What is The Atonement?

A truly Deistic remark. Thomas Jefferson would be proud of you.

So we are free from God's law as a result of the crucifixion? really? is that what christianity teaches?

Hi iano, I'm a bit confused with this concept. I find it difficult to answer these questions :1) Who paid this ransom ?I understand you're saying it's God. IF yes, what did he give away as ransom ?2) Who received this ransom ?...??3) Who was set free ?You're saying we are set free from the law. Are you referring to the Mosaic Law or the law of God in general ?You have a good weekend now. Maybe you could answer me next week.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

personally i will always fundamentally be a christian in some respect, and i think i always have been. there are those who believe in jesus for his life, and those who believe in jesus for his death.i think his teachings are the most important part of it. i think i should have been jewish. no, i don't either. i consider apologetics a compromise, and i don't compromise in anything except my personal relationships. even in my photography, i find myself doing both extreme of the spectrum.i think that attempting to reconcile one extreme (the bible) to the other (history/science/whatever) is only damaging to the integrity of both. and i think that's what jesus would have said too.

---

אָרַח

blasphemy.god is not a cog in some greater machine, or a robot, or a mathematical function. god can do whatever he pleases, however he pleases, and to whomever or whatever he pleases. god can do a lot more than just nod and wink at sin, god can FORGIVE sin.and he does.and you know it. impossible, especially by your own standards. that would not be just -- punishing another for someone's crimes. so basically, god sets the standard, sets the law, prosecutes, judges, convicts -- and then, because he's nice, creates someone to punish instead. or heck, according to some people, sacrifices himself.that doesn't make any sense. why would god weight everything against us, demand death, and then kill himself just to let us go? it's a very loving gesture, i agree. but it's also making god out to be incredibly stupid.why not just say "your sin is forgive, go your way and sin no more," and skip this whole phony trial/mistake death sentance bs? your problem is that you think god is a machine. he's a big black box. we put something in, we get something out. we put something else in, we get something different out.why does god need to judge all sin? why does god need to punish all sin? this a pretty stupid, mechanical, and downright childish picture of god you're painting here. how does one atone for sin not yet committed? "god, i'm really sorry, but i'm gonna go do this bad thing." doesn't that make it worse, not better?

---

אָרַח

Are you saying that god designed the human body to experience max pain during crucifixion so that Jesus woud suffer more?

In the days of kings the prince always had a "whipping boy" who was punished instead of the prince when the prince did wrong because you can't punish royalty.Is Jesus our "whipping boy"

ianoThen consider that there are far greater pain levels that can be experienced by humans than is present in crucifiction. God must be an amateur if the cross was the best he could think of.

I persoanlly don't think it was necessary for Christ to have specifically died on the cross.However, I do think that the Father knew in advance that this would happen -- and, as such, gave the appropriate fore-warnings so that when it happened (under the proper conditions), those who were expecting the Messiah would be able to recognize him.Edit: I've already explained in other threads why I felt it was important for God to become man and experience life from our human perspective. Likewise, even though I don't think it was necessary for Christ to have died the way he did, I still think his death and resurrection where nonetheless the contact points for God to have access to our souls and redeem us into heaven.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-15-2005 08:29 PM

The idea of ransom (payment, bribe) shows up quite a bit in the OT stories.

quote:

---

1) Who paid this ransom?

---

According to this teaching Jesus paid the ransom.

quote:

---

2) Who received this ransom?

---

God

quote:

---

3) Who was set free?

---

Supposedly us, from sin, death, and hell. The OT scriptures don't really support that need though.The teachings I have seen on this subject mix the ransom and sacrifice idea together. Ramoss explained the Jewish Sacrificial system in Message 4. IMO, they don't go together.In Exodus we see the ransom being given to God. Satan works for God, so no need to pay him a ransom.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

