Is your body dead or alive?
I invite you to read again all chapter 15 of Corinthians and read my post 172 in regard to why Paul couldn't be talking here about biological death.
Apologetics about Substitutionary Atonement
- Thread starter Pancho Frijoles
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is your body dead or alive?
I invite you to read again all chapter 15 of Corinthians and read my post 172 in regard to why Paul couldn't be talking here about biological death.
Behold
Well-Known Member
Maybe you can think of it like this...
The Sun is dying...........but you can see it's light., you can feel it,......... but its dying.... absolutely.
Why? Because nothing is keeping it alive., its just burning out.
And that is what is wrong with your body.
Your heart is beating, but your body is on the way to death...
Why? Because nothing is keeping it alive.....its aging, its passing away.......and that is "death"... that is "your body is dead because of sin"..
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Yes, I agree. The New Testament outlines and defines the Good News. Even so, the Good News, i.e., the Gospel, is best understood by contrast to the Bad News, which has four main aspects: 1) the futility of life (as described by the book of Ecclesiastics), 2) the inevitability of sin, 3) the destructive, anti-life aspect of sin, and 4) the eternal consequence of sin.
I mentioned number 4. You mentioned number 3. We could talk briefly about the other two if you like.
The Gospel promises to solve all four aspects of the Bad News.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Jesus announced the kingdom was "at hand" because the king was present.
The Bible speaks about eternal life in the present tense because it is promised by God. In this instance, the present tense communicates the surety of the promise.
In Paul, the promise is depicted as an inheritance, which is something to be granted in time. What we have now is an earnest on our inheritance in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 1:13-14)
We inherit "anionic" life (a term I coined based on the Greek word "aion"). This is otherwise known as "eternal life," but anionic life is the fullness of life that will be present in that coming age -- a time when human beings will reach their full potential, human fulfillment, and happiness (Gk. eudaimonia)
Hi CadyandZoe
I thank you very much for your post as it has given me a lot of food for thought.
You mentioned the certainty about a future fulfillment of the promises, and I agree this is part of eternal life... so integral of internal life that the verb "have" is used several times in the present tense.
Now, as I see it, Christ gives us only one kind of life. There is no such a thing like a pre-eternal and then an eternal life. A pre-abundant and then an abundant life. A life of demi-spirit and then the life of the spirit. A type of water with the property of quenching thirst partially, and then another type of water that quenches it completely.
I see it as a continuous process towards plenitude, that biological death does not interrupt. Let me bring to you these considerations:
- Jesus defined eternal life as knowing God and knowing Christ, who God has sent (John 17:3). This "knowing" is an experience that starts on this earth, and is characterized by love (1 John 4:7 "every one that loves is born of God, and knows God").
- The author of 1 John describes eternal life as something that "abides in" us when we love each other, and does not "abide" in us when we hate each other. Furthermore, such eternal life is presented as something we already obtained when passing from spiritual death to life. Our love for each other proves we have gone from death to life. But if you don't love each other, you are still under the power of death. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loves not his brother abides in death. Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
Again, I am not minimizing the afterlife. Such paradise is so glorious that we can't imagine it now.
I'm just saying that what Jesus promised is to be seized and enjoyed today.
I had never thought in the anti-thesis of the Good News, and yours is, again, a very enlightening post.
Now, it seems to me that, through all the Old Testament, Israelites didn't seem to be worried by "the eternal consequence of sin", (bad news #4). God's prophets, in turn, did not bother about preaching "eternal life".
In fact, the term "eternal life" does not appear throughout the Old Testament. It is exclusive of the NT.
Was God not interested in promising eternal life to Israelites?
I think this is worthy of some thinking, because we are not talking here about a secondary doctrine or knowledge, but about an element that you consider a main aspect of the "Bad News" (and in consequence, a main aspect that Good News will address).
Dear all
Going back to what I have stated in post # 127, there are 8 speeches from the apostles (and deacon Stephan) recorded in the Book of Acts.
