Perusing the Internet --as I have taken to doing to distract myself from the miserable reality that my friends and family think I'm whacko to go against "thousands of years of solid Christianity" -- to read about righteous men and women in history who championed the Sovereign Goodness of God and the full merit of Christ's sacrifice, I found a new one today:
The noted George MacDonald, whom CS Lewis called his "master," believed that the Atonement should be understood in a model similar to that called Christus Victor, as opposed to the "Satisfaction theory of atonement" from Anselm of Canterbury, further developed by Calvin.
The notion that Christ's sacrifice was more about ransom than about "bearing the full wrath of God on the cross" makes so much more sense to me.
It would also make UR much more obvious, if we didn't have a wrathful God who needed to unleash his Holy Anger so he could deal with us. That Jesus' sacrifice really was a ransom for all, not protection from God's wrath that we have to accept in order to escape damnation.
When I first gave up on Unification Church Doctrine (Sun Myung Moon) and came to accept that Jesus's death was God's will, I was surprised to hear my Christian mentors talk about Jesus' suffering on the cross being a moment when he bore that wrath in our place. Kind of creepy and I wondered -- Where exactly in the Bible it said that? Did they come up with that as a way of explaining Jesus' words, "Why have you forsaken me? "
It seems like the Atonement, Christus Victor, would be the essential foundation for understanding the eventual salvation and restoration of all things.
Isn't that crucial?
Thanks for your thoughts,
Martha
PS here I am reading and researching instead of doing my job...back to work...
Atonement by Christ was indeed complete. No margin of error.
1 Cor 15 is a key about much, along with Romans 5, which ALL say what Christ achieved and did for us was greater than Adam's error.
The work of Christ being greater than the failings of Adam. Just like a parent
Romans 5;19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, so through the obedience of the
One the many shall be constituted righteous.
1 Cor 15;22 For just as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall be made alive.
Isaiah 53:4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed....
Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood--to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
Quote from: Msandino on July 12, 2016, 02:12:39 AM
Perusing the Internet --as I have taken to doing to distract myself from the miserable reality that my friends and family think I'm whacko to go against "thousands of years of solid Christianity" -- to read about righteous men and women in history who championed the Sovereign Goodness of God and the full merit of Christ's sacrifice, I found a new one today:
The noted George MacDonald, whom CS Lewis called his "master," believed that the Atonement should be understood in a model similar to that called Christus Victor, as opposed to the "Satisfaction theory of atonement" from Anselm of Canterbury, further developed by Calvin.
The notion that Christ's sacrifice was more about ransom than about "bearing the full wrath of God on the cross" makes so much more sense to me.
It would also make UR much more obvious, if we didn't have a wrathful God who needed to unleash his Holy Anger so he could deal with us. That Jesus' sacrifice really was a ransom for all, not protection from God's wrath that we have to accept in order to escape damnation.
When I first gave up on Unification Church Doctrine (Sun Myung Moon) and came to accept that Jesus's death was God's will, I was surprised to hear my Christian mentors talk about Jesus' suffering on the cross being a moment when he bore that wrath in our place. Kind of creepy and I wondered -- Where exactly in the Bible it said that? Did they come up with that as a way of explaining Jesus' words, "Why have you forsaken me? "
It seems like the Atonement, Christus Victor, would be the essential foundation for understanding the eventual salvation and restoration of all things.
Isn't that crucial?
Thanks for your thoughts,
Martha
PS here I am reading and researching instead of doing my job...back to work...
I agree. Calvin's understanding seems flawed, as Christ did not bear the full wrath of God if that involves eternal torment in hell. In fact, it would mean he bore eternal torment in hell, minus the eternal and the hell, so....it would definitely be minus the "full wrath."
My understanding of the atonement is that Christ bore the punishment required by the Law, a lamb sacrifice, required blood for the forgiveness of sin, in order to satisfy the Law while also providing a new way to healing from sin.
Here is a description of the Satisfaction Theory from Wikipedia. I have to say, I wasn't taught this as a kid. I think Penal Substitution replaced it.
"The classic Anselmian formulation of the satisfaction view should be distinguished from penal substitution. Both are forms of satisfaction theory in that they speak of how Christ's death was satisfactory, but penal substitution and Anselmian satisfaction offer different understandings of how Christ's death was satisfactory. Anselm speaks of human sin as defrauding God of the honour he is due. Christ's death, the ultimate act of obedience, brings God great honour. As it was beyond the call of duty for Christ, it is more honour than he was obliged to give. Christ's surplus can therefore repay our deficit.
Hence Christ's death is substitutionary; he pays the honour to the Father instead of us paying. Penal substitution differs in that it sees Christ's death not as repaying God for lost honour but rather paying the penalty of death that had always been the moral consequence for sin (e.g., Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23). The key difference here is that for Anselm, satisfaction is an alternative to punishment, "The honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow." By Christ satisfying our debt of honor to God, we avoid punishment. In Calvinist Penal Substitution, it is the punishment which satisfies the demands of justice."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement
I notice that both theories focus much attention on avoiding punishment and give little attention to the concept of healing from sin. Thus the Gospel is all about avoiding an angry God who is ready to pounce and throttle the sinner and send him to hell, and being delivered from sin itself is a secondary benefit to being saved from hell. So when the Bible says, "He shall be called Jesus for he shall save his people from their sin" that becomes a nice addition to being saved from hell, rather than it being Christ's main mission. When I was a kid I heard more about being saved from hell (punishment) than relying on the Spirit for healing from sin.
