The Atonement of Jesus Christ and Why It Needed to Happen.

[Trailblazer]

I thought these scriptures were obvious proof that Jesus fulfilled a price with his blood. That unsaid price was a demand made the Justice of God. For God willed it to be so for a reason. Without it, Jesus's death would mean nothing and God would have been a unjust, ceasing to be God.

If Jesus paid a price there would have to be something that Jesus paid a price for, so there would have to have been an original sin. Then God would have to have demanded payment for that original sin. Are there scriptures that say this?

Jesus' death could have been for another reason other than payment for original sin.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think you are stuck with physical and spiritual. I personally attribute the words of Pierre Chardin, a Jesuit Philosopher when he said, " We are not Human beings going through a spiritual experience, We are spiritual beings having a human experience."

I agree with that.

Consider 1. Corinthians 2:11,14. Our spiritual body and physical body are one in the same thing. sort of like how a caterpillar and a butterfly are the same even though they might have uniquely different characteristics.

They are one and the same thing as long as we are alive in a physical body.

Flesh and bone can live forever. Scientifically, as long as the cells regenerate without dying, a process that would have to miraculously take place during the resurrection, there is no reason that flesh couldn't live on forever. We already know of living organisms know as HeLa cells that are immortal. They will reproduce forever, such is the power of God.

Once a body is dead and decomposed it cannot come back to life. That is a scientific fact, that is the long and the short of it. If you want to "believe" that God can make bodies come back to life, that is your choice, but I see no reason to believe that, other than that it is a Church doctrine. It is not in the Bible, unless you twist the meanings. Anyone can make the Bible say what they want it to say by interpreting it the way they want to.

As far as what Christ said and didn't say. That is really up to faith. I believe that Christ said everything that was written. I believe that God preserved his teachings to the point were whoever the Gospel writers were, they wrote about true events, and were inspired by God to be as accurately as humanly possible. There isn't a thing I would remove or discredit in the Bible. The only things that I would do is clarify the words that were already said, and that is what my goal is now.

As far as what Christ said and didn't say, the following are some official Baha'i positions:

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet....

The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

Once a body is dead and decomposed it cannot come back to life. That is a scientific fact, that is the long and the short of it. If you want to "believe" that God can make bodies come back to life, that is your choice, but I see no reason to believe that, other than that it is a Church doctrine. It is not in the Bible, unless you twist the meanings. Anyone can make the Bible say what they want it to say by interpreting it the way they want to.

You have to be careful calling things scientific facts. Just because to you it has never happened before doesn't make it a fact. Science is constantly evolving and to call something fact today leads to much ignorance. I don't know exactly how God created the earth, I theorize that it involved pressure of elements that congealed and created matter. Then matter congealed and created life. Decomposition and composition are as universal and ageless as time itself. To say reconstructing something that was deconstructed and making it live forever is not possible, is ignoring God's abilities entirely. The circle of life is very real, and it applies the the principles of resurrection.

As far as twisting the meanings. I assure you, I don't think I'm twisting at all the meaning of this verse when it is saying, 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

I am claiming that Jesus did in fact say that to his disciples, He told them to touch him. Feel the prints of his hands. They were physical. Not a wisp of of air. Not a projection. However his body went through a metamorphic change from mortal to immortal. He was always a spiritual being. Resurrection, the process of making things mortal to immortal. A God-given process.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

If Jesus paid a price there would have to be something that Jesus paid a price for, so there would have to have been an original sin. Then God would have to have demanded payment for that original sin. Are there scriptures that say this?

Jesus' death could have been for another reason other than payment for original sin.

Whether it is original sin or non-original sin it is still sin. This is what the payment was for. Every sin and affliction brought by the disobedience of God's creations, namely humans.

We are not punished for Adam's transgression, we are punished for our transgression. Adam is punished for Adam's transgression. Capish. Simple.

These verses talk about sin and redemption of sin, so there isn't another reason Christ died for. I mean, if the scriptures said Christ died for baby penguins, I would imagine it would be written that way. It clearly says his blood was spilt for the sins of the world.

What ever sin that existed since the beginning of mankind's relationship with God. That is what we are talking about.

 

[Trailblazer]

Decomposition and composition are as universal and ageless as time itself. To say reconstructing something that was deconstructed and making it live forever is not possible, is ignoring God's abilities entirely. The circle of life is very real, and it applies the the principles of resurrection.

