The Atonement Doctrine (Did Jesus Die For Our Sins?)

[meghanwaterlillies]

Where are the Romans in all this? He did not give his up for our sins in any ways, he was crucified by the romans who put him on trial who killed him on the cross not as a ransom,sense it was the Romans descision they did with him what they did with every other Messiah who was a member of the Messiah movement. He was killed and Im responsible for my wrongs,Jesus was killed its abusive to jesus to use his death by murder as an excuse to absolve my wrongs and not take responsibility for my life.

you didnt read the trial.

 

[Muffled]

If the atonement is real then why do so many prisoners repent for their sins and people everywhere do this , ask for forgivnss go back the next week and recommit, go back to their crime or sin over and over?To me if atonement works, then atonement would curb my appetite for sin, forgiveness and atonement means not going back to sin.

I believe you are in error. Atonement does not save a person from sin. Receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior saves a person from sin. Repentance is a requirement but if the heart is not in it, it is just words.

 

[Muffled]

Did Jesus die for our sins?

No, he did not. He would have contradicted God's Word that no one can die for the sins of another if you read Ezekiel 18:3,20 among a few others.

I believe I do not see that in those verses. I believe this is a case of Jesus being killed because of the sins of the Pharisees and the Romans. The people who died in the San Bernardino massacre died because of the sins of the terrorists. However Jesus was not being killed for any sin that He committed against God. No doubt he sinned by being good when those who are evil did not want that.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

; I looks at it like this weird but on one hand the romans didn't accuse or begin an accusation at Jesus.(more or less they are political ) The Pharisees did accuse and bring him before a trial. (while Jesus has done nothing wrong)(if Jesus was doing serious crimes; he, being not of status probably would have been prosecuted by the romans. At the same time you have a Caesar and many kings of the Kingdom doing atrocious stuff that no one can accuse them of doing things of disgrace. Then they get covered by a king that didn't stop until he got thrown in. I see a compounded snap happening all at once.
As regards to priesthood and righteousness they accused badly, Pontus Pilate like I said; has seen worse is and was in a blur between the accusations which didn't seem like much, but when the Pharisees said that well He makes himself king which wasn't much really;(or was it?) Pontius Pilate jumped right into his judgment seat in Gabbatha. That's a sealed King by His blood King. Because everyone called Jesus a King whether by accusation or by a mouth of praise. And HE was silent. The joke is on both sides of this coin. Joke is on us. Whether by praise, accusation, or in regards to righteousness and sin. Even their Ceasar probably was one of the most notorious worst Ceasars' ever. A soon as Pontius Pilate is convienced by false accusers that it would usurp the honor pride and authority of one, and one also unrighteous, Pontius Pilate jumps into the seat, later notoriously washes his hands, probably still not convienced but that jump that accusation caused the King His name Jesus also on the priestly side.
I see a compounded snap happening all at once.

 

[moorea944]

I believe you are in error. Atonement does not save a person from sin. Receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior saves a person from sin. Repentance is a requirement but if the heart is not in it, it is just words.

Receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior saves a person from sin.

Yes and no. Belief is a start, but it is much more that that. The bible does not say that the "only" thing you have to do is believe. So what then saves us from our sins?....
It is knowledge and repentence, baptism, truth, belief, endurance, faith. Salvation is a process. If it wasnt, scripture would be written differently.

 

[atpollard]

Did Jesus die for our sins?

No, he did not. He would have contradicted God's Word that no one can die for the sins of another if you read Ezekiel 18:3,20 among a few others.

Umm ... Ezekiel 18:3 says "As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, ye shall not have [occasion] any more to use this proverb in Israel."

Are you sure that is the verse you meant?

(And Brian Schuh ... you liked it? Really? ... That is the grand opus proving that Christ didn't die for sin and the entire NT is false? ... Scrap Christianity because of Ezekiel 18:3. ... READ IT BEFORE YOU LIKE IT!)

 

[atpollard]

Now see that's interesting I didn't know there were scriptures in the old testament that said that you cant die for someone elses sin which puts a whole new light on the Christian religion.

You really should read that whole chapter and not take someone's word based on two verses plucked out of context.

If your parents sin, they will die for their sins. You will not be killed for the sins of your parents. (That seems fair of God to me.)

If your children sin, they will die for their sins. You will not be killed for the sins of your children. (This also seems fair to me.)

If you sin, then neither your parents nor your children nor anyone else will be punished for your sins. You will be required to die for your own sins.

When we get to the NT, we get the bad news that ALL HAVE SINNED and therefore all shall die. Sorry, the percentage of people who deserve death is currently 100% under the Law.

If you are like me, then we are not even Jewish, so even the prescriptive sacrifices for sin are unavailable to us.

Since this is not about 'salvation' but 'atonement' I am under no pressing obligation to present the obvious Christian solution to this problem. However, all those verses say is a perfect man has nothing to fear from God, but a sinful man does.

That does not prove that Jesus could not have died for anyone's sins.
(You should really read it for yourself. Don't take my word for it.)

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I looks at it like this weird but on one hand the romans didn't accuse or begin an accusation at Jesus.(more or less they are political ) The Pharisees did accuse and bring him before a trial. (while Jesus has done nothing wrong)(if Jesus was doing serious crimes; he, being not of status probably would have been prosecuted by the romans.

It's also a fact that by the time these things were written, Christians were divorcing themselves from Judaism, so what input Jewish authorities had in it should be taken with a grain of salt.

As regards to priesthood and righteousness they accused badly, Pontus Pilate like I said; has seen worse is and was in a blur between the accusations which didn't seem like much, but when the Pharisees said that well He makes himself king which wasn't much really;(or was it?) Pontius Pilate jumped right into his judgment seat in Gabbatha. That's a sealed King by His blood King.