Amen He is the full atonement.. redeeming all.. When I think of how Jesus said "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all to me" (Jn 12:32) I think of Jesus on the cross as an image that is able to (ultimately) pierce every psyche.. and not as God who required a sacrifice, but we ourselves, so our conscience would be cleansed.. That's just the way I've come to think of it, as psychological.. But of course, not any less true! But to set me free.. I had to "believe".. It's an image that has great impact? to one's heart and psyche?
Quote from: Seth on July 12, 2016, 08:17:27 AM
I notice that both theories focus much attention on avoiding punishment and give little attention to the concept of healing from sin. Thus the Gospel is all about avoiding an angry God who is ready to pounce and throttle the sinner and send him to hell, and being delivered from sin itself is a secondary benefit to being saved from hell. So when the Bible says, "He shall be called Jesus for he shall save his people from their sin" that becomes a nice addition to being saved from hell, rather than it being Christ's main mission. When I was a kid I heard more about being saved from hell (punishment) than relying on the Spirit for healing from sin.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: and :thumbsup:
I guess I don't label my beliefs in this area, other than things like this;
Jesus was the Lamb slain, the perfect sacrifice. He atoned for our sins. He paid the price we couldn't and can't pay. By His stripes we are healed. He's the only way to the Father.
I agree with all the above. Where I disagree with the penal substitution system of thought is that God cannot stand to be in the presence of sinners, and so Jesus died to make God able to that. I think that's a way to justify the hell doctrine (e.g. he created hell because the had to avoid sin cooties) but it doesn't make sense to me.
If someone sins against me, like insults me or whatever, I can simply forgive that person without requiring anything from him. I can forgive freely. But according to the penal substitution theory God cannot do that. I could do it, but he can't. I prefer an understanding of the atonement that doesn't put God into a corner that I am not even in.
Quote from: Seth on July 12, 2016, 07:53:26 AM
My understanding of the atonement is that Christ bore the punishment required by the Law, a lamb sacrifice, required blood for the forgiveness of sin, in order to satisfy the Law while also providing a new way to healing from sin.
Wow - you're right! It's double jeopardy!!! If it was about appeasing wrath (how Pagean is THAT??), then why wasn't it appeased?
Quote from: Seth on July 12, 2016, 08:17:27 AM
I notice that both theories focus much attention on avoiding punishment and give little attention to the concept of healing from sin. Thus the Gospel is all about avoiding an angry God who is ready to pounce and throttle the sinner and send him to hell, and being delivered from sin itself is a secondary benefit to being saved from hell. So when the Bible says, "He shall be called Jesus for he shall save his people from their sin" that becomes a nice addition to being saved from hell, rather than it being Christ's main mission. When I was a kid I heard more about being saved from hell (punishment) than relying on the Spirit for healing from sin.
Yes: either one is about an Angry God. But I read the original theory of Atonement is more about ransom. Which would correlate with the Hebrew understanding. Good Gracious: where do people come up with all this Pi##ed Off God stuff??
Quote from: Seth on July 12, 2016, 09:33:05 PM
(e.g. he created hell because the had to avoid sin cooties) but it doesn't make sense to me.
:laugh: :laugh: :LH:
Yes! Brilliant :thumbsup:
Quote from: Msandino on July 12, 2016, 11:18:59 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 12, 2016, 08:17:27 AM
I notice that both theories focus much attention on avoiding punishment and give little attention to the concept of healing from sin. Thus the Gospel is all about avoiding an angry God who is ready to pounce and throttle the sinner and send him to hell, and being delivered from sin itself is a secondary benefit to being saved from hell. So when the Bible says, "He shall be called Jesus for he shall save his people from their sin" that becomes a nice addition to being saved from hell, rather than it being Christ's main mission. When I was a kid I heard more about being saved from hell (punishment) than relying on the Spirit for healing from sin.
Yes: either one is about an Angry God. But I read the original theory of Atonement is more about ransom. Which would correlate with the Hebrew understanding. Good Gracious: where do people come up with all this Pi##ed Off God stuff??
I think it's a way to explain the existence of Hell, especially from a Calvinistic point of view where God predestines most people to go there forever. It's a really fancy and involved way to say "God HAD to create Hell or the whole things loses balance and becomes a legal mess."
My understanding of the atonement is that God can forgive anyone at any time. He has total veto power. But, he chose to incorporate animal sacrifice into the Law of Moses to bring about an awareness of sin and desire for salvation. At which point, he sent Jesus to be the substitute for the lambs, for our benefit (dying for our sins), to sunset the Law of Moses and bring about a new way to be forgiven and healed of sin through faith and the Spirit.
The thing I don't like about the Ransom theory is that it has God indebted to the devil, whereas I see the devil as subservient to the Lord.
Quote from: Msandino on July 12, 2016, 11:22:56 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 12, 2016, 09:33:05 PM
(e.g. he created hell because the had to avoid sin cooties) but it doesn't make sense to me.
:laugh: :laugh: :LH:
Yes! Brilliant :thumbsup:
:laughing7:
Quote from: Seth on July 12, 2016, 11:26:04 PMIt's a really fancy and involved way to say "God HAD to create Hell or the whole things loses balance and becomes a legal mess."
Remember that I pointed out in
Heaven, Yes - Hell, No, that God nowhere claims to have created Hell, and John 1:3 states that if God did make it, then no one else did. Let's put that spurious little bit of pagan doctrine to rest.
