat, nor any worse for not eating. [By themselves, outward motions do not equivocate to inward faith.] But look to it, lest somehow this right of yours become a stumbling-block to those who are weak. [Do not abuse your freedom by doing things which others will find objectionable. As this is in reference to food offered to idols, an example would be as follows: I could eat some fruit which a Buddhist has left in front of a Buddha statue, and that would greatly annoy this person, or offend a mainstream Christian. Both have valid reasons to be offended, though it is only because of their own superstition that they regard this food as any different from any other. So it is better that I find some other fruit to eat, lest the Buddhist or the Christian in question be influenced to think it is okay to do what willinevitably and unnecessarily offend someone else, knowing that I am knowledgeable about spiritual matters.] For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s place, shall not his conscience, if he is weak, be built up to eat food offered to idols? [Or if he sees you eating meat, will he not think it is okay to eat meat, when it obviously is not? We do well to remember that food blessed by a rabbi is ceremonially dedicated to Lucifer, and that this is the modern equivalent of all the meat sold in Roman markets.] So this weak brother, for whom Messiah died, shall perish through your knowledge! Now sinning in this way against the brothers, and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Messiah. [Eating meat in front of a vegetarian is a sin against Christ.] Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I am never again going to eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. [Paul was a vegetarian.] 1 Corinthians 8

Please note that I am not adding to the Bible by using this commentary. It's only for the sake of applying the right context.

 

[MountainPine]

@Rise

Yahushua is not the Passover Lamb. Virtually every comparison one can make between him and the original Passover lamb fails to fit the bill. For one thing, the lamb chosen for slaughter was supposed to be without blemish (Exodus 12:5), which includes any sort of physical defect in its description (even a slight injury), and while Christians find this in accordance with Christ’s lack of sin, the fact that he was beaten and tortured before enduring three hours of agony on a stauros hardly lends support to their claim. How is this “kosher”? For another, the lamb was supposed to be roasted in fire (Exodus 12:8-9), a practice for which there is no credible evidence that the Romans subjected Christians to until centuries later. Any flesh of the lamb which remained until morning was supposed to be burned (Exodus 12:10), whereas Yahshuah’s body had to remain intact for three full days before he was resurrected. Its blood was also to be poured into a basin, and a bunch of hyssop was to be dipped into it to strike the lintel and side posts of the door with blood (Exodus 12:22), yet the Shroud of Turin provides the proof we need to be certain that he was buried with as much of the blood from his wounds as naturally flowed from his wounds, rather than that it was absorbed and the wounds cleaned. (The burial was done in accordance with ancient custom and expectation of resurrection. For example, a soldier who died on the battlefield was buried in his armor, rather than being embalmed or dressed, as in the heathen customs practiced now in all First World nations. This stems from the idea that the blood is life, and no less essential to a person’s body than his flesh; you would not want to be resurrected without it.)

Yahushua also does not fit the description of a Passover lamb for several other reasons. For instance, he was murdered on a mountaintop, not sacrificed on an altar. His killers were Roman soldiers, not Levite priests, and to whatever extent that the high priest Caiaphas can be said to have participated in this “sacrifice” at all, the fact that his heart was filled with malice and vengeance is hardly consistent with the reverence with which the priests were supposed to conduct their offerings. So it is an invalid sacrifice just for that reason alone; it was sufficient enough to get the sons of Eli killed over their lust for animal flesh—never mind Caiaphas’ lust to see Yahushua murdered. Yahushua himself called the priests and the teachers of the Law “blind” no less than five times in the rant recorded in Matthew 23:16-26, in contrast with their outwardly going through the motions of presenting themselves as spotless, which means that on his authority, they were incompetent to offer an atoning sacrifice even in a strictly spiritual or metaphorical sense. In fact, the priest is only ever doing his job if he is teaching the precepts of the higher law in conjunction with the metaphor, as his first duty, otherwise the entire purpose of the ritual is lost and it becomes an abomination in every single case of sacrifice across the board.

And יהוה spoke to Mosheh, saying, “Speak to Aharon, saying, ‘No man of your offspring throughout their generations, who has any defect, is to draw near to bring the bread of his Elohim. For any man who has a defect is not to draw near: a man blind [Matthew 23:16-26] or one lame or disfigured or deformed, a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch. No man among the offspring of Aharon the priest, who has a defect, is to come near to bring the offerings made by fire to יהוה—he has a defect, he does not come near to bring the bread of his Elohim. He does eat the bread of his Elohim, both the most set-apart and the set-apart, only, he does not go near the veil or approach the altar, because he has a defect, lest he profanes My set-apart places. For I am יהוה, who sets them apart.’” Leviticus 21:16-23

Yahushua is described as the Lamb in Revelation because he was without blemish, he was perfect, but that is not to say he is the Passover Lamb. To say that he was is ridiculous.

Genesis 3:21
God made skins for Adam and Eve after the fall, which would have required killing an animal.
(The fig leaf work of their hands wasn't going to cut it. This is a picture of how only a blood sacrifice can cover, "make atonement", for sin)

Actually, "coats of skin" is a metaphor for the covering of sin. "Nakedness" is equated with shame all throughout scripture, and therefore guilt. To sin is to have consciousness of sin, which is to be ashamed. Therefore sin needs a covering in order for the shame to be removed. It is not that God kills animals and gives us their skins to clothe us. This is a metaphor for forgiveness following repentance.

Ezekiel 16 alone uses “nakedness” 4 times to describe sin, and “naked and bare” 3 times, as well as “whoring” or “whorings” a total of 10 times. So when Ezekiel omits the metaphor, as in 21:24, his meaning becomes clearer, as there is no longer any room for doubt that the word is code for ‘sin’ (or ‘transgression’).