So now you are going to play the atheist "God can do anything" card?
As I tell all the atheists, even if God can do anything, that does not mean that God does everything God can do.
There is no reason for God to reconstruct physical bodies and make them new again. What Christians do is glorify the flesh, which is the opposite of what Jesus taught.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

As far as twisting the meanings. I assure you, I don't think I'm twisting at all the meaning of this verse when it is saying, 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Jesus did not write that. but even if He had said that, which is a huge stretch, that is not a case for the resurrection of bodies that have decomposed.

I am claiming that Jesus did in fact say that to his disciples, He told them to touch him. Feel the prints of his hands. They were physical. Not a wisp of of air. Not a projection.

You can claim anything you want to claim, but that does not make it true.

However his body went through a metamorphic change from mortal to immortal. He was always a spiritual being. Resurrection, the process of making things mortal to immortal. A God-given process.

I do not disagree that Jesus had an immortal spiritual body, I do not believe that His physical body went through a metamorphic change from mortal to immortal and became an immortal physical body.

 

[Trailblazer]

Whether it is original sin or non-original sin it is still sin. This is what the payment was for. Every sin and affliction brought by the disobedience of God's creations, namely humans.

What ever sin that existed since the beginning of mankind's relationship with God. That is what we are talking about.

I cannot find anything in the Gospels where Jesus said that He atoned for our sins. Why would Jesus not say that if it was the case? Just because Christianity teaches this that does not mean Jesus died for our sins. This presents a serious problem for Christianity, a problem they cannot explain away..

Atonement and reconciliation

The events leading up to the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus are well-told by the Gospel writers, as are stories of the Resurrection. But why did Jesus die?

BBC - Religions - Christianity: Why did Jesus die?

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

So now you are going to play the atheist "God can do anything" card?
As I tell all the atheists, even if God can do anything, that does not mean that God does everything God can do.
There is no reason for God to reconstruct physical bodies and make them new again. What Christians do is glorify the flesh, which is the opposite of what Jesus taught.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Jesus did not write that. but even if He had said that, which is a huge stretch, that is not a case for the resurrection of bodies that have decomposed.

You can claim anything you want to claim, but that does not make it true.

I do not disagree that Jesus had an immortal spiritual body, I do not believe that His physical body went through a metamorphic change from mortal to immortal and became an immortal physical body.

Friend. I am not arguing with you. I am only stating my beliefs, according to what I have read concerning the manner. I understand where you come from and that's what we can get out of this conversation.

If God, in your eyes, doesn't need to resurrect us as immortal bodies, than He doesn't need to. To be honest, that is probably the dumbest thing to argue about in the end of all things. We resurrect as flesh and bone. We resurrect as spiritual energy. As long as we live after this life, I'm cool with that.

As long as we gain understanding and strive to do good and be good for each other, believing in Christ and follow his words. I think we'll make it whatever happens.

For know I'm still going to keep learning.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

But we have nothing in any of the four Gospels of Jesus Christ that say anything about the atonement. Why?

Matthew 26:28 Luke 22:20 Matthew 20:28 Matthew 1:21 Luke 1:68. I hope you read these because I think I already answered you concerning this. I don't know where you get your information from that the Gospels contain nothing about the atonement, but it would be very beneficial to read the Gospels first before making such claims.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, you have not been snippy. I hope you recovery from surgery and your health issues improve.

So you believe Isaiah 53 is about King Hezekiah. Coincidentally, I just got a post from a Jewish poster on another forum and he thinks Isaiah 53 is about the Jewish nation. Another Jewish poster on that forum also believes that Isaiah 53 is about the Jewish nation, and he had posted me the following a couple of years ago in support of that belief.

“The 53rd chapter of Isaiah is a beautiful, poetic song, one of the four “Servant Songs” in which the prophet describes the climactic period of world history when the Messiah will arrive and the Jewish people assume the role as the spiritual leaders of humanity.

Isaiah 53 is a prophecy foretelling how the world will react when they witness Israel's salvation in the Messianic era. The verses are presented from the perspective of world leaders, who contrast their former scornful attitude toward the Jews with their new realization of Israel's grandeur. After realizing how unfairly they treated the Jewish people, they will be shocked and speechless.”

http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html

But wouldn't you say the simplest explanation is the best explanation? The simplest explanation is that the metaphor of the servant is Israel that is used throughout Isaiah holds for chapter 53 as well.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Nope. It very clear: The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 was to be cut off from the land of the living. Jesus was, Israel never was. So your "Isaiah 53 is Israel" is a non event.