...so, God's really angry at us,furious in fact, cos we sin..yet He made us knowing we are prone to sinning,knowing we will sin..after all, we are stubborn creatures, a bit contrary...so, God takes all His fury n rage out on His Son...now God is satisfied n can forgive us..however, God is still furious with those who reject His son and will torture them forever without pity or mercy..and God foreknew the ones who would end up being tormented forever, in fact God predestined them to such an incomprehensibly awful fate...wow, this sounds kinda messed up. ...thank God it's not true..God is a loving God not a messed up psychopath with anger issues.
Quote from: darryl on July 13, 2016, 04:05:17 AM
...so, God's really angry at us,furious in fact, cos we sin..yet He made us knowing we are prone to sinning,knowing we will sin..after all, we are stubborn creatures, a bit contrary...so, God takes all His fury n rage out on His Son...now God is satisfied n can forgive us..however, God is still furious with those who reject His son and will torture them forever without pity or mercy..and God foreknew the ones who would end up being tormented forever, in fact God predestined them to such an incomprehensibly awful fate...wow, this sounds kinda messed up. ...thank God it's not true..God is a loving God not a messed up psychopath with anger issues.
Calvin was the psychopath on a predestined path. :laughing7:
To me, it may be in the extremes of either view where most of the problems lie. Parts of one, tempered with the other, and vice versa - focusing on all that is scriptural rather than our own wishes or imagination - may hold a good explanation.
I personally think this is a pretty balanced article, with of course much more that could (and probably will :laugh:) be said. But I personally kind of fall in with this post and article.
---The Problem with Christus Victor
An increasingly popular view of the atonement forces the question: What are we saved from?
Mark Galli/ APRIL 7, 2011
Universalism is not the only topic in Rob Bell's Love Wins that deserves comment, though given the buzz, you'd think that's all he discusses. Among other things, the book also attacks "toxic" forms of substitutionary atonement, and advocates the use of a plurality of atonement theories. In this, Mr. Bell is repeating decades-old arguments in our movement, arguments that seem to be winning the day. One atonement theory in particular has exploded in popularity, in fact. Hardly an atonement discussion goes by that I don't hear an evangelical say they doubt the usefulness of substitutionary atonement and now favor Christus Victor.
The Christus Victor model has much to commend it. The idea is this: Christ is victor. Christ in his death and resurrection overcame over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection, those powers variously understood as the devil, sin, the law, and death. While the model assumes humanity's guilt for getting ourselves into this predicament—beginning with the original sin of Adam and Eve—the theory's anthropology (view of humanity) emphasizes not our guilt but our victimhood, at least the way it is often discussed today. The main human problem is that we are trapped and we need to be rescued: "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery" (Heb. 2:14-15) .
Indeed, we are enslaved to powers beyond our control, both personally and corporately. This model also highlights big picture atonement: Christ's death isn't merely about me and my salvation. It's about the redemption of the cosmos: "He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him" (Col. 2:15).
On the other hand, "neurotic substitutionary atonement" needs to be abandoned. The picture of a wrathful Father having his anger appeased by the death of his Son is wrong on many fronts. Here's one: It separates the work of the Father from the Son, as if they have competing concerns—the Father with righteousness, the son with compassion. It sounds like the Son saves us from the Father! This is manifestly unbiblical, for Paul clearly says that "in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). While we were sinners, God took action. God would not have come to us in Christ had he not already determined to reconcile with us. This is not the behavior of a God who stands aloof in a huff, waiting for propitiation before he'll have anything to do with us.
With these clarifications, biblical substitutionary atonement in all its nuances (the Bible frames it in subtly different ways: as sacrifice, propitiation, and payment) remains the dominant metaphor for atonement in Scripture. When he wanted to demonstrate his love for us, God substituted himself for us on the cross. It is an especially fitting move, given who God is—both just and merciful: "[We] are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:24-26).
Many interesting comparisons can be made between the two theories. Both actually include dimensions of personal guilt and victimhood, but as I listen to the discussion today, it seems that Christus Victor highlights our state as victims. Substitutionary atonement focuses on our guilt. In Christus Victor, we are liberated from hostile powers out there. In substitution, we are forgiven, and liberation is from ourselves and our addiction to our sin. Naturally, both models speak to truths of the human condition! And both have nuances worth exploring. But I'm concerned at the rising popularity of Christus Victor when it comes at the [total] expense of substitution. [emphasis mine]
Funny that in the creation story there is no hell, as Laz pointed out in his thread, "Heaven yes, Hell no".
Yet while there are several places that say God created the heavens, the kosmos, the ages, the world and humanity - there is not one place where it says God created Hell.
So if God did not create Hell in the beginning, when was it created? Who created it? Did God rest on the seventh day or what?
People want to be literal when it suits them and dogmatic when it suits them- but when someone shows them their dogmatism is unfounded in fact they will call you a heretic and threaten you with Hell for not believing in Hell.
If God was threatening Adam and Eve with eternal torment in Hell, and if a majority of the people who ever were to come into the earth were going to wind up there- wouldnt it be mentioned somewhere? Jesus spoke of aionian fire and John spoke of the lake of fire- metaphors for the judgment of God(which most universalists affirm)- but nowhere is Hell mentioned in the Bible- it is always "sheol" or "gehenna" translated as hell, and neither of those words means "Hell".
God will judge the wicked, but He will not torment them forever. They will be in the fire of His light and His presence until "every knee bows, whether in heaven or earth or under the earth, and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father".
