The so-called "atonement" is recycled pagan "blood magic"

dizerner said:
It's like Calvinism. They still believe Jesus died for their sins.
Click to expand...
No it's not! It's not anything like Calvinism not even in the slightest. Calvinistic basic thought is that Jesus does not love all sinners and that's a far, far cry from believing Jesus bore the penalty of sin as a substitute but they don't use the word wrath but the end result is still the same! The precious blood of Jesus justifies them and makes them righteous and of course their sins are laid upon Christ as well. And look everybody at least here IS BELIEVING Jesus tasted death for every man and to get all upset with people parsing slightly different words at least in my opinion is most unfortunate. I feel God feels the same way as well and might say knock it off and just get busy preaching the gospel.
dizerner said:
But is it exactly the same Jesus? Not quite.
Click to expand...
So what in the world does Jesus tasting death for every man, as a penalty for a substitute or if one wanted to say wrath....how does that make a different Jesus?? As for me I'd have to say that's going a little bit extreme in making such a charge.
dizerner said:
It's a really serious thing to deny Jesus paid the price of sin.
Click to expand...
I've read for some times both arguments you all have brought forth on both sides of this issue. I don't think anyone is denying Jesus paid the price of sin and I think it's a sad overstatement to make but that's my thoughts on the matter anyway. God Bless and PEACE. :)
 
sethproton said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well Seth I think he would have taken my position on the matter. I think he would know we're all believing Jesus became a curse on the tree Gal 3:13 that he took our place and became our substitute and that through his precious blood we're justified.

Here by the way if I believe all the places the word "wrath" is used in Paul's writings.
Rom1:18, Rom 2:5, Rom 2:8, Rom 3:5, Rom 5:9, Rom 9,22, Eph 2:3, Eph 5:6, Col 3:6, !Thes 2:16. ! Thess 5:9. Most of them aren't even talking about Jesus but rather the ungodly will experience God's wrath. I've also no problem believing Jesus took my wrath....or the penalty that made substitution possible. Either way Jesus took my place penalty or wrath....and I now have his righteousness.

I suppose I stand alone here but I sincerely feel all this type of parsing words grieves the Spirit. I believe he's saying all of you are believing in my substitutionary work so stop looking for ways to divide into unnecessary camps. That's my take on it anyway and I'll leave you all with the subject.
 
Rockson said:
Well Seth I think he would have taken my position on the matter. I think he would know we're all believing Jesus became a curse on the tree Gal 3:13 that he took our place and became our substitute and that through his precious blood we're justified.

Here by the way if I believe all the places the word "wrath" is used in Paul's writings.
Rom1:18, Rom 2:5, Rom 2:8, Rom 3:5, Rom 5:9, Rom 9,22, Eph 2:3, Eph 5:6, Col 3:6, !Thes 2:16. ! Thess 5:9. Most of them aren't even talking about Jesus but rather the ungodly will experience God's wrath. I've also no problem believing Jesus took my wrath....or the penalty that made substitution possible. Either way Jesus took my place penalty or wrath....and I now have his righteousness.

I suppose I stand alone here but I sincerely feel all this type of parsing words grieves the Spirit. I believe he's saying all of you are believing in my substitutionary work so stop looking for ways to divide into unnecessary camps. That's my take on it anyway and I'll leave you all with the subject.
Click to expand...
ok. rockson
 
Rockson said:
I suppose I stand alone here but I sincerely feel all this type of parsing words grieves the Spirit. I believe he's saying all of you are believing in my substitutionary work so stop looking for ways to divide into unnecessary camps. That's my take on it anyway and I'll leave you all with the subject.
Click to expand...

Standing for the truth in love is not "grieving the Spirit."

Compromising, like you are, is what is "grieving the Spirit."

You want unity at the price of truth?

Why stop with what the Cross stands for?

Are you "grieving" the Spirit by standing against Calvinism, against Mormonism, against denial of Jesus' divinity?


This is just emotional silliness.


For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached,
or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted--
you may well put up with it! (2 Cor. 11:4 NKJ)
 
civic said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah I believe I read some days ago where you showed scriptures where God can and does look at sin. I believe in how you were using those verses you were right in that. Of course God looks upon sin if he didn't look upon it and see it he wouldn't have been grieved at the time of Noah. Others things could be said as well. We do though at least see a type of separation in something that occurred when Jesus went to the cross.