This is not true. Jews have often, often died. As much of that dying has been at the hands of Christians.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Judaism is the legitimate precursor to Biblical Christianity, but Christ and Christianity are the legitimate fulfillments of Old Testament Judaism. That's my view.

And you can understand how I would disagree with you quite strongly. For me it makes no sense to say that Christianity is the "legitimate fulfillment of Old Testament Judaism" when in fact Judaism still exists.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, it was a complicated time. As I understand it the Jews were free to worship without persecution. But after the expulsion Christians no longer enjoyed that umbrella of protection and were now open to Roman persecution at the time of the compilation of John's gospel. Is not that curse against Christians remain one of the 'Benedictions'?
You are absolutely correct that there is no basis for continued antisemitism.

The benediction has been modified. It is still against heretics, but it is more general, and doesn't specifically single out Christians.

Christianity is no longer considered a heresy of Judaism. It is considered a separate religion, like Hinduism or Islam. A Jew that becomes a Christian is not a heretic, but an apostate. This is considerably worse.

 

[Cooky]

(This post was re-posted as requested to be in an debate forum, although I would hope this to be informative rather than to try to convert or dissuade others. I want to inform anyone that may not understand Christ Atonement to gain some understanding. Questions in this post are used as teaching tools and not for rhetoric sarcasm)

I have been thinking of doing this post for awhile now and just finally had the courage and time to help many better understand the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Truly this topic is controversial, (probably the most controversial) still, at least in part, understood by many religious sects so I write not to prove something happened or didn't happen, instead I write to provide a clear understanding of what and why is the Atonement of Jesus Christ. As the atonement could be understood with a different point a view from others, I invite those to write down how they understand such a diverse topic.
As I said before, It is my belief that Atonement is one of the major differences in all of our religions, yet it is something that is ritualized in one way or another by each of us. The Jewish Yom Kippur, The Muslim Ramadan, the Christian Sacrament and Fast are all rituals that we use to better ourselves and rid of our sins. All of these rituals, similarly, require some sort of sacrifice. Usually the sacrifice of food and drink, the sacrifice of worldly pleasures, and more traditionally the sacrifice of flesh (symbolic and non-symbolic). The idea of sacrifice is to sanctify ourselves wholly on the merit that God will accept our offerings and cleanse our souls of sin.

I use these traditions as they are the major religious beliefs in the world, but I am sure there are many more in different religions that practice similar sacrifices, such as the Buddhist monks who have to devote their entire lives away from the world to obtain enlightenment.

Now that we can understand that Atonement or 'At'-'one'-'ment' as I like to call it is not a copyrighted idea rather a universal one, I would like to talk about the Christian God, Jesus Christ and His atonement for mankind.

In Isaiah 53:3-5 written, among other prophecies, several centuries before Christ coming to the world we read
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Believed to be coupled with this scripture In Isaiah 7: 4

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (With us is God)

15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

Christians believe that this is a direct prophecy of Christ's coming and his purpose was to bear our griefs, and carry our sorrows.

How can someone do that? What did is mean that with his stripes, we are healed? Stripes meaning whipped and flogged to a point where flesh is torn from the body. How can we be healed by this?

It is also odd that a prophet of Israel would be talking about Atonement in a sense of human suffering. From an age-old tradition where animal sacrifices were practiced to reconcile transgressions, and that these animals were supposed to be without bruise or blemish, yet this man would be bruised for our iniquities. This is a very unusual scripture to address healing and atonement.

Now from purely a religious perspective, God, only, has the power to absolve sin. No mortal was given this power (as it would be mostly be used for evil anyway) He can forgive who he wills to forgive. Exodus 34:7 Romans 9: 18 He is the ultimate judge of whom will be admitted to his presence and whom receives damnation forever and ever. So who is this person Isaiah speaks about?

For the Christians, we are speaking of Christ. He was the prophecy that came to us from the prophets of Old who would redeem mankind from sin, so they would be capable to return to God's presence and feel his Joy.

But why? Many of my Muslim and Jewish friends ask. Why must God inflict so much torture to this supposed Son of God? What kind of God would want to kill His own Son, instead of just waving his magic finger and saying, Don't worry 'bout it! Your sins are forgiven? Surely God has the power to do so, right?

