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

[Ben Avraham]

Umm ... Ezekiel 18:3 says "As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, ye shall not have [occasion] any more to use this proverb in Israel."

Are you sure that is the verse you meant?

(And Brian Schuh ... you liked it? Really? ... That is the grand opus proving that Christ didn't die for sin and the entire NT is false? ... Scrap Christianity because of Ezekiel 18:3. ... READ IT BEFORE YOU LIKE IT!)

No sir, (or madam) I quoted too fast and missed the real message which is in verse 4. "The Person who sins, only he shall die." Which means, no one else can die for the sins of another. I apologize for my recklessness.

 

[Ben Avraham]

; I looks at it like this weird but on one hand the romans didn't accuse or begin an accusation at Jesus.(more or less they are political ) The Pharisees did accuse and bring him before a trial. (while Jesus has done nothing wrong)(if Jesus was doing serious crimes; he, being not of status probably would have been prosecuted by the romans. At the same time you have a Caesar and many kings of the Kingdom doing atrocious stuff that no one can accuse them of doing things of disgrace. Then they get covered by a king that didn't stop until he got thrown in. I see a compounded snap happening all at once.
As regards to priesthood and righteousness they accused badly, Pontus Pilate like I said; has seen worse is and was in a blur between the accusations which didn't seem like much, but when the Pharisees said that well He makes himself king which wasn't much really;(or was it?) Pontius Pilate jumped right into his judgment seat in Gabbatha. That's a sealed King by His blood King. Because everyone called Jesus a King whether by accusation or by a mouth of praise. And HE was silent. The joke is on both sides of this coin. Joke is on us. Whether by praise, accusation, or in regards to righteousness and sin. Even their Ceasar probably was one of the most notorious worst Ceasars' ever. A soon as Pontius Pilate is convienced by false accusers that it would usurp the honor pride and authority of one, and one also unrighteous, Pontius Pilate jumps into the seat, later notoriously washes his hands, probably still not convienced but that jump that accusation caused the King His name Jesus also on the priestly side.
I see a compounded snap happening all at once.

If the Romans did not accuse Jesus of any thing, who ordered that plate with the verdict of Jesus to be nailed on the top of Jesus' cross? Pilate. The verdict read INRI. That Jesus had been crucified on the political charge of insurrection for being acclaimed by his own disciples to be king of the Jews in Jerusalem. (Luke 19:37-40) It means that the Jewish authorities had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. So, the accusation that they had condemned Jesus to the cross was a slander by the author of the gospel who was a Hellenist former disciple of Paul. Besides, not a single Jew wrote a single page of the NT. Jews would not write against their own Faith. Last but not least, the power of jurisdiction to condemn any one to death in Israel had been removed and forbidden by Rome as long as Rome was in power in Israel.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I believe I do not see that in those verses. I believe this is a case of Jesus being killed because of the sins of the Pharisees and the Romans. The people who died in the San Bernardino massacre died because of the sins of the terrorists. However Jesus was not being killed for any sin that He committed against God. No doubt he sinned by being good when those who are evil did not want that.

The Pharisees had nothing to do with the death of Jesus. The opposite is rather true that twice they tried to rescue Jesus from being arrested first by Herod and second by Pilate. Herod had ordered the arrest of Jesus and some of the Pharisees
revealed the secret to Jesus so that he left the region, Jesus listened to them and was saved. In the case of Pilate, the disciples of Jesus were acclaiming him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem and the Pharisees warned him to stop
their disciples and Jesus said that if they stopped, the stones would shout instead. Probably, Jesus was enjoying the parade and, soon afterwards he was arrested and Pilate commanded that his verdict be nailed on the top of his cross. INRI.
It means that Jesus was crucified on the political charge of insurrection. (Luke 19:37-40) As I said, nothing to do with the Pharisees. All anti-Jewish slanders.

 

[atpollard]

No sir, (or madam) I quoted too fast and missed the real message which is in verse 4. "The Person who sins, only he shall die." Which means, no one else can die for the sins of another. I apologize for my recklessness.

Sorry, my Hebrew is worse than 'weak' but which word is "only"?

I ask because my English translations list a more emphatic wording of: "“Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die."

Which if indeed "the soul who sins WILL die", then does this not also prevent the atonement required by the Law?
I am attempting to understand how this prevents some atonements, but not others. I appreciate your insight into your language and culture.

Arthur

 

[rosends]

Just out of curiosity, if this negates Jesus atonement, does it not negate all possible atonement ... including the prescribed sacrifices of the Law?

It doesn't negate atonement. It speaks only of a consequence when there is a lack of atonement. Compare with Kings II, 14:6
6But the sons of the assassins he did not execute, as it is written in the book of the Torah of Moses, which the Lord commanded saying: "Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor shall sons be put to death for fathers, but each man shall be put to death for his own sin."

which references Deut 24:16

If the sin is expiated by the individual, he does not die. But it is the soul that sins, not some other, which dies if there is a punishment levied.

 

[roger1440]

It doesn't negate atonement. It speaks only of a consequence when there is a lack of atonement. Compare with Kings II, 14:6
6But the sons of the assassins he did not execute, as it is written in the book of the Torah of Moses, which the Lord commanded saying: "Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor shall sons be put to death for fathers, but each man shall be put to death for his own sin."

which references Deut 24:16

If the sin is expiated by the individual, he does not die. But it is the soul that sins, not some other, which dies if there is a punishment levied.