So, Jesus (who according to the majority of orthodox Christianity *is* God) paid a ransom to God to set us free from sin, death, and hell.The points that strike me here are:1) God paid the ransom. God doesn't need to pay any ransom to anyone. To do so would imply that God abides by some external law that is beyond his power to control. And I'm not even going to go into the absurdity of someone paying a ransom to himself.2) What exactly was the ransom ? what was given away, i.e. lost, by the party who paid the ransom ?Is Jesus not sitting to the right of the Father as we speak ?? (allegedly)2) God received the ransom. One receives a ransom in exchange for someone's freedom. Though this might make sense for your average Greek/Roman slaveowner, for an omnipotent deity who allegedly loves us it just doesn't work. It implies that the receiving party (God) restricts, in some way, the freedom of the party that's being ransomed (humanity). This clashes with both the OT concept of free will with immediate retribution and with the NT concept of free will with judgement in the afterlife.which brings me to my final point,3) We are supposed to have been set free from sin, death, and hell. How exactly ? Are we now even less susceptible to sin, death, and hell than before the ransom was paid ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

1) God paid the ransom. God doesn't need to pay any ransom to anyone. To do so would imply that God abides by some external law that is beyond his power to control. And I'm not even going to go into the absurdity of someone paying a ransom to himself.

---

Keep in mind that the Nazarenes (actual followers of Jesus) did not believe that Jesus was God. He was human.Yes the groups that claim Jesus is God create a problem when it comes to this teaching.

quote:

---

2) What exactly was the ransom? what was given away, i.e. lost, by the party who paid the ransom?

---

Supposedly Jesus gave his life, but that loses its impact since Jesus supposedly came back to life.Now if you read the entire passage of Mark 10:35-45 where we have the following verse: IMO, it isn't talking about giving up life as in death, but more like dedicating his life to serving others.The verse in 1 Timothy 2:6 is when the idea of substitution was brought in. The word for ransom in this verse is antilutron. The word for ransom in the Mark passage is lutron which seems to be indicative of personal payment. Not something that accounts for everyone.1 Timothy is also not considered to Pauline and probably written after 100CE.

quote:

---

3) We are supposed to have been set free from sin, death, and hell. How exactly? Are we now even less susceptible to sin, death, and hell than before the ransom was paid?

---

Personally I don't see that we are. We still sin, we still die, and we are still buried.IMO, the sacrifice and ransom theme is not a teaching from Jesus. Personally I feel it was a later concoction by gentiles who didn't really understand Judaism.As you have noticed, it doesn't hang together.Hopefully I haven't made this more confusing. I'm limited on time today, but wanted to get a few thoughts out.Have a great day!

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

If he didn't die and all sin must be punished then all of us would face punishment for our sin. Jesus opens up another option. For each individual he represents a 'potential benefit' until such time as he, for the individual, become a benefit Whoever choses to so. And God attempts to draw everyone to the position of making that choice. We don't do anything, except perhaps respond to his call and in our hearts, want what he offers. We are all born sinners. We are all born in Adam / spirtual descendents of Adam / seperate from God / not knowing God / hating God / "dead in our transgression and sins" / spiritually dead / unable to understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14) etc, etc, etc, etc. And in an "objects in motion will travel in a straight line unless acted upon by an exterior force" way, such people have but one destination. HellThe exterior force is God who in drawing us, aims to deflect us from this path and transfer us to the only other destination possible. Heaven. When he does that he, technically speaking, brings our spirits to life. The person will still sin but not in the area that counts - their spirit. That bit - the bit that remains after we die - is legally declared righteous by God. Which is why, once a person is saved, they cannot lose their salvation as Jar and others would argue. Some would point out that Jesus crucifixion wasn't such a big deal. There are more horrific ways to die they say. What they miss out on is that the wrath of God poured out on him was far less the physical pain and the separation he underwent. It's hard for us to imagine because none of us have ever known what it is like to have nothing between us and God. The son however had had all eternity with the father in perfect communion with each other. On the cross, The this perfect communion was broken and that is the suffering that Jesus experienced. Jesus always referred to his father as 'Father'. On the cross he cried out:"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me!!?" Anguish of a level that reached far beyond whatever we could imagine - for lack of knowing, far beyond his physical suffering which he didn't mention. Spiritual separation from his father as his father poured out his wrath on our sin - in him who had never sinned.Then it's back to "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do" The spirtual separation is over. Communion restored I am a sinner yet I don't go to hell. Romans talks alot of how this works. Sin resides in my mortal 'flesh' (body, mind) whilst my spirit in considered righteous (without sin). The body dies as a result. My spirit goes to heaven where it is united with what's referred to as a 'glorified' body . Heaven won't be spirits floating around. For the unbeliever/unsaved, the body similarily dies because of sin in it but the spirit (which is eternal too) goes to hell because of unrighteousness due to sin Hardly...given the aboveThis message has been edited by iano, 17-Oct-2005 11:44 AM