Jesus has satisfied the judgment of God, and everyone will receive the "at-one-ment" He provides, "by the blood of His cross"(Col 1:20)
just as soon as they bow their knee and confess, with joy unspeakable and full of glory- "Jesus is Lord!"(Phil 2:9-11)
In this God is satified and man is made one with Him, until He becomes "all in all"(1 Cor 15:28)
In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things(gathering together into one- kjv) in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. Eph 1
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father's good pleasure for all fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
We are saved into Christ. Grafted into the vine. Ehp 1 says all things, whether in heaven or on earth, will be "gathered into one in Christ." \o/
Jesus is the fulfillment of the promise.......and, the fulfillment of the Law.
The Law was how the people in the Old Testament came to God.....But through Christ, we have the completion of the Law.....Love embodied.....the summation of Law is LOVE.
33Little children, I am with you only a little while longer. You will look for Me, and as I said to the Jews, so now I say to you: 'Where I am going, you cannot come.'
34A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so also you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another." John 13: 33 -35
[/b][/u]
And, love was shown through the sacrifice of both the Father, by giving His only Son, as well as by Jesus, humbling Himself to become a man, to suffer and die for us, and in the process, to teach us all how to become God's children.
Christ is the Lamb of God, the sacrifice of sacrifices, as the Old Testament always required. The final sacrifice, for when Jesus died, He said, It is Finished, and it was finished......at that moment the curtain in the Holy of Holiest places was torn in the Temple, and God and Man were reconciled.
Christ is the Lamb, but He is also the Priest. The perfect and pleasing sacrifice, who had no sin, because He was God, and yet, represented humanity, because He too was human.....He became one of us.
19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by the new and living way opened for us through the curtain of His body, 21and since we have a high priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
Hebrews 10:19 - 22
18Therefore, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20The Law was given so that the trespass would increase; but where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness, to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 5:18 -21
I marvel at His plan......the most beautiful story of Love, which we could not have even imagined.
Whatever you would like to call this, this is the essence of how I see Jesus' sacrifice. I see Seth posted something similar.
There is nothing else to compare this to. It is a 'once in the history of mankind' event. However man tries to label it, I don't believe we will ever come close to doing it justice, or containing it. And, in doing so, we might leave out aspects of it. Whichever section of the spectrum of theories we can have, I think the main thing is to know that whatever God does, He does out of love.
:cloud9:
D.
Dandelion :thumbsup:
Amen to so much/all of the above!
And I believe it was for the purpose of - "let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.." Hebrews 10:22
and so "In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence."
"Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" Hebrews 10:8
"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them," Hebrews 1):16
Baptism is perfect also..
From Mark 1:2-8
As it is written in the Prophets:
"Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,
Who will prepare Your way before You."
3 "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: [he came from outside of the system(s) in play..]
'Prepare the way of the Lord;
Make His paths straight.'"
4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
5 Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River,
confessing their sins. [[Surely not "confessing" as standing around on the banks of the Jordan discussing their myriad sins..
but the "confession" and acknowledgment was the act of being baptized..
"But as for me, I am poor and needy;
come quickly to me, O God.
You are my help and my deliverer;
Lord, do not delay." Psalm 70:5
6 Now John was clothed with camel's hair and with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7 And he preached, saying, "There comes One after me who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. 8 I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols." Ezekiel 36:25 (how does water cleanse? by metaphor?)
"And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." Acts 22:16
"How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences, from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!" Hebrews 9:14
..does the blood alone cleanse, and all are now cleansed, or is the blood and also knowing about the blood..
I don't think blood was required by God "sacrifice you did not desire" nor because the adversary required it.. but I think because our human psyche 'required' it.. Jesus on the cross an image strong enough to ultimately pierce every lost and wandering psyche..
:2c: :gsmile:
Quote from: Seth on July 12, 2016, 09:46:04 PM
If someone sins against me, like insults me or whatever, I can simply forgive that person without requiring anything from him. I can forgive freely. But according to the penal substitution theory God cannot do that. I could do it, but he can't. I prefer an understanding of the atonement that doesn't put God into a corner that I am not even in.
amen.. none of those corners / God backed into any, do not make any sense at all! ..And since He can only be perfect, the 'end' result of all this can (surely?) only be the very best one possible..
Quote from: marie glen on July 13, 2016, 09:01:49 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 12, 2016, 09:46:04 PM
If someone sins against me, like insults me or whatever, I can simply forgive that person without requiring anything from him. I can forgive freely. But according to the penal substitution theory God cannot do that. I could do it, but he can't. I prefer an understanding of the atonement that doesn't put God into a corner that I am not even in.
amen.. none of those corners / God backed into any, do not make any sense at all! ..And since He can only be perfect, the 'end' result of all this can (surely?) only be the very best one possible..
:2thumbs:
Christ victor is referred to in Hebrews 9;24-28
"For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with hands that was a mere copy of the true one,
but into heaven itself,
now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Nor was it to offer Himself repeatedly as the high priest enters the Most Holy place every year with blood not his own, for then He would have to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world.
But as it is, He has appeared once FOR ALL, at the climax of the ages, to put away sin by His sacrifice.
And just as it is appointed to mortals to die once, and after that to experience judgment, so also Christ, after being offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time to those who are eagerly awaiting Him, without reference to sin, but for salvation."
The history of the concept of atonement was necessary to appreciate the process carried out on our behalf by Christ.
Romans 7;7 " What shall we say then?
Is the law sin?
Far from it! On the contrary, I had not discovered sin save through the law, for I had not even been aware of coveting
had the law not kept on saying- ' thou shall not covet.'