That the bible goes out of its way to make Pilate a good(ish) guy is even more proof the biblical authors just wanted to blame Jews even though the fact was that Jesus was killed by Romans. Even THE ROMANS didn't like Pilate, who was obsessively cruel, even by Roman standards. Historically speaking, it's far more likely Jesus was just included in a crackdown since there were plenty of people trying to rebel against Rome. What Jewish authorities wanted was irrelevant because they held no real powers of the state.

When we get to the NT, we get the bad news that ALL HAVE SINNED and therefore all shall die. Sorry, the percentage of people who deserve death is currently 100% under the Law.

Why does Jesus say the doctor only sees the sick, not the well? Doesn't that imply there IS a "well" population that doesn't need him?

 

[rosends]

Umm ... Ezekiel 18:3 says "As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, ye shall not have [occasion] any more to use this proverb in Israel."

Are you sure that is the verse you meant?

(And Brian Schuh ... you liked it? Really? ... That is the grand opus proving that Christ didn't die for sin and the entire NT is false? ... Scrap Christianity because of Ezekiel 18:3. ... READ IT BEFORE YOU LIKE IT!)

I have a relevant verse in 18:4
Behold, all souls are Mine. Like the soul of the father, like the soul of the son they are Mine; the soul that sins, it shall die

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

It's also a fact that by the time these things were written, Christians were divorcing themselves from Judaism, so what input Jewish authorities had in it should be taken with a grain of salt.


That the bible goes out of its way to make Pilate a good(ish) guy is even more proof the biblical authors just wanted to blame Jews even though the fact was that Jesus was killed by Romans. Even THE ROMANS didn't like Pilate, who was obsessively cruel, even by Roman standards. Historically speaking, it's far more likely Jesus was just included in a crackdown since there were plenty of people trying to rebel against Rome. What Jewish authorities wanted was irrelevant because they held no real powers of the state.


Why does Jesus say the doctor only sees the sick, not the well? Doesn't that imply there IS a "well" population that doesn't need him?

No, both accused one only by threat did they even decide to have Jesus put to death (he didn't have to) , as much as you would like to think, think about it this way; don't you think that even Pontius Pilate himself as seen worse criminals even ones that get away with stuff amongst his peers? To bring someone like Jesus before Pilate probably would be an obvious blur in part because he seemed to be favored by so many in their own community as well; the others brought the charges.
Also through in the comment on at the end; yes.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

If no one reads the trial and makes a decision don't even be a jury.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

No, both accused one only by threat did they even decide to have Jesus put to death (he didn't have to) , as much as you would like to think, think about it this way; don't you think that even Pontius Pilate himself as seen worse criminals even ones that get away with stuff amongst his peers? To bring someone like Jesus before Pilate probably would be an obvious blur in part because he seemed to be favored by so many in their own community as well; the others brought the charges.
Also through in the comment on at the end; yes.

What does the severity have to do with it? The Romans were cruel.

If no one reads the trial and makes a decision don't even be a jury.

You know what I'd like? A Roman transcript of said trial. I know what the Gospels say about it, but there are little things like historical facts that get in the way of a story possibly largely plagarizing the Trial and Death of Socrates, only changing the characters and just how verbose the defense and prosecution are.

 

[atpollard]

Why does Jesus say the doctor only sees the sick, not the well? Doesn't that imply there IS a "well" population that doesn't need him?

Why don't YOU tell me where Jesus said that and we can look at it in context and see what he was talking about.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

What does the severity have to do with it? The Romans were cruel.

You know what I'd like? A Roman transcript of said trial. I know what the Gospels say about it, but there are little things like historical facts that get in the way of a story possibly largely plagarizing the Trial and Death of Socrates, only changing the characters and just how verbose the defense and prosecution are.

What does the severity have to do with it? The Romans were cruel.

You know what I'd like? A Roman transcript of said trial. I know what the Gospels say about it, but there are little things like historical facts that get in the way of a story possibly largely plagarizing the Trial and Death of Socrates, only changing the characters and just how verbose the defense and prosecution are.

You know what I don't like? I don't like when anyone morphs people in the bible or prophets or anyone. People that they are not; into terrorists.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

People do things doesn't mean you cant defend yourself or stop, or speak the truth; that doesn't mean that they are them or even symbolically those people; especially when that doesn't actually defend truths.

 

[atpollard]

I have a relevant verse in 18:4
Behold, all souls are Mine. Like the soul of the father, like the soul of the son they are Mine; the soul that sins, it shall die

Yay, an on topic verse.

(As a follower of Judaism, you are free to reject the core premise, but as a Christian, I would point out that Jesus is G_d incarnate, therefore those souls belong to Jesus and he had a right to redeem them from the Law ... with the blood of a lamb under the Law or with the blood of the Lamb of G_d in the new covenant.)

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

And a King doesn't have to sentence one to death.

 

[rosends]

Yay, an on topic verse.

(As a follower of Judaism, you are free to reject the core premise, but as a Christian, I would point out that Jesus is G_d incarnate, therefore those souls belong to Jesus and he had a right to redeem them from the Law ... with the blood of a lamb under the Law or with the blood of the Lamb of G_d in the new covenant.)

OK, consider it rejected.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

OK, consider it rejected.

ugh, that's like ... I hate the stupid death cults. Forgiveness.

 

[atpollard]

I have a relevant verse in 18:4
Behold, all souls are Mine. Like the soul of the father, like the soul of the son they are Mine; the soul that sins, it shall die

Just out of curiosity, if this negates Jesus atonement, does it not negate all possible atonement ... including the prescribed sacrifices of the Law?