Ezekiel wrote pretty much the same thing.

"The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them." (Ezekiel 18:20)

 

[rosends]

And what does the Talmud have to say about Jesus and His followers?

Nothing about Jesus.
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

 

[roger1440]

The people who died in the San Bernardino massacre died because of the sins of the terrorists.

Maybe they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[atpollard]

It doesn't negate atonement. It speaks only of a consequence when there is a lack of atonement. Compare with Kings II, 14:6
6But the sons of the assassins he did not execute, as it is written in the book of the Torah of Moses, which the Lord commanded saying: "Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor shall sons be put to death for fathers, but each man shall be put to death for his own sin."

which references Deut 24:16

If the sin is expiated by the individual, he does not die. But it is the soul that sins, not some other, which dies if there is a punishment levied.

Did Job have no right to offer a sacrifice for his children (in case they had sinned)?

Obviously, the person who sins has a right to 'expiate' his sin (you have said as much), but is that because it is their soul? If G_d owns the soul, does G_d have the right to expiate the sin? (Setting Jesus aside)

I am attempting to determine if there is any real argument here that even G_d has no right to atone for some else's sin, or does this ultimately just boil back down to the same old question: "Is Jesus who he claimed he is?"
(If he is, then he has the right and if he is not, then he does not have the right).

 

[rosends]

Did Job have no right to offer a sacrifice for his children (in case they had sinned)?

Obviously, the person who sins has a right to 'expiate' his sin (you have said as much), but is that because it is their soul? If G_d owns the soul, does G_d have the right to expiate the sin? (Setting Jesus aside)

I am attempting to determine if there is any real argument here that even G_d has no right to atone for some else's sin, or does this ultimately just boil back down to the same old question: "Is Jesus who he claimed he is?"
(If he is, then he has the right and if he is not, then he does not have the right).

God endows us with a soul and the responsibility to care for that soul.
http://www.chabadhebrewschool.us/Te...e_cdo/aid/817502/jewish/03-Elokai-Neshama.htm

The question isn't whether God has some sort of "right" to do something, but whether he has clearly established how things will work. God could also make all my decisions for me because everything that I am "belongs" to him. And yet he gives me that autonomy to live my life.

God could forgive without my doing any atoning action but that doesn't mean he atones on my behalf.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Sorry, my Hebrew is worse than 'weak' but which word is "only"?

I ask because my English translations list a more emphatic wording of: "“Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die."

Which if indeed "the soul who sins WILL die", then does this not also prevent the atonement required by the Law? I am attempting to understand how this prevents some atonements, but not others. I appreciate your insight into your language and culture.

Arthur

But I did not give the answer in Hebrew but in English. I meant to say that the sinner alone shall die for his or her sins, not someone else. Soul here is a reference to the person, not some thing that a person has. When the Lord formed man from the dust of the earth, He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man BECAME a living soul. To become is to be and not to have. It means that soul is not what we have but what we are. (Genesis 2:7) The soul is the combination of body with the breath of life. At death, the body goes back to the dust and the breath of life goes back to God Who gave it. (Ecclesiastes 12:7)

Now, as the atonement required by the Law is concerned, I would like that you quoted the text you got that point from.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

The craziest things is how many texts they actually deny themselves in the old testament.
Secondly;
Also it's pretty obvious to me when people don't believe yet still by accusation or sorts, many angles actually say He existed. When I know that from points made by others "your not aloud to do" because it starts bring it all together. So they tell them not too; even though these people probably know scriptures more than anyone else.
What is more fascinating are the people that do the work on the scriptures even from outside view very fluent in it not too walled up on it's contents agree at some point He existed.

 

[Ben Avraham]

The craziest things is how many texts they actually deny themselves in the old testament.
Secondly;
Also it's pretty obvious to me when people don't believe yet still by accusation or sorts, many angles actually say He existed. When I know that from points made by others "your not aloud to do" because it starts bring it all together. So they tell them not too; even though these people probably know scriptures more than anyone else.
What is more fascinating are the people that do the work on the scriptures even from outside view very fluent in it not too walled up on it's contents agree at some point He existed.

Sorry, but I don't know whom you are talking about.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Sorry, but I don't know whom you are talking about.

giggle

 

[MountainPine]

Receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior saves a person from sin.

No one can "receive Jesus" without obeying the God's commandments. (Matthew 19:16-17, 1 John 2:3-5)

John 14:6
Psalms 119:1
Psalms 119:142
Proverbs 13:14

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

No one can "receive Jesus" without obeying the God's commandments. (Matthew 19:16-17, 1 John 2:3-5)

John 14:6
Psalms 119:1
Psalms 119:142
Proverbs 13:14

for starters who believe can be saved.

 

[MountainPine]

for starters who believe can be saved.

What do you think it means to believe? To acknowledge or to obey? Hebrews 5:8-9

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

What do you think his prayer in the Garden was about?
What about the heart.

 

[MountainPine]

What do you think his prayer in the Garden was about?
What about the heart.

If you think you can just "believe" without obeying what he said, and what God said, then you're not a Christian. If you don't obey the Word and the commandments, then your heart is not in the right place.

[James 2] 14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

If you think you can just "believe" without obeying what he said, and what God said, then you're not a Christian. If you don't obey the Word and the commandments, then your heart is not in the right place.

[James 2] 14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

so and also already done;
I hope you further your faith.