Atonement seems to demonstrated through the history of Israel.
Good post Ross.
----------
I personally don't believe the concept of shedding of blood was a 'man' requirement.
"There is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood"
Here are some good thoughts from gotquestions.org
"The Bible makes it quite clear that God hates human sacrifice. The pagan nations that surrounded the Israelites practiced human sacrifice as part of the worship of false gods. God declared that such "worship" was detestable to Him and that He hates it (Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). Furthermore, human sacrifice is associated in the Old Testament with evil practices such as sorcery and divination, which are also detestable to God (2 Kings 21:6). So, if God hates human sacrifice, why did He sacrifice Christ on the cross and how could that sacrifice be the payment for our sins?
God established the necessity of the shedding of blood to cover sin (Hebrews 9:22). In fact, God Himself performed the very first animal sacrifice to cover, temporarily, the sin of Adam and Eve. After He pronounced curses upon the first couple, He killed an animal, shedding its blood, and made from it a covering for Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21), thereby instituting the principle of animal sacrifice for sin. When God gave the Law to Moses, there were extensive instructions on how, when, and under what circumstances animal sacrifices were to be offered to Him. This was to continue until Christ came to offer the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, which made animal sacrifice no longer necessary. "But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:3–4).
There are several reasons why the sacrifice of Christ on the cross does not violate the prohibition against human sacrifice. First, Jesus wasn't merely human. If He were, then His sacrifice would have also been a temporary one because one human life couldn't possibly cover the sins of the multitudes who ever existed. Neither could one finite human life atone for sin against an infinite God. The only viable sacrifice must be an infinite one, which means only God Himself could atone for the sins of mankind. Only God Himself, an infinite Being, could pay the penalty owed to Himself. This is why God had to become a Man and dwell among men (John 1:14). No other sacrifice would suffice.
Second, God didn't sacrifice Jesus. Rather, Jesus, as God incarnate, sacrificed Himself. No one forced Him. He laid down His life willingly, as He made clear speaking about His life: "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again" (John 10:18). God the Son sacrificed Himself to God the Father and thereby fulfilled all the requirements of the Law. Unlike the temporary sacrifices, Jesus' once-for-all-time sacrifice was followed by His resurrection. He laid down His life and took it up again, thereby providing eternal life for all who would ever believe in Him and accept His sacrifice for their sins. He did this out of love for the Father and for all those the Father has given Him (John 6:37–40)."
Quote from: jabcat on July 15, 2016, 12:54:51 AM
Good post Ross.
----------
I personally don't believe the concept of shedding of blood was a 'man' requirement.
"There is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood"
Here are some good thoughts from gotquestions.org
"The Bible makes it quite clear that God hates human sacrifice. The pagan nations that surrounded the Israelites practiced human sacrifice as part of the worship of false gods. God declared that such "worship" was detestable to Him and that He hates it (Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). Furthermore, human sacrifice is associated in the Old Testament with evil practices such as sorcery and divination, which are also detestable to God (2 Kings 21:6). So, if God hates human sacrifice, why did He sacrifice Christ on the cross and how could that sacrifice be the payment for our sins?
God established the necessity of the shedding of blood to cover sin (Hebrews 9:22). In fact, God Himself performed the very first animal sacrifice to cover, temporarily, the sin of Adam and Eve. After He pronounced curses upon the first couple, He killed an animal, shedding its blood, and made from it a covering for Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21), thereby instituting the principle of animal sacrifice for sin. When God gave the Law to Moses, there were extensive instructions on how, when, and under what circumstances animal sacrifices were to be offered to Him. This was to continue until Christ came to offer the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, which made animal sacrifice no longer necessary. "But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:3–4).
There are several reasons why the sacrifice of Christ on the cross does not violate the prohibition against human sacrifice. First, Jesus wasn't merely human. If He were, then His sacrifice would have also been a temporary one because one human life couldn't possibly cover the sins of the multitudes who ever existed. Neither could one finite human life atone for sin against an infinite God. The only viable sacrifice must be an infinite one, which means only God Himself could atone for the sins of mankind. Only God Himself, an infinite Being, could pay the penalty owed to Himself. This is why God had to become a Man and dwell among men (John 1:14). No other sacrifice would suffice.
Second, God didn't sacrifice Jesus. Rather, Jesus, as God incarnate, sacrificed Himself. No one forced Him. He laid down His life willingly, as He made clear speaking about His life: "No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again" (John 10:18). God the Son sacrificed Himself to God the Father and thereby fulfilled all the requirements of the Law. Unlike the temporary sacrifices, Jesus' once-for-all-time sacrifice was followed by His resurrection. He laid down His life and took it up again, thereby providing eternal life for all who would ever believe in Him and accept His sacrifice for their sins. He did this out of love for the Father and for all those the Father has given Him (John 6:37–40)."
interesting..of course, atheists or agnostics ask, 'why couldn't God just forgive our sins unilaterally ?..why the need for all that blood to be shed ?..it seems a ghastly idea, very barbaric'...hmmm, I can understand their objections, imagine all the blood from those thousands of animals that have been slaughtered by ancient Jewish priests..on top of that there is the blood of Jesus ...I guess sin is so heinous to God, it can only be forgiven if an innocent being dies, in a bloody way..I suppose that's it.That answer doesn't wash with atheists but as Christians, we must accept it.