I don't want to go one by one for the remaining 6, but you can read them carefully (see below).
In none of them the apostles preached substitutionary atonement, even when they had a great opportunity to do it because they were addressing the mission of Jesus and the importance of repentance.
Paul is responsible of 3 of these 8 speeches: in none of them he had to address the issue of the Judaizing converts and therefore, in none of them he had to appeal to that doctrine. This provides further suppport on the hypothesis that Paul resorted to blood substitutionary atonement to "spiritualize" the animal sacrifices at the Temple, in the same way that he "spiritualized" circumcision and Sabbath, and keep unity between Greeks and Jews
Furthermore, I did a search of the book of Acts using the key words "atone", "atonement", "forgave", "forgive", "forgiven", "forgiveness", "blood", "cleanse", "cross", "crucify", "crucified", "crucifixion", "sacrifice" and "sin".
I found no single case, not a single one, of an association of any of these words with a substitutionary atonement.
What we have now is that such doctrine, that for many is the essence of salvation, is not recorded neither in the four gospels, nor in the Book of Acts of the Apostles. How could a belief that is key to salvation be left aside altogether in the records of these 5 key books?
Going back to what I have stated in post # 127, there are 8 speeches from the apostles (and deacon Stephan) recorded in the Book of Acts.
I don't want to go one by one for the remaining 6, but you can read them carefully (see below).
In none of them the apostles preached substitutionary atonement, even when they had a great opportunity to do it because they were addressing the mission of Jesus and the importance of repentance.
Paul is responsible of 3 of these 8 speeches: in none of them he had to address the issue of the Judaizing converts and therefore, in none of them he had to appeal to that doctrine. This provides further suppport on the hypothesis that Paul resorted to blood substitutionary atonement to "spiritualize" the animal sacrifices at the Temple, in the same way that he "spiritualized" circumcision and Sabbath, and keep unity between Greeks and Jews
Furthermore, I did a search of the book of Acts using the key words "atone", "atonement", "forgave", "forgive", "forgiven", "forgiveness", "blood", "cleanse", "cross", "crucify", "crucified", "crucifixion", "sacrifice" and "sin".
I found no single case, not a single one, of an association of any of these words with a substitutionary atonement.
What we have now is that such doctrine, that for many is the essence of salvation, is not recorded neither in the four gospels, nor in the Book of Acts of the Apostles. How could a belief that is key to salvation be left aside altogether in the records of these 5 key books?
- The speech of Peter at Pentecost. (Acts 2:14-39)
- The speech of Peter at Solomon's Porch (Acts 3:11-24)
- The speech of Peter before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:8-12)
- The speech of Stephan that led to his martyrdom (Acts 7:1-53)
- The speech of Peter at Cornelius' house (Act 10:34-43)
- The speech of Paul at the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:22-31)
- The first defense of Paul, at Jerusalem (Acts 22:1-21)
- The second defense of Paul, at Cesarea (Acts 24:10-21)
Last edited:
Perhaps you need to read Isaiah 53 whole chapter and then One Peter 2 vs 24 and to top that off read what Jesus said at the last supper in each of the Gospels. (concerning His Body and His Blood
Last edited:
SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION
The Book of Revelation was written around 90 DC, well after Paul had introduced the analogy of blood atonement around the Mediterranean world. As we know, it is a book full of symbolisms, calls Jesus "The Lamb" several times, and uses highly dramatic expressions around blood (eg, God gives the murderers of the saints "blood to drink", and Jesus robes are "dipped in blood").
In two verses, the Book of Revelation makes reference to the blood of Jesus in association with "washing of sins" and "redemption". These are Rev 1:5 and 5:9, respectively.
But, as I had discussed, one thing is to value the sacrifice of Jesus as a source of power for people to repent, be forgiven, and start a new life... and a very different thing is that God requires blood to forgive a person.
The prevalent theory of substitutionary atonement implies that God could not forgive a sinner, but needed him to pay with his life for his offenses. Jesus then offers to die in the place of the sinner (although, as we have seen, the believer dies anyway, and immortality is postponed to an undetermined future time).