“Therefore thus said the Master יהוה, ‘Because you have made your crookedness to be remembered, in that your transgressions are uncovered, so that your sins are seen in all your deeds. Because you have been remembered, you are taken by hand.’” Ezekiel 21:24

So, as you can see, Genesis 3:21 does not mean what you think it means.

Exodus 12:2-4
God establishes a yearly feast which involves the sacrifice of a lamb.

Is that really what it says? God instructs the Israelites how to celebrate Passover in Exodus 12:17-18, by celebrating the Feast of Unleavened Bread, not by reenacting the preparation for the angel of death.

There are passages such as Deuteronomy 16:5-6 and Numbers 28:16-24 that can be employed to defend the transformation of Passover into a celebration of animal sacrifice, but this is because the Israelites were stubborn and disobedient and wanted to eat meat (Numbers 11) that God gave them a lesser law than He wanted to, as Paul states that the Law was written for sinners in 1 Timothy. If the Israelites had been obedient to God in the first place then the Law of Moses would not have been written as it was to begin with. In fact, the sale of sacrificial animals in the temple is what provoked Yahushua to destroy the market in the temple, because people where making Passover into an annual ritual of sacrifice.

 

[Hawkins]

God doesn't demand sacrifice from humans because the main purpose of rites are for Jesus to come rather than that God has to rely on the sacrifice to forgive. In the end the power of salvation comes from the self-sacrifice of God through Jesus Christ.

 

[MountainPine]

God doesn't demand sacrifice from humans because the main purpose of rites are for Jesus to come rather than that God has to rely on the sacrifice to forgive. In the end the power of salvation comes from the self-sacrifice of God through Jesus Christ.

Hmm.... God forgave the Ninevites when they repented, but they didn't offer up any sacrifices other than their broken spirits. The power of salvation comes from the sacrifice of our egos by surrendering to God's authority.

 

[Thief]

and the sons of Adam and Eve made sacrifices....

for what?
who told them to do so?
and the lesson there?.......kill something for God?

 

[Hawkins]

Hmm.... God forgave the Ninevites when they repented, but they didn't offer up any sacrifices other than their broken spirits. The power of salvation comes from the sacrifice of our egos by surrendering to God's authority.

If God forgives at will, it only means that God has no Law. Law is all pointless if a judge can give anyone a pardon anytime at will.

God forgives only because He Himself will make a self-sacrifice though Jesus Christ. The Jewish rites are for humans to be educated to witness a process through which Jesus Christ will fulfill His self-sacrifice.

 

[metis]

If God forgives at will, it only means that God has no Law. Law is all pointless if a judge can give anyone a pardon anytime at will.

So, God never gave the Law, including the Ten Commandments, to Moses and the boys? Well, since the basis of most of which is found in the "O.T." deals with God's giving of the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaiic Law, maybe you should rip that whole section out of your Bible and thrown it in the trash.

 

[moorea944]

If God forgives at will, it only means that God has no Law. Law is all pointless if a judge can give anyone a pardon anytime at will.

God forgives only because He Himself will make a self-sacrifice though Jesus Christ. The Jewish rites are for humans to be educated to witness a process through which Jesus Christ will fulfill His self-sacrifice.

Correction... God does not have to make a "self sacrifice" to anyone. That would be bringing God down to our level. We need to be bringing ourselves up to His level.

 

[Brickjectivity]

“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.

This may interest you I hope. I think bearing sins is something I Peter talks about, and is described in I Peter 2:12 "Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us." This is I think Peter's formula for conversion, bearing sins and glory. I think Peter goes over this idea repeatedly of being falsely accused of evil and then being proved right, and the reward is to win souls to God and to lawfulness. If you search for the term 'Glory' in I Peter you'll see it appears frequently and is his favorite subject.

Which kind of lawfulness Peter refers to is not something I am ready to describe, but some kind of lawfulness. Peter refers I think to the Torah as milk, and if anyone asks me that is something every Christian should begin learning first before they learn gospels and complicated Pauline arguments or mystical revelations. After that it is a matter of deciding what lawfulness is, but milk is first before meat.

“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.

I think your points about atonement coincide with other things I have heard. I have personally read the sacrifices listed in the Torah, and if you use them to indicate what 'Sacrifice' is for then it aligns with an atonement that still requires repentance and prayer -- not a deletion of evil acts or magical transfer of responsibility for wrongs. This is something you may get some enjoyment out of reading, since the death of Jesus is treated after the fact like the death of the red heifer. It is perhaps a 2nd way to derive some of your same observations, and sometimes 2 witnesses are better.

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

To the author of Hebrews Jesus has to be perfected and until his death is imperfect. This is another point to consider, because recall Jesus forgave sins even before he was perfected. Here in Hebrews is further discussion that ties in with I Peter who is also heavily focused on suffering just like Jesus. As the early church used to say "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Chapter 6 of Hebrews mentions the promise to Abraham that the world will prosper because of him, and to this author of Hebrews this means people converting and filling the world with glory through that means -- the two causes as one: glory and blessing.

 

[Muffled]

If God forgives at will, it only means that God has no Law. Law is all pointless if a judge can give anyone a pardon anytime at will.

God forgives only because He Himself will make a self-sacrifice though Jesus Christ. The Jewish rites are for humans to be educated to witness a process through which Jesus Christ will fulfill His self-sacrifice.

I believe you are missing the point. The law was not meant to be there so we can be punished but is there so we might find life.

 

[Muffled]

Correction... God does not have to make a "self sacrifice" to anyone. That would be bringing God down to our level. We need to be bringing ourselves up to His level.

I believe that just means that God goes the extra mile as Jesus once said. It is a sacrifice to be living in a sinful time period because there will be those who will do us harm.