What is The Atonement?

nitpick: that's more or less the same thing as "no other gods before me." just kind of a reinterpretation/elaboration of the same concept.

---

אָרַח

translation problem. some people don't believe in the afterlife. i don't think traditional jews do, as there is little indication of it in the tanakh.substitute "punish eternally" or "kill (in the spiritual sense)" for "destroy" and then proceed to answer the question.

---

אָרַח

i should have been a jew. i think this is a much more sensible ideology, and one that actually fits with most of the bible.

---

אָרַח

actually, i;m not totally sure it's quite paul's teaching. the formalized modern concept of original sin, the disease one that iano is mentioning, comes from st augustine, i think.

---

אָרַח

i don't think it's behaviour, really. the behaviour is an outward sign of something internal. i think jesus was speaking of the way we should think, and feel, and love. he talked of compassion, which isn't so much an action but an emotion...

---

אָרַח

that's what i mean of course.

i wasn't sure if you were still lurking around. glad you're back. it should be.... interesting. look at ramoss's post a few back, i quoted all of it my breif reply. give that particular standpoint some thought for a while, tell me if you think it doesn't make more sense, and make god seem a little more... reasonable. well, as i said previously in this thread, not all sin has an associated sacrifice, and not all sacrifices are lambs, bulls, or things we can kill per se. also, sacrifices are not required, but offered.jews today atone without making sacrifices in the traditional sense, how do you suppose they do it? we just went through that particular holy-day.

---

אָרַח

this makes your problem worse. allow me to blow your mind a little, then.when god gives moses his name, and says "i am that i am." sort of. in some particular hebrew verbs, tense is controlled by the vowels -- which are missing from the original hebrew text.it could be translated just as well as "i was" or "i will be" or any combination of the three. "i am what i was" could imply continuing the abramic covenant, and "i am what i will be" could be considered prophecy. take your pick -- but that present tense was picked to reflect the dogmatic sense of eternity, where the ambiguous hebrew grammar does it better. right, so god hates us. i'm sorry, love and compassion just don't work that way. scroll up a bit buddy, you're a little behind. i quoted john 3:17, the very next verse, quite a few posts back, where it specifically talks about the kind of faith john 3:16 speaks of. try something jesus said. consider it a challenge. i've posted the closest thing i can find, can you do better? keep in mind here that jesus > paul. i provided one, job. look, this is really simple. the bookend story of job phrases it as a test, and the middle bit (all the ranting) is set as an ancient rebutal to the wisdom movement. job's two counterparts insist again and again that if bad things are happening to job, it's because of sin.in the end, job says that god is so pure, that the very sight of him would make him confess sins he had not committed -- this is what ends up happening.the axiom of the book of job is the first line: job is sinless, and perfect in every way. if job had sinned, ever, than the other two were right, and there was no test; it was just punishment. the book of job makes no sense if job has sinned.job, therefor, did not sin. remove the axiom, the book falls down. you missed the "of water" bit of it. it's talking about baptism. is baptism a requirement for salvation? john says jesus thinks so. relate this to the ritual cleansing on leviticus, and the sons of light who kept the library at qum'ran.also, it seem to separate people into two groups, flesh and spirit -- the people of flesh are flesh. according to that line, they have no soul, they just die. kind of borks that hell fire idea if people don't have a spirit to be eternal punished.(don't post verses unless you know what they mean) glad you asked, because i answered that above (baptism), as well as a few posts back. nicodemus asks the same question, and the response jesus makes, about how to get saved, i posted above:

quote:

---

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

---

belief in the name, ie the power and authority, not the death.