The Book of Revelation, in harmony with the rest of the Bible, speaks loudly of the transformative power of the words of Jesus Christ on the life of the sinner. I want to share with you what the Book of Revelation say aobut one of the most known symbols in Christianity: the white robes that the saints receive.
Then one of the elders asked me, “Who are these clothed in white robes, and where did they come from?”
I said to him, “Sir, you know.”
He said to me, “These are those who came out of great tribulation and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb (7:15)
To some, such robes represent the imputed righteousness of Christ. This means that God declares the sinner as righteous, in the moment he accepts that Jesus died in his place. However, this is not what the inspired author had in mind. We'll see it on the next post.
The Book of Revelation was written around 90 DC, well after Paul had introduced the analogy of blood atonement around the Mediterranean world. As we know, it is a book full of symbolisms, calls Jesus "The Lamb" several times, and uses highly dramatic expressions around blood (eg, God gives the murderers of the saints "blood to drink", and Jesus robes are "dipped in blood").
In two verses, the Book of Revelation makes reference to the blood of Jesus in association with "washing of sins" and "redemption". These are Rev 1:5 and 5:9, respectively.
But, as I had discussed, one thing is to value the sacrifice of Jesus as a source of power for people to repent, be forgiven, and start a new life... and a very different thing is that God requires blood to forgive a person.
The prevalent theory of substitutionary atonement implies that God could not forgive a sinner, but needed him to pay with his life for his offenses. Jesus then offers to die in the place of the sinner (although, as we have seen, the believer dies anyway, and immortality is postponed to an undetermined future time).
The Book of Revelation, in harmony with the rest of the Bible, speaks loudly of the transformative power of the words of Jesus Christ on the life of the sinner. I want to share with you what the Book of Revelation say aobut one of the most known symbols in Christianity: the white robes that the saints receive.
Then one of the elders asked me, “Who are these clothed in white robes, and where did they come from?”
I said to him, “Sir, you know.”
He said to me, “These are those who came out of great tribulation and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb (7:15)
To some, such robes represent the imputed righteousness of Christ. This means that God declares the sinner as righteous, in the moment he accepts that Jesus died in his place. However, this is not what the inspired author had in mind. We'll see it on the next post.
What is the meaning of the white robes that the saints receive for the wedding of the Lamb? Let's read it in Rev 19:6-8
Here, the saints are represented by the bride the Lamb will marry.
Alleluia!
For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!
7 Let us be glad and rejoice
and give Him glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and His wife has made herself ready.
8 It was granted her to be arrayed in fine linen,
clean and white.”
Fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.
So this is the missing piece of the puzzle. The way the blood of the Lamb washes sins, is not by taking the place of the sinner, and not by imputing righteousness out of a belief in a substitutionary atonement. It is by transforming the life of those saints so that they can do righteous deeds.
Let me be clear an provocative on this: The purpose of Jesus' life and death on the cross was to change you into a person who does good deeds. Not paying any debt or taking your place in substitution. Not satisfying God's request for blood. Salvation is all about getting a new life, a new life in which you do deeds of love.
Here, the saints are represented by the bride the Lamb will marry.
Alleluia!
For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!
7 Let us be glad and rejoice
and give Him glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and His wife has made herself ready.
8 It was granted her to be arrayed in fine linen,
clean and white.”
Fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.
So this is the missing piece of the puzzle. The way the blood of the Lamb washes sins, is not by taking the place of the sinner, and not by imputing righteousness out of a belief in a substitutionary atonement. It is by transforming the life of those saints so that they can do righteous deeds.
Let me be clear an provocative on this: The purpose of Jesus' life and death on the cross was to change you into a person who does good deeds. Not paying any debt or taking your place in substitution. Not satisfying God's request for blood. Salvation is all about getting a new life, a new life in which you do deeds of love.
Last edited:
Hi, GTW27.
Thanks for bringing this up. Let me comment on Jesus word's during the Last Supper.