The answer to this can go as deep or as shallow you want. I prefer deep, but for the betterment of common understanding I will only hit the surface.

The answer is within our rituals of Atonement. There are two key points to address, Justice and Mercy. Most claim that God is all Just and all Merciful. This can cause conflict in our minds, because if He was all merciful, than everyone, no matter how evil or good would enter heaven because of his mercy. If he was all Just than according to the law God made, no one would be able to enter heaven, as each of us have broken his law since Adam and Eve at some point of our lives.

So what must be done then? How can Justice and Mercy live in harmony? The answer is a Mediator. Some one who fulfills the demands of Justice and Mercy. In order for God to be all Just, a payment needs to be made that would counteract any fault of the perpetrator of the law. Sort of like bail for those who are imprisoned. In order for God to be all Merciful, a plan needed to be created for all to enter heaven and receive His blessings.

Christ was this perfect Mediator. As Christians call him the Lamb of God, the Only Begotten of the Father. He paid the price of His Flesh and Blood, which were innocent and contained the DNA of divinity. He offered it up like Isaac of the Old Testament freely to his Father to sacrifice. This sacrifice met the demands of Justice as all grief and pain and sin were absorbed into this perfect vessel. A man who committed no sin, a God who loved all sinners. This perfect balance preserved God's Justice and Allowed Mercy to live perfectly together in a perfect being.

To conclude this reasoning of a perfect godly sacrifice, that unites a Christian understanding, I would like to pose a question? If Christ, in reality, did give up himself, to be slain for the sins of the world, was this sacrifice accepted by God? As Christians, we believe that it was. God accepted Christs sacrifice as payment for all sins. It was the only price that could be accepted by Him. Not of beast, not of man's offerings or sacrifices, but of His Son's blood and Flesh.

I hope that my Non-Christian friends found this informative. Again, I am not considering this a persuasive essay to demote or distract others beliefs. I just wanted to give some light into why Christians hold firmly to the idea of Christ's sacrifice and divinity and where it comes from.

For Christians, please use the Bible as a tool and not a weapon, if I left out something about the atonement, and you would like to add something, I would ask to do so in a way that is not attacking a certain religion or faith. Thank you for your time.

After reading this post, I decided not to read any further posts. I'm going to leave it at that. Nothing more needs to be said, IMO.

Nicely done.

 

[Trailblazer]

But wouldn't you say the simplest explanation is the best explanation? The simplest explanation is that the metaphor of the servant is Israel that is used throughout Isaiah holds for chapter 53 as well.

I do not know why you consider that simple. I mean you have to jump through all kinds of hoops try to make that chapter make sense if it is about a nation instead of a person.

For example......

Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

How is a nation taken from prison and from judgment? How is a country cut off from the land of the living?

Isaiah 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

How does a nation make its grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death?

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

How does a nation make its soul as an offering for sin or see its seed?

 

[Thief]

This is not true. Jews have often, often died. As much of that dying has been at the hands of Christians.

when the Jews entered the Promised Land.....
was it not already occupied?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I do not know why you consider that simple. I mean you have to jump through all kinds of hoops try to make that chapter make sense if it is about a nation instead of a person.

For example......

Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

How is a nation taken from prison and from judgment? How is a country cut off from the land of the living?

Do you think Jews have never been imprisoned or judged unfairly? Let's start with Auschwitz.

Isaiah 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

How does a nation make its grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death?

I just don't see this as particularly difficult. I'm not sure why this is a problem for you.

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

How does a nation make its soul as an offering for sin or see its seed?

LIke I said, the remnant of Israel does suffer vicariously for Israel.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

when the Jews entered the Promised Land.....
was it not already occupied?

How is this related to the topic of the discussion? It seems to me that you want to avoid losing the debate by switching subjects.

 

[Thief]

How is this related to the topic of the discussion? It seems to me that you want to avoid losing the debate by switching subjects.

not at all.....you say Jews have died
at the hand of Christians

moving into occupied territory was …...peaceful?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

not at all.....you say Jews have died
at the hand of Christians

moving into occupied territory was …...peaceful?

First, I need to know if you are speaking of when Israel first came into Canaan thousands of years ago, or if you are referring to the creation of the Israeli state?

 

[Shaul]

OP, your original premise that atonement requires a sacrifice is wrong. There are many examples in Torah of atonement without any sacrifice.