---

אָרַח

i'm sorry, they look like every other midrashim, ever. they are commentary on what the law says -- something like the talmud or the oral law, which are not "The Law" captial L.and even supposing jesus is god, not everything god says is the law, either. only because god defines righteos. we are not judge other people, let alone god. but, yes, we do have wrath and compassion both. and we're only instructed to use one of them -- the other is considered one of the 7 deadly sins (dogma).know what else we have?free will. we can choose to use wrath or not use wrath. see the sub-thread title. if both things are in god's nature, can't he choose to use one and not the other like we are supposed to?according to jesus's "law" anyways? (or, heck, it's in the other law too, jesus didn't make this stuff up) uh, no. it's in the definition.

quote:

---

Main Entry: jus·tice
Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&s
Function: noun

​

1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments [...] c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity

---

impartial? god so loved the world...
merited rewards and punishments? no man is justified by the law in the sight of god
administration of law? Jjsus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.sorry, but it's the OPPOSITE of justice. if it's about freedom from the law, and punishments being avoided, and god playing favorites, it's NOT justice. but i don't possess it anymore, i gave the cop the burden of my si-- er, possesion. i don't have it, i can't be punished for it.

---

אָרַח

not good with definitions today?

quote:

---

Main Entry: ac·ci·dent
Pronunciation: 'ak-s&-d&nt, -"dent; 'aks-d&nt
Function: noun

​

1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE

---

so, if jesus tells us to do something, and it suits your purpose, it's The Law captial L.but if jesus tells us to do something, and it doesn't suit your purpose, it's "an option." uh, no. it's intent. have good intentions. the point, which so barely missed, is that The Law capital L ALLOWS for retribution, justly, but that we should have compassion, and love, and not take the retribution.that's a "try to do the right thing, not just what the law says" statement. it's at the very heart of my point. so, continuing the analogy, you playing god, you do what? go home and whip yourself? where is the additional sacrifice here? my breaking your nose MUST be punished too, so feel free to take it out on yourself. i suggest knocking out some teeth. or, better yet, follow jesus's "option" and ask me to hit you again. that'll REALLY punish me for breaking your nose. suppose for a second that someone never did. let's call this someone "joshua" for the purpose of argument. joshua was a perfect human being, did everything god asked, lived according to the law without flaw, saved some lives, and turned a lot of peoples' hearts to the lord. we're talking on the order of millions -- let's go for overkill. joshua is not only perfect in every way, he goes above and beyond the call of duty for god.let's say, for the point of example, that josh isn't saved in the traditional manner, according to the precepts of paul. joshua is jewish, and orthodox, let's say. just confuse matters a bit, lets say his mother was a follower of christ; he's been baptized and circumcised, but not "born-again."does joshua die?supposing even more hypothetically here that joshua didn't have that sinful nature, does he still die? we've brought it down to this question, does death=sinful nature and vice versa?and why do christians die today? wait, what? no. did jesus have a human parent? unless mary wasn't jesus's MOTHER at all, and just an incubator, that wouldn't be the case. and if she was just an incubator, why bother with conception, why not just plop jesus down fully formed?

---

אָרַח

not faith in death. faith in teachings -- he was afterall following the teachings of christ. because some of them were pretty wealthy, supposedly. some were dirt poor, but matthew was a tax collector, that's a pretty good position. and look at how the book is attributed to.why did they ask who can be saved? the tradition at the time was that sacrifices were largely monitary. you paid for them, gave money, etc. jesus LITERALLY turned that set of traditions on its side -- it's no suprise that it suprised a lot of people. most of them had been taught the other way of thinking their entire lives.i think you'll find "the first shall be last and the shall be first" and "blessed are the poor" to get the same reactions. clearly, the poor are NOT blessed. god hates them, otherwise they'd be rich. see the post above about the wisdom movement and job, it's the same crowd. it's speaking of persecution as a test. yes, i thought it was a good example, much like the other similar ones i posted. no under debate. we're talking about faith in WHAT. and that faith saved her -- not faith the death he hadn't died, and the resurrection that hasdn't happened yet. seems to be faith in the name of christ -- the authority, the power, and maybe the divinity that does it, doesn't it? now where's the talk of faith in his DEATH saving people? ben-david would make jesus the rightful KING of judah and israel. i might note that this has nothing to do with his death either. the jews were not expecting a messiah in that way of speaking -- they were expecting a king, on the throne, who would oust herod and the romans.i think you'll find contempt of outsiders a running theme in the bible. do i need to quote specific verses, or is the reference to commiting genocide on 7 canaanite nations, lest the israelites fall prey to their influence good enough? not in any of the above ones, it's not. there's no mention of death on a cross anywhere in those. it's not even HINTED at in calling jesus the messiah, like i'm sure you think it is. and he did. on the spot. don't you find it the least bit suspicious that people runn up to jesus and say "i believe you can heal me!" and jesus says "you're healed by your faith in me." with no mention of be forgiven pre-hoc-propter-hoc on the cross?the forgiveness happened with THEIR FAITH. to them, the non-eternal beings, the crucifixion had not happened yet for them to have faith in, so it's impossible that that kind of faith saved them. faith of some other kind saved them.