What festivity were Jesus and his disciples celebrating? The Passover. The first Passover implied eating a lamb and applying blood to the doors. The Passover implied going from the condition of slavery in Egypt to the condition of free men. Blood, in Jewish imagery, meant life. That's why it was considered sacred.
So, what Jesus did was to apply those symbols to his mission. The new, spiritual Passover, meant to go from the slavery of sin to a new life free of sin. Jesus was giving us life... and although the symbol of such life is his blood, in reality, such life, as we have seen in other texts, is in his WORDS. Specifically, in obeying his words, in knowing God.
In summary. In the Last Supper, when referring to his body as the bread and to his blood as the wine...
- Jesus was not giving a sermon nor setting an example on how God forgives sins. We already reviewed 3 parables and the Lord's Prayer where He specifically addressed the subject. We have mentioned that Jesus never requested any sinner to believe in a substitutionary atonement as a requisite to be healed or forgiven
- Jesus was not saying that the purpose of his mission was to perform a blood atonement. In other texts of the Gospel we will review what He Himself claimed ot be his mission.
- The Passover was taking place, and the symbolism of body and blood was appropriate.
- The disciples didn't take Jesus words as meaning a requisite for forgiveness. This is why they didn't preach that doctrine after that Last Supper... nor after, crucifixion, resurrection and Pentecost.
Last edited:
Coming back to the Book of Revelation, my friends, it conveys THE VERY SAME CALL that all Messengers of God have brought to the world as part of the "eternal gospel".
All they have said: "Repent, repent, repent. Turn from your bad ways." The call is simple and consistent across the Bible. The Book of Revelation is no exception. No blood required. Jesus says:
" I know your works...Repent, and do the works you did at first.. I will give to each one of you according to your deeds." (2:2,5,23)
“Those whom I love, I rebuke and discipline. Therefore be zealous and repent. (3:19)
All they have said: "Repent, repent, repent. Turn from your bad ways." The call is simple and consistent across the Bible. The Book of Revelation is no exception. No blood required. Jesus says:
" I know your works...Repent, and do the works you did at first.. I will give to each one of you according to your deeds." (2:2,5,23)
“Those whom I love, I rebuke and discipline. Therefore be zealous and repent. (3:19)
Last edited:
Why do you not bring the words I suggested you read. Do you not think that the prophesy of Isiaiah(a true prophet of The Lord) describing the coming messiah(Jesus) and what He would accomplish. Here is Peter an apostle of The Lord; "He Himself bore our sins in His body on that tree(The Cross) that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His wounds you have been healed" And when He had given thanks He said,"This is my Body broken for you" " And this is My Blood, the Blood of The New Covenant poured out for many. And there is substitutional atonement. Jesus" The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the word."Like a Lamb He was led to the slaughter. No greater love can a Man have than He lay down His life for His friends. What we could not do, He did for us. The penalty of sin was placed on Him a one time atonement.(Blood)
Because I can't go over all texts at the same time, my friend.
I took first the Gospel, because it is important for me to prove that the doctrine of substitutionary atonement is absent from the Four Gospels and the Book of Acts. Those represents the very first words, examples and doctrines ever taught on the most important topic: salvation.
Now I'll review Isaiah 53. Be patient with me.
He took your sin upon Himself as well Pancho. Picture the agony He was in, up on that tree. Now that is the real Jesus.
The Book (or books, perhaps) of Isaiah was written around 700 BCE.
This means that many centuries had passed since God started to reveal Himself to the Israelites. Through all those centuries, God had not said nothing about a Messiah performing a substitutionary atonement by blood shedding as a requisite for forgiveness. Why would God had forgotten to teach clearly something that, according to many, is essential to extend his forgiveness?
On the contrary. We read in Isaiah 6:1-6 something very interesting: Isaiah is having a vision of God at the Temple. Isaiah recognizes his uncleanness before God. Then God forgives Isaiah... but although the vision is in the Temple, God does not ask Isaiah to sacrifice a lamb. God does not request from Isaiah to believe in any sacrifice from a future Messiah. This is how God forgives his sin:
In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphim... And I said: “Woe is me! For I am undone because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips. For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts.”
Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar in his hand. And he laid it on my mouth, and said, “This has touched your lips, and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin purged.” (Is 6:1-6)
So, to start with, the prophet Isaiah knew that God could forgive sins out of his grace and using any symbol, such as fire.
Are our sins forgiven by the water of baptism, by the blood shed on the cross, or by the fire with which Jesus baptizes us?
Is it water, is it blood, or is it fire? None of them and all of them. These are symbols.
I'll continue on the next post.
This means that many centuries had passed since God started to reveal Himself to the Israelites. Through all those centuries, God had not said nothing about a Messiah performing a substitutionary atonement by blood shedding as a requisite for forgiveness. Why would God had forgotten to teach clearly something that, according to many, is essential to extend his forgiveness?
On the contrary. We read in Isaiah 6:1-6 something very interesting: Isaiah is having a vision of God at the Temple. Isaiah recognizes his uncleanness before God. Then God forgives Isaiah... but although the vision is in the Temple, God does not ask Isaiah to sacrifice a lamb. God does not request from Isaiah to believe in any sacrifice from a future Messiah. This is how God forgives his sin:
In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphim... And I said: “Woe is me! For I am undone because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips. For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts.”
Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar in his hand. And he laid it on my mouth, and said, “This has touched your lips, and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin purged.” (Is 6:1-6)
So, to start with, the prophet Isaiah knew that God could forgive sins out of his grace and using any symbol, such as fire.
Are our sins forgiven by the water of baptism, by the blood shed on the cross, or by the fire with which Jesus baptizes us?
Is it water, is it blood, or is it fire? None of them and all of them. These are symbols.
I'll continue on the next post.
Last edited:
The Gospel tells the story of Jesus attending the synagogue in his hometown, and standing up to read the Book of Isaiah. (Matthew 4:16-21)
Jesus declared what had He was sent to do, according to what Isaiah had written.
So it is of critical importance to take note of which passage of Isaiah he chose to read, and what is the mission that such passage declared.
Jesus was sent to save us. But, according to what Jesus Himself declared to be his mission based on Isaiah, saving us didn't mean "paying a price with blood". Saving us meant preaching the gospel, healing the broken-hearted, giving sight to the blind, delivering the captives of sin. That's salvation. That's the reason God sent Him as His Annointed, the Messiah.
Jesus declared what had He was sent to do, according to what Isaiah had written.
So it is of critical importance to take note of which passage of Isaiah he chose to read, and what is the mission that such passage declared.
- Did He read Isaiah 53? No. He read Isaiah 61.
- Did He read that God had sent Him to die in our place? No. He read that God had sent Him to preach the gospel, to heal us, to open our eyes, to free us from the captivity of our sins.
- Why didn't Jesus take advantage of that enormous opportunity to read Isaiah 53 and teach substitutionary atonement? I leave that answer to you.
When He had unrolled the scroll, He found the place where it was written:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the broken-hearted,
to preach deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”
Then He rolled up the scroll, and He gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all those who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Jesus was sent to save us. But, according to what Jesus Himself declared to be his mission based on Isaiah, saving us didn't mean "paying a price with blood". Saving us meant preaching the gospel, healing the broken-hearted, giving sight to the blind, delivering the captives of sin. That's salvation. That's the reason God sent Him as His Annointed, the Messiah.
Last edited:
Sure. All important covenants in that time needed to be signed with blood to be valid.
Blood is a symbol. A new covenant is also a symbol.
A symbol of what? Of the writing of God's laws in our hearts. That's what the Bible says.
Jesus "spiritualized" the Tanakh. That's the term that my friend @Matthias taught me to use. I didn't use it before, but he's right.
The Gospel of Jesus is to be read and interpreted spiritually, so that we can apply it in our daily life.
Similar threads
