The atoning blood of Christ in His passion

Myrrh · Post by **Myrrh** » Thu 4 January 2007 7:16 pm

The theory of substitutionary atonement is particularly Western, sorry, that a fact. It relates to a particular idea of God which we don't have.

Augustine created a specific God out of various Gnostic type ideas and a misreading of Paul and Genesis II and so on. This God is no more our God than the Mayan God who required sacrifice of a heart ripped from a living body in order for the sun to rise the next day. Fine, we can say that Christ is the solution to both of these beliefs, in the first freedom for those who believe in Original Sin and a juridical relationship with God who damned all creation to being born in eternal damnation (every mortal sin damning the person to hell again) and which teaches that nature is sinful, and in the second Christ is the final sacrifice and no further victims necessary - But. But, this is not our God. And while Christ frees all from their delusions the final freedom is the freedom He gives us in a God who is always merciful, always forgiving, because our God is LOVE, and is the Good.

A good God does not require sacrifice (Isaiah), a good God does not condemn us to damnation for every sin ("neither do I condemn you, go sin no more).

We can use the same words, salvation/condemnation/justification and so on, but we relate to them in a different way from those who have a doctrine about God that is not ours as Christ taught.

This is in the fullness of truth that Christ gives us because we know Him as the Son sent by God because God so loved the world, for everyone.

There came a tendency in the early Church to promote Christianity as separated from Judaism, rather a lot got thrown out with this and very much so by Augustine who read into Paul what Paul didn't teach. Paul taught that salvation is available for everyone, he's talking about Gentiles v Jews, because God has created us with the law written in our hearts and our own conscience convicts us and all will be judged at the end according to this.

Myrrh

Pensees · Post by **Pensees** » Thu 4 January 2007 8:15 pm

Myrrh wrote:
The theory of substitutionary atonement is particularly Western, sorry, that a fact. It relates to a particular idea of God which we don't have.

You appear as if you haven't read Scripture. Without blood sacrifice, there is no remission of sin. Period.

Hbr 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Leviticus 17:11
Since the life of a living body is in its blood, I have made you put it on the altar, so that atonement may thereby be made for your own lives, because it is the blood, as the seat of life, that makes atonement.

Mat 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mat 20:28
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Orthodoxy is not found in misinterpreting Scripture out of an anti-Western bias that verges on tomfoolery. Without shedding of blood is no remission means without shedding of blood is no remission.

To quote the Orthodox Study Bible, "Hebrews moves back to the sacrificial act of the Day of Atonement (from vv.11-14). The blood sprinkled here brings the life of the covenantal people into God's presence: it reconciled God and man. The final reconciliation, the eternal one, is the presentation of Christ's sacrificial blood (12:24) to God in heaven."

In speaking of Matthew's Gospel, "The Old Covenant was sealed by the blood of bulls and goats. The new is sealed by the gift of Christ who shed His own blood. (vs. 28 ) to reconcile us with God and reunite us to Himself. He calls it the blood of the new covenant, that is, God's promise, the new Law. By new He means we now have immortal and incorruptible Life."
(emphasis mine)

Peace.

Myrrh · Post by **Myrrh** » Fri 5 January 2007 8:17 pm

Not all sin offerings required blood.

Orthodox do not teach "substitutionary atonement" as taught in the West , which came out of Augustine's doctrines.

He did what many do to prove their Christian 'theory', look for any Bible verses that appear to be relevant and so on.

The Western idea of substitutionary atonement posits a God who was so infinitely offended by Adam's sin that he damned everyone born from Adam to the lesser creation of mortality and substitutionary atonement posits that this God required a perfect sacrifice to atone for this sin and bring humanity back into his grace. Without getting sidetracked into discussing OS, this is not the God which Christ taught. As for those who believed that God required blood atonement for sin, it is a view of God which Christ satisfies, but if one doesn't have such a view of God then Christ's death as atonement for sins is irrelevant. If this had been the reason why Christ was crucified then Passover was the wrong time to have done this. Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement, the one day of year when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies and the sins of all the Jewish nation were forgiven. Christ is the Passover Lamb, not a sin offering as such. Isaiah - God does not require sacrifice. Not the human sacrifice of Issac, nor animal sacrifice. God requires a contrite heart and is ever merciful, etc...

As the Passover Lamb given by God as the mark of His protection Christ can be viewed as a sacrifice of course, for this we continue to remember in the bloodless sacrifice we offer as He taught, but it is limiting Christ's incarnation to focus on one particular belief that His crucifixion was a sin offering because this is simply not applicable at Passover.

Myrrh

Pensees · Post by **Pensees** » Sat 6 January 2007 2:13 am

Myrrh wrote:
As for those who believed that God required blood atonement for sin, it is a view of God which Christ satisfies, but if one doesn't have such a view of God then Christ's death as atonement for sins is irrelevant.

Irrelevant perhaps if you do not have a Biblical understanding of Christian theology.

Myrrh · Post by **Myrrh** » Sat 6 January 2007 7:34 am

Pensees wrote:
Myrrh wrote:
As for those who believed that God required blood atonement for sin, it is a view of God which Christ satisfies, but if one doesn't have such a view of God then Christ's death as atonement for sins is irrelevant.

Irrelevant perhaps if you do not have a Biblical understanding of Christian theology.

Not at all. If one doesn't believe God requires blood sacrifice of some poor creature or a scapegoat to absolve one from sins it's hardly in one's interest to acquire belief in such a God, and if this is somehow a pre-requisite for accepting Christ than Christ is irrelevant to such a person..

Pensees · Post by **Pensees** » Sun 7 January 2007 1:06 am

Myrrh wrote:
Pensees wrote:
Myrrh wrote:
As for those who believed that God required blood atonement for sin, it is a view of God which Christ satisfies, but if one doesn't have such a view of God then Christ's death as atonement for sins is irrelevant.

Irrelevant perhaps if you do not have a Biblical understanding of Christian theology.

Not at all. If one doesn't believe God requires blood sacrifice of some poor creature or a scapegoat to absolve one from sins it's hardly in one's interest to acquire belief in such a God, and if this is somehow a pre-requisite for accepting Christ than Christ is irrelevant to such a person..

I've already provided you Scripture and commentary from the Orthodox Study Bible. If you have an objection to the clear evidence which I have provided, I'd hope that you have evidence of your own to provide. Otherwise, your opinions are mindless chatter.

尼古拉前执事 · Sun 7 January 2007 1:25 am

Pensees wrote:
your opinions are mindless chatter.

Matthew, argue ideas, do not attack people. To do so is a violation of the rules. Likewise it is a violation of the spirit of the day, The Feast of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, or if you prefer, "Christmas".