That's exactly what I don't believe, that God couldn't unilaterally forgive sin because sin was too bad. To me that makes him look weak. I think the connection to blood and sin was a plan he chose to put in action from the beginning for the purpose of unveiling the love of God in giving his son to the world and Christ choosing to give his life freely. It was a plan from the beginning. I don't see God as freaked out about sin and being reactionary about that.
whichever point is right about that specific thing of God's view of sin (I know He doesn't like it, to put it mildy). But it's the other pieces I want to address. I agree Seth it was planned from the beginning. Also with you darryl about your point of accepting it as Christians. I think there are things God does that our human minds may not like, or even accept, but if it's scripturally sound then we're expected to believe it anyway - while yielding to His will not ours, not insisting things be as we wish them. That's regarding Christians, much less I do hear you on atheists. I think there's a challenge there - that we can't water down the gospel just to make it more palatable and "acceptable". It is what it is, and God must do the convicting and convincing - even if for the time being it is ridiculed, mocked, and rejected.
The cross wasn't pretty. The gospel is foolishness to those that are perishing. God gets the last word.
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2016, 02:42:55 AM
That's exactly what I don't believe, that God couldn't unilaterally forgive sin because sin was too bad. To me that makes him look weak. I think the connection to blood and sin was a plan he chose to put in action from the beginning for the purpose of unveiling the love of God in giving his son to the world and Christ choosing to give his life freely. It was a plan from the beginning. I don't see God as freaked out about sin and being reactionary about that.
I understand..it's just that this whole Biblical concept of 'blood shed' seems really barbaric to a lot of people..couldn't God have devised another plan to deal with the problem of sin?, rather than all the emphasis on 'blood' ?..well, I suppose not...this must be the best possible plan that the omnipotent omniscient creator could come up with.I'm simply saying that many post modern 21st century people are offended by it.As Christians, we must accept it perhaps even embrace it...even if it does sometimes offend our sensitivities.
Jabcat :iagree:
Darryl, yeah God could have done it any way he wanted. But as Jabcat said, we as Christians must accept the way God has it rather than what our sensibilities would have. Lean not on our own understanding.
Quote from: jabcat on July 15, 2016, 02:48:57 AM
whichever point is right about that specific thing of God's view of sin (I know He doesn't like it, to put it mildy). But it's the other pieces I want to address. I agree Seth it was planned from the beginning. Also with you darryl about your point of accepting it as Christians. I think there are things God does that our human minds may not like, or even accept, but if it's scripturally sound then we're expected to believe it anyway - while yielding to His will not ours, not insisting things be as we wish them. That's regarding Christians, much less I do hear you on atheists. I think there's a challenge there - that we can't water down the gospel just to make it more palatable and "acceptable". It is what it is, and God must do the convicting and convincing - even if for the time being it is ridiculed, mocked, and rejected.
The cross wasn't pretty. The gospel is foolishness to those that are perishing. God gets the last word.
yes, we have to deal with the God we have..not a god of our own making...if it was up to many people, God would be an easy going character who didn't take things all that seriously..a God with a broad sense of humor who 'shrugs his shoulders ' and says 'oh well, they're only human, i'll let them off'...but no, in reality, God takes Himself, and us, extremely seriously...seriously enough to send His own Son to die a horrific violently painful death in order that we can be forgiven..that's the reality of the situation.
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2016, 03:10:42 AM
Jabcat :iagree:
Darryl, yeah God could have done it any way he wanted. But as Jabcat said, we as Christians must accept the way God has it rather than what our sensibilities would have. Lean not on our own understanding.
Well, that's what I'm saying too...yes, we have to deal with the God we have..not a god of our own making...if it was up to many people, God would be an easy going character who didn't take things all that seriously..a God with a broad sense of humor who 'shrugs his shoulders ' and says 'oh well, they're only human, i'll let them off'...but no, in reality, God takes Himself, and us, extremely seriously...seriously enough to send His own Son to die a horrific violently painful death in order that we can be forgiven..that's the reality of the situation.
amen both
I think to put a blood sacrifice in its proper perspective, we must work 'backwards'.
In other words, God knew that the only way we could be saved was by Jesus, and He knew that He must give His own life for us, not only to save us from our sins, but to teach us what is important in life, and how our sufferings here on earth are not in vain. Through Jesus' death and life, He taught us what love truly is, and what is the greatest and most perfect way to love someone.....to sacrifice for them, to give up one's life for them, whether painfully and physically, or by living for them, and doing whatever we can for them. By putting them first.....above all our own wants and needs....by being willing to give 'everything' for their lives and well-being.
So, God, knowing that Jesus would die the way He did, wanted to establish the pattern of blood being shed, as a sign to our primitive (and we must remember that we are going back to 'cave man' days, in the Bible) ancestors. Blood being shed is something that would give us the symbol of suffering and the ultimate sacrifice. It was something that could be used for the thousands of years until Jesus appeared, and something that would be passed down and honored and remembered.
So, I believe, God established these rituals to teach us, and to show us how Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.....THE LAMB OF GOD.
As we know, when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on the altar, it was a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice. God would give us His own Son.....willingly and lovingly.
So, I don't think we should be surprised by the unfolding of this deeply moving symbol of the shedding of blood. Though I realize non-Christians might not understand it, that does not lessen its significance.
