Atonement – Reponse…So it’s Jesus’ BLOOD???

“the painful part of Jesus’ death on the cross had nothing to do with the physical agony of the crucifixion, at least in the sense that ATB is talking about it. The pain was the separation of Jesus from the presence of God.” – Stealth

But Stealth said that the blood is what atoned for sin – so why the suffering?

“The shedding of the blood of Jesus is fulfilling the final requirement of the Law, namely that there is no atonement for sin without the shedding of blood. The blood of the only begotten is then sufficient as an atoning sacrifice because he was human, but also as a justifying sacrifice, because he was God.”

The blood is sufficient as an atoning sacrifice – Stealth says it explicity there.

So why suffering? Either physical, or “mental/whatever a God splitting hurts”

1. I don’t think there was a problem of “What happened to a person if he died with un-atoned for sins” until Jesus/NT writers invented the problem.

In regards to assertion number one, I don’t really have much to say. If you’re convinced that the NT writers invented the problem, there are logical questions about using the Bible at all in response as a valid text to argue from, and without that, I’m not sure how I would formulate a response.

Sure, use the Bible – more importantly though, show that there is a problem in the OT system that the people knew about. And the way to do that is have an OT verse or person say something about “you know it sucks that we’re going to hell”.

“The necessity of these offerings is based on the proposition that death with unatoned for sin leads to separation from God.”

I’ve always heard the Jewish thought (even contemporary) as sin is a separation from God, atoning gets you back to God, etc…but it’s always always always spoken about in this life. It never worries about separation once you die. – Now I’m fairly well read in this area, but I could be wrong, so if you do find a Jewish writing that goes against what I’ve said, please let me know. (ESPECIALLY if it’s in the OT/that era).

“In a system where one is constantly offering sacrifices to get back to even with God, there is then no comfort for the dead, without some kind of grace from God, because the possible way for a person to die without some sin they have not atoned for is if the person died while offering the sacrifice, contra the argument in one.”

That’s not a problem at all. When a person does a sacrifice and gets “clean of sin” then kill him.

A few questions I have that people haven’t answered, really…
If a person dies without sin, what happens to them?
Sin can be transferred right? Like debt? (Which is why Jesus can “pay” for someone else’s sins in the first place, right?)
So could I take the sin of someone else? If not, why not?

How many times have I heard someone say, “It’s like Bob owes the government $12, and Bill offers to pay the debt, so now Bob doesn’t have to go to Debter’s Prison.”
My scenario is like this, “Bob owes the government $12, and Bum offers to take the debt, so now Bob doesn’t owe the government. Bum owes the government $50 (which he can’t pay, no matter how *good* he is), so Bum goes to Debter’s Prison.”

I understand that I would have an “unpayable” debt, but since I’m going to hell anyway, why couldn’t I also take another’s sins?

XianTheist

May 21, 2004

Isaiah 1:11, “‘The multitude of your sacrifices- what are they to me?’ says the LORD . ‘I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.” Hosea 6:6, “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.”

The only real doctrinal issue is that Jesus died and rose again and that has made man right with God. The discussion of HOW this works is really speculative commentary, and I would think the “paying someone else’s debt” camp is probably closer than others, but who know. But as far as your hypothetical goes, one would have to be able to have a good grasp of the nature of the atonement to begin with

which again, is speculative, and somehow surmise the principles of how your being in hell is somehow sufficient and just as Good as the sacrifice of the Almighty God of the universe. Unless you can get a good grasp of exactly what comprises any of these elements (and even Christians don’t have it), all your argumentation in the world only amounts to, “What if?”

Now of course, you can place this on Christians for believing in something they do not fully understand, but unless no one else in the world ever does this with simple everyday activities (which of course, we all do), it does little to damper my spirits.

“…somehow surmise the principles of how your being in hell is somehow sufficient and just as Good as the sacrifice of the Almighty God of the universe.” See, I’ve always been told that “Because I can’t pay my debt, I go to hell. This does not pay the debt, it’s still there.” I’m saying, ok great, debt not paid, therefore, hell. I’ll take other’s debts and continue not to pay.

“…as Good as the sacrifice of the Almighty God of the universe.” No it would fall far short of that. But it would cut out the necessity of it.

StealthPudge18

This is very interesting. I don’t have time to respond right now, but I’ll try to get something together. I hold XianTheist in high regards, and hold to his viewpoints…they can help to clarify some of these issues. There is an aspect where the buck is going to have to stop in terms of how much we can explain it, and there, faith begins. That will complicate some of the discussion. *shrugs*

Raven Night

It’s like the movie “The Order”, there’s the whole idea of a means around god that allows for someone to take on another man’s sins. I don’t see why something like that couldn’t happen, even without the silly ritual. Then again, I don’t believe much in a flat concept of heaven and hell. I think I believe much more of an exostentialist viewpoint, this is hell and death is heaven. To get to the

point, I think the reason there is no documented way to gift one person’s sins to another is simply because that would grant the power of God to a human being. If I simple human could remove the sin of another than God would be forced to accept those to heaven who chose not to repent. This would break the very foundations of everything in Christian belief. God, the one man capable of judging

man (and woman at that rate) for his sins would no longer have ultimate power over man. It would mean, just like in “The Order” a person could evade God’s will simply to be granted the gift of heaven. If you think about it, sins could just continue to be transfered down the line until the end of the world. Of course, that wouldn’t be to good for the guy who was last to recieve all the sins, but

that’s not the issue here. The problem is, that takes the power of God and puts it firmly in the hands of man. God is no longer needed at that rate. This is why there is no writings dictating the transfer of sin from one to another, because people would act “irresponsibly” on it, and as a result, God would be doubted and eventually forsaken.

“I’ll take other’s debts and continue not to pay.” Sure. But we’re still left just entertaining the notion. It’s not like some argument is being made here.

wen it says the shedding of blood in the bible i always thought of it as being meterphorical in a way as in if u shed blood u generally feel physical pain. or if someones “bleeding on the inside” theyre hurting emotionally rite. i duno maybe im missing the point…….

“It’s not like some argument is being made here. [XianTheist]” 1. Why isn’t this addressed in the Bible? Did God not think of it? It was one of the first things that I thought of when I allowed for the idea of “transfer of guilt” (which I think it a terrible idea as well). 2. Is there any reason it couldn’t be the case?

His suffering was because he was taking punishment for our sins. thats why he suffered.

May 24, 2004

RYN: 1. Taking into consideration that it was a book written 2000 years ago to convey the beliefs, teachings, and events surrounding a small Jewish cult, I do not find it surprising in the least that it doesn’t entertain the notion of “what if I go to hell for someone else”. There are countless issues which aren’t *specifically* addressed in Scripture. I typically find that more often than not

if it remains silent, it’s probably a non-issue as far as Christian theology is concerned. I believe this one is as well. 2. I doubt it. So far I haven’t really seen a good reason why it would be. It’s like asking if I think aliens couldn’t exist. Well they could, but so far I’ve been given no reason to believe they do (and even if they did, still less reason to think it matters).