What is The Atonement?

Jesus is God. If God says "the law says don't commit adultery but I say if a man so much as lusts after a woman he has commited adultery in his heart" then law it is. He also summed up all the law for us in two commandmentsYou can insist on your version of the law is. It makes no difference to the law as God decides it is. We are made in his image and likeness. Have you got wrath and compassion in you? A significant difference with us that our versions can be unrighteous. God is always righteous in his ways. Where did you get your sense of justice if not from God. But Gods sense of justice is, you may agree, of a different order than yours. Your justice takes into account a limited amount of the total. God's takes into account everything relevant to the case. If God says it's justice then it's justice, if you say it's injustice it's only the view of a very, very limited creature You were found in possession of it by a legal agent weren't you? You will be tried on that basis. The point of arrest is to arrest you...that's all. The case is made on the evidence. And the evidence is you possessed.10/10ths of the law

Have you got an example of an accident (in which the offended party could not be considered to be in the wrong) the cause of which isn't down to the deliberate actions of another. Remember, ignorance is no defence under law. I don't use the teachings of Jesus so. He explains the options to us (as does Paul). Condemned by Law, Saved by Grace. His law teaching I explain as law and if we get onto grace teaching I'll explain his grace teaching in that light. Jesus tells us the options with regard to our eternal state: "You do (condemnation guarenteed)" vs. "I'll do (salvation guarenteed)"You chose... Here is the juxtaposition of the two ways: Law and Grace. But note Jesus says 'do'. It's impossible to live by grace under our own power. Still no 'try your best' here He sacrifices his right to apply his justice to the transgressor - us. But there are still the consequences to be taken on himself. And there are consequences. In this case, it's not a bloody nose, it's sin must be punished. If you don't ever sin, you will die because of the sinful nature but you couldn't (I reckon) be punished. Except that you have sinned Except that the line along which sinful nature travelled was Adams. This isn't genetics it's spiritual. No one can be sure that any of Marys genes were in Jesus. Its a bit of a mystery.This message has been edited by iano, 19-Oct-2005 01:22 PM

Have alook at the *complete* Zach passage. Note his actions. Go faith-spotting. Faith and consequence of faith. Note the disciples reaction. They were slightly better positioned than us to comment. Jesus is talking of the position of a rich man. The disciples apply the message to all: "who then can be saved" Not all are finacially rich. Why did they apply the message extra-financially? Some will endure to the end. But there is no mention of the means by which they shall endure ie: there is no basis from this to assume that it is by our own efforts that we will endure. Like it's not that Jesus didn't promise to send his spirit as a comforter..."If God is for us, who can stand against us" Here we have a direct declaration of salvation at work. Not one of those:"what must I do to be saved / do this" /then-without-biblical-backing-contort-it-into-'trying' verses.Here we have a woman stated as having beed saved right alongside the very means by which she has been saved.Faith results in good works - not the other way around. See Zach again. He had faith: he sought Jesus, he obeyed Jesus, he recieved Jesus, he offered his riches up. A man of faith.The sick woman cured by touching Jesus coat. Why? She had faith that Jesus could cure her.The centurion with the sick servant saying "only say the word an he shall be healed" "Such faith I have not seen" exclaims JesusThe thief on the cross - no opporunity to do any works - nothing in his possession but sin unto crucifixion. What has he got? Faith in Jesus. What happens "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in Paradise. In verse 38 this same man cried out "Jesus, son of David have mercy on me" Whilst many saw miracles with their own eyes and didn't believe this physicallty blind man has faith that Jesus is the messiah (referred to as being the Son of David in the OT). He makes an act of faith before he has proof of anything.Its the same thing over and over and over againWhere's death in all this. The Cross. People then had faith in Jesus being able to save them, to forgive them. But the forgiveness all happened at the cross: for people before him, with him then and after him - who have faith in him. "He that abides IN me" compare with "no condemnation for those IN Christ.

Off topic away Philip. But I don't see much in the way of a direct question to answer - if you would be so kind. As to the above, I don't see any versus myself. One picture and each part playing it's part. I have not got a strong grounding in the Gospel I'm afraid but will endeavour to comment if I can. Absolutely. Part 1: old man crucified with him/ Part 2 raised with him to new life. You can't have one without the other, ie: I strongly suspect that you wouldn't believe/profess Christs atonement at all without being born into his resurrection.

What about NT greek. Does the same occur there? The Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus simply because he called himself I AM (AbE: presumably in Aramaic) The mother of a junkie. Loves him, hates what he does. The junkie steals stuff from the house to feed his habit. With pain and a torn heart the mother reports him to the police and banishes him from the house. And the mothers job happens to be a prison warder too. It's kind of like that I don't see faith mentioned here? You quoted John. Jesus > John too. Why Paul excluded? Jesus is greater than John/paul etc. But Jesus teaching isn't his own - it comes from God. He said so himself, on a number of occasions. The bible is either the word of God for the purposes of this discussion or it's not. If not word of God, Jesus words are irrelevant - we can't trust that they are his. If word of God, how can you differentiate in authority between one of Gods words and another. We'll have to sort out Paul first. No Paul, no John. No John, no jesus. No discussion... as far as I can see There are two groups indeed. Of flesh and of spirit. And Romans explains fairly well what this entails. It doesn't mean born without spirit, it means born with a dead spirit, A dead spirit is not = to no spirit no more so than a dead body is not= to no body Which makes the yet-to-be-substantiated statement that you do.. Anyway. Paul. Can we deal with that. A lot flows from it...or notThis message has been edited by iano, 20-Oct-2005 04:25 PM