I think this verse gets overlooked when going through the story at what happened at Golgotha. The Bible says a darkness came on the land for three hours, from the six hour to the ninth hour. I do not believe this was a rainstorm that covered the light with clouds nor do I think it was an eclipse. This was a supernatural something out of the ordinary and it scared those who observed it and an earthquake that took place as well that the Roman Centurion exclaimed, "Surely this was the Son of God" The darkness was I believe a type of separation which can be compared to the outer darkness which is the fate of unrepentant sinners. But Jesus took our place, he took our death and gave us LIFE, he took our sins and gave up his righteousness, he took our darkness and gave us LIGHT.

civic said:
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.
Click to expand...
I guess I have trouble understanding what you mean Civic when you say it creates a dysfunction if Jesus was separated albeit even for a brief period of time. Can we really say with any certainty what we know what God (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are capable of when it comes to something like this? Haven't we seen the same argument when it comes to the incarnation? You try to tell some that Jesus set aside his divine attributes as being God while upon the Earth and you show them a verse like Lk 2:52 which says Jesus grew in wisdom I've seen some peoples minds still reject it. They say NO he had to have all wisdom or he'd cease being God and the universe would fall apart.
civic said:
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 ….
Click to expand...
But as you know those believing in PSA would say to you YES but Jesus took the place of sinners that he took the place of the ungodly. and God treated him just as if he had sinned, even though he never really did. On the flip side God treats us just as if we'd never sinned is where we get the word justified
 
Rockson said:
Yeah I believe I read some days ago where you showed scriptures where God can and does look at sin. I believe in how you were using those verses you were right in that. Of course God looks upon sin if he didn't look upon it and see it he wouldn't have been grieved at the time of Noah. Others things could be said as well. We do though at least see a type of separation in something that occurred when Jesus went to the cross.

I think this verse gets overlooked when going through the story at what happened at Golgotha. The Bible says a darkness came on the land for three hours, from the six hour to the ninth hour. I do not believe this was a rainstorm that covered the light with clouds nor do I think it was an eclipse. This was a supernatural something out of the ordinary and it scared those who observed it and an earthquake that took place as well that the Roman Centurion exclaimed, "Surely this was the Son of God" The darkness was I believe a type of separation which can be compared to the outer darkness which is the fate of unrepentant sinners. But Jesus took our place, he took our death and gave us LIFE, he took our sins and gave up his righteousness, he took our darkness and gave us LIGHT.


I guess I have trouble understanding what you mean Civic when you say it creates a dysfunction if Jesus was separated albeit even for a brief period of time. Can we really say with any certainty what we know what God (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are capable of when it comes to something like this? Haven't we seen the same argument when it comes to the incarnation? You try to tell some that Jesus set aside his divine attributes as being God while upon the Earth and you show them a verse like Lk 2:52 which says Jesus grew in wisdom I've seen some peoples minds still reject it. They say NO he had to have all wisdom or he'd cease being God and the universe would fall apart.

But as you know those believing in PSA would say to you YES but Jesus took the place of sinners that he took the place of the ungodly. and God treated him just as if he had sinned, even though he never really did. On the flip side God treats us just as if we'd never sinned is where we get the word justified
Click to expand...
Did you ever read my thesis paper on the topic ? I'm still studying and adding to it but the foundation is there and I will be adding to the existing points.

 
Hi Civic. I read through your writing. So some are saying the actual word "wrath" needs to be included and your position is not. I guess it really saddens me though that everyone is still believing Jesus became our substitute and all do believe he tasted death for us Heb 2:9 to give us LIFE as many refer to it as the great exchange....all are believing the precious blood of Christ remits everyone's sin, making them justified, now able to come boldly to the throne of grace to actually be able to receive grace and mercy to help in time of need but now they could potentially find themselves getting into strife and division over something I think all should just let everyone decide what word they want to use.

If one wants to say it was wrath let it be that way for them... if others want it to be Jesus bore the penalty or bore the sins for the human race and not call it wrath then let it be that way for them. It still comes down to any way one wants to look at it that Jesus took death (spiritual death) and gave us LIFE. He took our shame and gave us his righteousness. (through his body of the cross and blood and also the resurrection) It seems everyone is believing it was substitution and I believe, in my estimation anyway that's the main point God wanted to get across. God Bless.
 
