sethproton
Active member
The idea of soothing God's wrath is early in the OT. Noah made an offering and it was soothing in God's nostrils
The so-called "atonement" is recycled pagan "blood magic"
- Thread starter Diserner
- Start date
civic
Well-known member
Please quote the passage
sethproton
Active member
Gen 8:21
civic
Well-known member
Thanks it pleased Him and doesn’t mention He was angry
sethproton
Active member
No, not "pleased" soothed" soothed, the Hebrew word meaning quieting, tranquilizing, the definition of the Hebrew word says nothing about "pleasing"
civic
Well-known member
Yet the Hebrew word for the English translation atone means to cover. You can’t have it both ways.
sethproton
Active member
two completly different Hebrew words soothe and atone, what are u talking about "both ways"?
civic
Well-known member
I’m saying atoning for sin has nothing to do with soothing an angry god, that comes from paganism , Greek philosophy not scripture. It’s the pagan gods who were angry and demanded the sacrifice of children like with molech in the OT. God said that never crossed His mind such abominations
Diserner
Well-known member
So... what do you think Isaac was all about.
civic
Well-known member
He wasn’t the sacrifice remember God provided the sacrifice that was killed , the ram
Rockson
Well-known member
I mean no offence to all you dear brothers discussing this but a number of questions do come up in my mind?
So PSA means Penal Substitutionary Atonement or the belief that Jesus was punished with God's wrath for sin and others don't believe it was that way? That Jesus died as a substitute for our sins.....everyone here seems to agree with this......and that his precious blood remitted our sins, and that his body was broken for us.....so it seems everyone agrees with this right? I think I'm gathering that from both sides. But some just don't believe it can be called wrath but rather just what Jesus did as a substitute to provide our justification.
So the question I have (and perhaps I could be wrong on this) but does it really even matter either way? Could Jesus and the Father God really be saying don't be more upset about this then we are in how people want to phrase this? What is the main overriding major issue that God wants for people to get. I'd say an understanding that Jesus was our substitute .brethren we all agree on that. Also what his precious blood did in remitting our sins and are sins laid upon him on the cross and because of the resurrection we have hope and faith of new life for we were in Christ when he died on the cross according to Gal 2:20 . Wouldn't those things be the thing that God truly wants us to have our focus upon?
I'm just pondering if a discussion like this is really advantageous? Does it not seem more that it could lead to divisions and when God might say Look you're all believing what I came to do so is the parsing of certain words in how one frames things really necessary? Maybe we can look at the ramifications for insisting an absolute belief on exactly what words are framed? It just seems to me that everyone is agreeing anyway on the central things that Jesus came to do. Am I wrong to think that?
I get some are you very sincere in believing the parsing of the actual words here is very significant but I'm just having a hard time understanding why? You're all believing he was a substitute, and what his precious blood and body did plus the resurrection. . Shouldn't that be enough? Just wondering. Maybe I'm confused but I have a hard time getting it.
So PSA means Penal Substitutionary Atonement or the belief that Jesus was punished with God's wrath for sin and others don't believe it was that way? That Jesus died as a substitute for our sins.....everyone here seems to agree with this......and that his precious blood remitted our sins, and that his body was broken for us.....so it seems everyone agrees with this right? I think I'm gathering that from both sides. But some just don't believe it can be called wrath but rather just what Jesus did as a substitute to provide our justification.
So the question I have (and perhaps I could be wrong on this) but does it really even matter either way? Could Jesus and the Father God really be saying don't be more upset about this then we are in how people want to phrase this? What is the main overriding major issue that God wants for people to get. I'd say an understanding that Jesus was our substitute .brethren we all agree on that. Also what his precious blood did in remitting our sins and are sins laid upon him on the cross and because of the resurrection we have hope and faith of new life for we were in Christ when he died on the cross according to Gal 2:20 . Wouldn't those things be the thing that God truly wants us to have our focus upon?
I'm just pondering if a discussion like this is really advantageous? Does it not seem more that it could lead to divisions and when God might say Look you're all believing what I came to do so is the parsing of certain words in how one frames things really necessary? Maybe we can look at the ramifications for insisting an absolute belief on exactly what words are framed? It just seems to me that everyone is agreeing anyway on the central things that Jesus came to do. Am I wrong to think that?
I get some are you very sincere in believing the parsing of the actual words here is very significant but I'm just having a hard time understanding why? You're all believing he was a substitute, and what his precious blood and body did plus the resurrection. . Shouldn't that be enough? Just wondering. Maybe I'm confused but I have a hard time getting it.
civic
Well-known member
Agreed on the fundamentals you mentioned . My issue is wrath from Father to Son. This leads to many other errors such as God is to Holy to look at sin. This leads to the Father abandoning the Son on the cross creating disfunction and a separation between the Father/ Son and more errors on top of those as well. It’s all spirals downwards from the false premise built upon wrath. Wrath is 100% of the time without exception everywhere it’s mentioned in scripture falling upon to ungodly, unrighteous, God haters, reprobates etc and never once upon the innocent, holy, righteous, sinless, lovers of God etc ….
Diserner
Well-known member
Yes, you are wrong.
It's like Calvinism. They still believe Jesus died for their sins.
But is it exactly the same Jesus? Not quite.
I would go evangelizing or worshiping with a Calvinist, but their Jesus is not exactly the same.
It's a really serious thing to deny Jesus paid the price of sin.
And that is not the same Jesus, no matter how you cut it.
sethproton
Active member
Noah predates Greek philosphy, so no. soothing God's anger after the flood was not borrowed from the Greeks. You are losing me.
civic
Well-known member
and the genesis verse you quoted never mentioned God was angry but pleased with the sacrifice. So your verse actually supports my view.
sethproton
Active member
Consider Paul. If one of his contemporaries began teaching that there was no wrath at the cross and His anger was not soothed on the cross, what would Paul have done?
sethproton
Active member
Civic this is poor. That genesis verse does not say He was pleased. why would you harp on an idea that is verifyibly false?
Where does the Genesis 8:21 verse use the word pleased?
And you say the verse does does not mention God's anger. Yet we see him being soothed of anger.
civic
Well-known member
New Living Translation
And the LORD was pleased with the aroma of the sacrifice
English Standard Version
And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma,
Berean Standard Bible
When the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma,.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
When the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma
Contemporary English Version
The smell of the burning offering pleased the LORD
International Standard Version
When the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma
sethproton
Active member
I will give you that and apologize, I see some good translations use the word pleasing. But what is the idea being expressed? That it was a pleasant surprise when they sacrificed to Him. or that He found it enjoyable?
Have you looked at Gen 8:21 to see what the pleasing aroma accomplished. And have you considered what the aroma was? Burned Blood.