---

אָרַח

well, i don't mean anyone's held accountable to it, but it's a good commentary and elaboration on the law. it's a midrash, but not exactly a huge leap.

---

אָרַח

sacrifice is not required, nor is it practiced today. why? if you're gonna get all "one true god" on us, try to spell his name right. and the moral of that story is that sacrificing your children to atone for sins is bad.

---

אָרַח

trivia for the day: aramaic doesn't have passive verbs. actually, i don't think hebrew does, either. hayah ("am") is really "exists" or "happens."so what jesus actually said, who knows. but nt greek is a translation of the aramaic, which is a translation of the hebrew reference. so it kind of doesn't matter about nt greek. uh, no. it's kind of like the mother is the judge, jury, and executioner, and overlooked rehab. alright, sorry, i made a mistake. it was the second of two verses -- john 3:18.

quote:

---

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

---

it's bad to look up just the verse someone mentions. read at least a few of the surrounding ones, or the chapter. paul's not excluded, he's just not quoting jesus directly: it's not an account of jesus's life and teachings. it doesn't count as something "jesus said."jesus may not have actually said what john reports (if you compare to the other gospels, it's pretty different) but at leat it's actually being attributed to him. uh huh. {God > jesus} > paul. so says jesus anyways, according to john.

quote:

---

Jhn 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

---

why is the bible all-or-nothing? if there are things that paul wrote that are not the word of god, but the word of paul, then it kind of breaks the whole bible for you, doesn't it?it's really too bad then that paul indicates at least once that something he's writing is his opinion and not divine:

quote:

---

1Cr 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:

---

so first corinthians 7:12 is not the word of god, but paul's opinion: the word of paul. so what's the rest of it, exactly? did paul think he was writing the word of god? did he think he spoke for god? even if he did, what's to say he was right? there's a problem with this that you don't realize. the jews at the time (and maybe today too?) didn't believe in an afterlife. when jesus speaks of eternal life, it's a new idea, and he uses it in sharp contrast to the lasting physical death most expected.the jewish reading of the eden story is that adam and eve born mortal -- they would need the tree of life to live forever. the did not "die spiritually" because there was no spirit in the christian sense to kill. they use the word differently. to them, a spirit is the breath of life, the bit that god breathed into us to make us alive. living things are all spirits, and when that spirit was killed, so where they. without a spirit, man is only clay.all people, when they die, figuratively go to sheol -- "hell." literally, a grave.what jesus is basically describing had precedent with enoch and elijah. he was talking of everlasting life, ascent to the kingdom of heaven, and access to the tree of life. which do you think should be more important to christianity, the teachings of jesus, or the teachings of paul?

---

אָרַח

the point that i'm really trying to get at is that atonement is not dependent on sacrifice; sacrifice is only a portion of it. and today, it is an unneccessary portion, even for jews.they HAD to find some other method when the temple was detroyed -- they can't very well sacrifice at the dome of the rock, but that's the place god ordained for them.some think that when the messiah comes back, it will be reinstated -- but they don't think they're all going to hell because they're not killing anything.

---

אָרַח