And, before Christ died, He told the disciples to 'take and eat' His body and blood, which would be shed for them, and to generations of Christians, to then do the same. I believe that communion is actually Christ's body and blood. So, when I take communion, I believe I am making an act of faith, by receiving, and that I receive grace, by honoring Jesus' request, in faith. We are not to forget and to continue to partake in the once and forever sacrifice of our Jesus, by remembering and taking His body and blood, for forgiveness of our sins. Not that communion is a sacrifice, but the rememberance of His sacrifice. He wanted us to know that He remains with us and in us, and we in union with Him. We, in essence, become the body of Christ. So, as in Passover the Jews celebrated their freedom from Egypt, and they spread the blood of the lamb on the doorpost, Jesus took us out of our captivity of sin, and gave us new life, grace, and the commandment of Love, to fulfill the Law.
And, yes, I agree, that the Father did not want to see His Son die, but allowed it, knowing that was the way to save us. God's justice and mercy made it necessary to allow this. God's perfect justice was not going to accept less than a perfect sacrifice for our sins, and His perfect mercy would not make us suffer for our sins, knowing the price was death. Jesus gave us a free gift.....lovingly allowing His life to be given, to save humanity. We are justified, before God, because of Jesus. We could not have saved ourselves, and still satisfy God's justice and mercy. We will live in eternity, with God.
God thought of every detail....He fulfilled all that needed to be fulfilled: God's justice and mercy; to teach us all how to be God's sons and daughters by dying to our own selves and becoming part of the 'body of Christ'; to forgive us and set us free from our sins; to reconcile Adam and Eve's children to their Father; to let love rule, by grace, rather than law; to make us heirs of God's eternal Kingdom and to show us the greatest love He could, for all ages to see.
So, in dying to ourselves, we grow in the life of Christ. This is what He needed to teach us.
Romans 6:5 - 14
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
What a mighty God we serve.
My :2c:
D.
Quote from: Dandelion on July 15, 2016, 04:52:11 AM
I think to put a blood sacrifice in its proper perspective, we must work 'backwards'.
In other words, God knew that the only way we could be saved was by Jesus, and He knew that He must give His own life for us, not only to save us from our sins, but to teach us what is important in life, and how our sufferings here on earth are not in vain. Through Jesus' death and life, He taught us what love truly is, and what is the greatest and most perfect way to love someone.....to sacrifice for them, to give up one's life for them, whether painfully and physically, or by living for them, and doing whatever we can for them. By putting them first.....above all our own wants and needs....by being willing to give 'everything' for their lives and well-being.
So, God, knowing that Jesus would die the way He did, wanted to establish the pattern of blood being shed, as a sign to our primitive (and we must remember that we are going back to 'cave man' days, in the Bible) ancestors. Blood being shed is something that would give us the symbol of suffering and the ultimate sacrifice. It was something that could be used for the thousands of years until Jesus appeared, and something that would be passed down and honored and remembered.
So, I believe, God established these rituals to teach us, and to show us how Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.....THE LAMB OF GOD.
As we know, when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on the altar, it was a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice. God would give us His own Son.....willingly and lovingly.
So, I don't think we should be surprised by the unfolding of this deeply moving symbol of the shedding of blood. Though I realize non-Christians might not understand it, that does not lessen its significance.
And, before Christ died, He told the disciples to 'take and eat' His body and blood, which would be shed for them, and to generations of Christians, to then do the same. I believe that communion is actually Christ's body and blood. So, when I take communion, I believe I am making an act of faith, by receiving, and that I receive grace, by honoring Jesus' request, in faith. We are not to forget and to continue to partake in the once and forever sacrifice of our Jesus, by remembering and taking His body and blood, for forgiveness of our sins. Not that communion is a sacrifice, but the rememberance of His sacrifice. He wanted us to know that He remains with us and in us, and we in union with Him. We, in essence, become the body of Christ. So, as in Passover the Jews celebrated their freedom from Egypt, and they spread the blood of the lamb on the doorpost, Jesus took us out of our captivity of sin, and gave us new life, grace, and the commandment of Love, to fulfill the Law.
And, yes, I agree, that the Father did not want to see His Son die, but allowed it, knowing that was the way to save us. God's justice and mercy made it necessary to allow this. God's perfect justice was not going to accept less than a perfect sacrifice for our sins, and His perfect mercy would not make us suffer for our sins, knowing the price was death. Jesus gave us a free gift.....lovingly allowing His life to be given, to save humanity. We are justified, before God, because of Jesus. We could not have saved ourselves, and still satisfy God's justice and mercy. We will live in eternity, with God.
God thought of every detail....He fulfilled all that needed to be fulfilled: God's justice and mercy; to teach us all how to be God's sons and daughters by dying to our own selves and becoming part of the 'body of Christ'; to forgive us and set us free from our sins; to reconcile Adam and Eve's children to their Father; to let love rule, by grace, rather than law; to make us heirs of God's eternal Kingdom and to show us the greatest love He could, for all ages to see.
So, in dying to ourselves, we grow in the life of Christ. This is what He needed to teach us.
Romans 6:5 - 14
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
What a mighty God we serve.
My :2c:
D.
:thumbsup:
...and the shedding of blood, I think, shows the utter seriousness of any way that differs with Him in any tiny way.. every speck of sin and imperfection can only ever result in death. (As nonlife and opposite of life.)
Quote from: jabcat on July 15, 2016, 02:48:57 AM
whichever point is right about that specific thing of God's view of sin (I know He doesn't like it, to put it mildy). But it's the other pieces I want to address. I agree Seth it was planned from the beginning. Also with you darryl about your point of accepting it as Christians. I think there are things God does that our human minds may not like, or even accept, but if it's scripturally sound then we're expected to believe it anyway - while yielding to His will not ours, not insisting things be as we wish them. That's regarding Christians, much less I do hear you on atheists. I think there's a challenge there - that we can't water down the gospel just to make it more palatable and "acceptable". It is what it is, and God must do the convicting and convincing - even if for the time being it is ridiculed, mocked, and rejected.