If you read one book of the bible read Romans. It explains the mechanics of how Goddidit. Especially chapters 1-8. Try it in the light of the following breakdown:Chapter 1:1-17: Paul addressing Christians in Rome. He is going to, throughout the letter, contrast the position of the believer (them) with the position of the unbeliever. Key verses 16-17. {Paul explains the gospel in a nutshell: righteousness comes from God - by faith- not from man by his works)Chapter 1:18-23 The reason why Gentiles (everybody but the Jew) is considered by God to be guiltyChapter 1: 24 - end: Consequences of this guilt.Chapter 2 - 3:20 The Jews (or the religious) shown to be guilty too. At the start of chapter 2, you can see how a religious person who stands by with Paul in chapter 1 saying "yes, those filthy gentiles - they deserve the wrath of God" only to be told (like Jesus told the pharisees) that they are as filthy as the gentiles. Key verse 3:20 Paul sums up by saying that noone will be declared righteous in Gods sight. Here is the first indication of the laws purpose - to make people aware of sin3:21 - 3:31 A description of righteousness - God style. Note verse 3:23 and further debunking of the works method of salvation.Chapter 4: a practical demonstration of righteousness by faith. He uses Abraham, the very father of the Jewish nation as his example. Why? Its Jews hes talking to predominantly. Abraham is their father, their hero. Paul picks the very best example available which they would understand.Chapter 5: 1-12. See verse 1. Peace with God. Contrast with verse 10 - the position of the unbeliever 'enemies of God' (whether we think so or not)Chapter 5: 13 to end Contrasts righteousness with condemnation. Shows how the believer is justified ("just as if I'd" never sinned)Chapter 6:1-14 How it is that the believer is now 'dead to sin' The mechanics of it. See verse 3 for one of many 'in Christ' statements. The believer has undergone a positional change. Taken out of somewhere (Adam) and placed into somewhere.folk will hop onto verses like 6:13 and say: "this is about works" But in context it's not. Paul is exhorting (as he repeatedly does) "You have been repositioned, now reckon that, live by that knowledge, start acting what you are. You are a US Marine, don't continue acting as if you were a soldier in the Wehrmacht".Try it thus far and see if it makes sense as a whole. Not just stand alone verses.

What is taught is that believers have been positionally moved which a reading as suggested above will explain.Now see Romans 8:1-2:"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit""For, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and deathInsert the natural the conclusions from the above back in"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,(meaning there is condemnation to those who are not in Christ Jesus, ie: those who remain in Adam) who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit" Note that contrast between two types of people is being drawn. Note the consequence (and this is important to see) of being in Christ Jesus: a person WILL walk in the Spirit)"For (because of what I have just said), the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death (ie: not in Christ Jesus = not freed from the law of sin and death. The Law, commandments)To answer your question Crevo. A Christian is one who has been freed from the condemning work of the Law. See the contrast again in verse 8:7-9"For to be carnally minded (unsaved) is death but to be spiritually minded (saved) is life and peace""Because the carnal mind is emnity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be""So they that are in the flesh, cannot please God (what does this say about works, "all your (as unbelievers) righteousness are as filthy rags (as far as God is concerned)"Only the Christian is subject to the law - but is free from it's condemnatory aspect. Only a Christian wants to keep Gods law. Only a Christian looks at Gods law and sees that it is good from first to last. Only a Christian truly hates when he (in his flesh) breaks Gods law.The unbeliever won't be subject. He refuses to be. He indeed cannot be. He may think he is. He may follow the bits he wants, that suit him. But there are parts he will find unreasonable and will hate other bits. A la cartism. God in own image and likeness. The unbeliever is free of the law but not is condemnatory aspect.Contrast Crevo. See the contrast. All the way through. Believers position vs. non-believers position