Rockson said:
Well Seth I think he would have taken my position on the matter. I think he would know we're all believing Jesus became a curse on the tree Gal 3:13 that he took our place and became our substitute and that through his precious blood we're justified.

Here by the way if I believe all the places the word "wrath" is used in Paul's writings.
Rom1:18, Rom 2:5, Rom 2:8, Rom 3:5, Rom 5:9, Rom 9,22, Eph 2:3, Eph 5:6, Col 3:6, !Thes 2:16. ! Thess 5:9. Most of them aren't even talking about Jesus but rather the ungodly will experience God's wrath. I've also no problem believing Jesus took my wrath....or the penalty that made substitution possible. Either way Jesus took my place penalty or wrath....and I now have his righteousness.

I suppose I stand alone here but I sincerely feel all this type of parsing words grieves the Spirit. I believe he's saying all of you are believing in my substitutionary work so stop looking for ways to divide into unnecessary camps. That's my take on it anyway and I'll leave you all with the subject.
Click to expand...
Where did the wrath go that was on us?
 
sethproton said:
Where did the wrath go that was on us?
Click to expand...
The judgment that was to be dispensed upon us was laid on Jesus. He took our death and gave us eternal life. He took our shame and gave us his righteousness. So I think we could say where did the judgement that was upon us go? . It went upon Christ
 
sethproton said:
Where did the wrath go that was on us?
Click to expand...

Rockson said:
The judgment that was to be dispensed upon us was laid on Jesus. He took our death and gave us eternal life. He took our shame and gave us his righteousness. So I think we could say where did the judgement that was upon us go? . It went upon Christ
Click to expand...
you know that wasn't my quesion, I didn't ask about judgement. The OT says that God has wrath upon us, Where did it go?
 
sethproton said:
you know that wasn't my quesion, I didn't ask about judgement. The OT says that God has wrath upon us, Where did it go?
Click to expand...
I believe I've shown you the equivalent of what wrath is. JUDGEMENT.

Let's build on this further. “Judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful” (James 2:13).

Judgment is the same as wrath. If it isn't perhaps you can tell me why it isn't.
 
sethproton said:
you know that wasn't my quesion, I didn't ask about judgement. The OT says that God has wrath upon us, Where did it go?
Click to expand...
Jesus forgave many peoples sins without a sacrifice, without His atonement for sins. Just His words spoken to them and their sins were forgiven.

Where did their wrath condemnation and judgement go ?

hope this helps !!!
 
civic said:
There never was any anger from God or the priest towards the animal sacrifice, no wrath.

Please show me a single instance in the OT when it describes the day if atonement or the Passover where God was angered at the animal who’s blood was used to cover/atone , Passover sin/sinner, forgiving sin etc
Click to expand...

Certainly according to Scriptures, God's Wrath is directed "against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness".

And in this life, there is accountability for actions and behavior. Both in the realities of this world, and also in the Kingdom of God.

2 Cor. 5: 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Blood in scriptures, is where the Life resides, in my understanding.

Lev. 17: 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

It is the Life of the Christ of the Bible therefore, that provides for the atonement. It was His Life that gave His death meaning.

Is it not this Life we are to place in our mind and works? (Lintel and two door posts)? And are not those who partake of this Feast from the heart, being "renewed in the spirit of their mind"? Is this not what Paul means when he instructs men "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Against this man there is no wrath, as it is written, not I, but the Life of Christ that is in me.

This is the same message the Christ gave to Israel.

Ez. 18: 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

I'm not forgiven therefore, because men who professed to know God murdered the man Jesus. Rather as Paul said, because I repented and joined with "them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality".
 

Similar threads

Pancho Frijoles
God's grace to forgive and transform is not conditioned to recognizing Jesus' deity, blood atonement or physical resurrection
54 55 56
Replies
1K
Views
10K
Pancho Frijoles
Pancho Frijoles
J
The law is not about mercy, and atonement is not about punishment.
Replies
14
Views
519
Dizerner
Dizerner
civic
Children are innocent, not guilty of any sin
16 17 18
Replies
343
Views
1K
MTMattie
MTMattie
A
Why is Christianity so much work?
Replies
5
Views
178
Keiw1
K
MTMattie
Which Baptism is Baptism? by Tony Warren PART 1
Replies
0
Views
18
MTMattie
MTMattie
Back
Top Bottom