The cross wasn't pretty. The gospel is foolishness to those that are perishing. God gets the last word.
yes, He gets the last word..but isn't it written that God forgave those who were torturing and murdering Him as He hung on that cross ?...that's what I call unilateral forgiveness !. :dsunny: Luke 23:34 ►Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing".
There's good reason to believe even His worst enemies will ultimately find forgiveness in Him..and will not be cast off or perish forever.I guess that's why we are here on Tentmaker..to celebrate the blessed truth of UR. :dsunny:
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2016, 03:10:42 AM
Jabcat :iagree:
Darryl, yeah God could have done it any way he wanted. But as Jabcat said, we as Christians must accept the way God has it rather than what our sensibilities would have. Lean not on our own understanding.
yes..our understanding would have it that God hates and destroys His enemies because that is the human way...but He destroys them by ultimately making them His friends..isn't that something !. :dsunny:
Yep, Darryl.
And, that brings us back to UR. The image of Hell is one that destroys those who oppose you.....but, God doesn't want to destroy His children, but to bring them to Himself.
He wants them to give over their life, to Him, so that they might find their true life.
Luke 9:24
For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it.
D.
Quote from: marie glen on July 15, 2016, 05:06:49 PM
...and the shedding of blood, I think, shows the utter seriousness of any way that differs with Him in any tiny way.. every speck of sin and imperfection can only ever result in death. (As nonlife and opposite of life.)
I love that Marie ,
:iagree:
If flesh and blood does not inherit the kingdom of God , it does seem the shedding off of the blood [life in the blood ] would naturally cause the flesh to follow and rot / decay , see corruption ,
But JESUS CHRIST BEING THE SON OF MAN AND THE SON OF GOD did NOT SEE CORRUPTION / the rotting of flesh , but a glorified BODY !!
Jesus told us to follow Him in the same way , by the work of the cross , being the forgiveness of sin , that way
DEATH cannot have that hold on you ...
Hebrews 12 God Disciplines His Sons
3Consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. 4In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to
the point of shedding your blood. 5And you have forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons: "My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, or lose heart when
He rebukes you.... I am convinced mankind and those STILL held captive in Babylon still blames the devil for all this suffering in the flesh , but in all honesty
It is God chastening us , because JESUS CHRIST [WORD OF GOD ] AT THE CROSS BECOME THE MASTER/LORD OF THE DEAD AND LIVING and is
Now in power over the works of satan Hebrews 2:14
Therefore, since
the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity, so that
by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is, the devil, 1
5and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.... Think about that powerful truth , The WORD OF GOD judges us on the last day , setting us free from the grave /being hell , that is so mistranslated in the Bible as the dead sea sea gave up the dead
If Jesus Christ said it is FINISHED ON THE CROSS , THAT work is finished and judgment begins on destroying the works of satan /adversaries .
When reading the REVEALING OR REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST , WHEN GOD pours out the bowls of wrath and the works of Gods Spirit destroys BABYLON /CAPTIVES than that work is finished /complete .. the FATHER AND THE SON have destroyed satan's/adversaries power over the dead and the living in captivity !! by HIS WORD OF TRUTH AND SPIRIT OF TRUTH setting all HIS creation free !!
How can this be !!???
Rev 20 The Final Judgment
...12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne. And there were open books, and one of them was the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their deeds, as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead, and each one was judged according to his deeds. 14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death—the lake of fire....
BY HIM AND THOUGH HIM WERE ALL THINGS MADE AND NOTHING WAS MADE John 1 The Beginning
...2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4In Him was life, and that life was the light of men....
In the beginning was the LIGHT [ Word of / God /truth ] spoken into being , JESUS CHRIST COME / to destroy satan's/ADVERSARIES power and hold over death by HIS sacrifice / BODY /WORD OF LIFE by the SPIRIT OF LIFE in the beginning to the end , by the WORD OF GOD IN POWER by the SPIRIT OF LIFE IN POWER over all enemies of the cross and in Babylon ... spiritual pride holding mankind captive !
Though you be dead you
will live and those
living will never die John 11 24Martha replied, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 25Jesus said to her,
"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me will live, even though he dies. 26And everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"... WOW! If the WORD OF LIFE BY THE SPIRIT OF LIFE LIVES IN YOU death has no hold now or ever over you by the LOVE OF GOD completed ...
We hold on to this TRUTH as Babylon is falling and failing the test in time to be completed ... finished completed rev 15 Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and amazing, seven angels with seven plagues,
which are the last, for with them the wrath of God is finished. 1Cor 15
The Order of Resurrection
...27For "God has put everything under His feet." Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him.
28And when all things have been subjected to Him,
then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all. 29If these things are not so, what will those do who are baptized for the dead?
If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?...
A pattern is to me made in Jer 25 , the 70 years in Babylon is what holds mankind by the lie of death and captivity of Babylon , this is our whole mortal lives IN Adam all die in futility , unless Jesus comes and sets us free in the here and now , when the DAY is done ....it is 930 years in Adam and 70 years in Babylon , when DEATH is done reigning in that 1000 years total and DAY OF THE LORD complete , making HIS WORD TRUE AND ETERNAL and LIFE IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH BEGINS making all things new and alive in Him
One things for sure we will all know THE TRUTH , the knowledge part will cease , but the LOVE WILL NEVER CEASE TO BE ! :HeartThrob: