Why was the Atonement of Jesus Christ Necessary?

[Guest]

4 hours ago, ProDeo said:

First of all I specifically said: speculation, meaning that I don't make any claim. Having said that it's not a wild guess. It's based on the knowledge that the destination of the devil is the LOF (Lake of Fire). And so I asked myself the question why God did not sent the devil immediately into the LOF but allowed the devil to do so much harm and I realized that (IMO) that is an important question that (as far as I can tell) can not be answered from Scripture. Looking for answers the notion that satan was doing in what he excels -- accusing -- (Rev 12:10, the story of Job) God being unjust, unloving, unmerciful etc. is perhaps (emphasis added) the reason why God delayed his punishment to take away any doubt creatues might develop, or already had developed and proof to all His creatures His love, mercy, by the sacrifice of the most precious God has, His only begotten Son.

I also specifically said I was reasoning from the question why the need for Jesus, can God not forgive us without the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world? I think that's an important question too.

Well, I did say that your logic seemed to be internally consistent.  But I have a problem with "a certain level of speculation."  If your purpose was just to brainstorm, ok.  I can see that.  But Person0's question was really asking for a more solid answer than simple speculation.  So, that was the context of my comment.

I hope you don't take my comment personally.  But I can see how you did.  

It just seemed so far outside the norm of traditional Christian thinking (even LDS thinking) that I found it quite shocking to hear it offered up to the question at hand.

[Vort]

On 7/15/2017 at 0:48 PM, person0 said:

The fact that these laws are self-existent and eternal allow for a principle which is likely considered heretical to many Christian denominations; the idea that God could cease to be God.  Not that it ever would occur, but that it technically could happen.

As a Latter-day Saint, I would respond that I think this is a misreading of scripture. In several instances in the Book of Mormon and elsewhere, prophets build a sort of logical structure to demonstrate something or other. One logical structure they use is the age-old reductio ad absurdum, wherein a proposition is shown to lead inevitably to an obviously false, absurd conclusion, and is therefore itself false. The implication is not "God would stop being God under condition X", but rather "Look at how silly this proposition is!"

A couple of examples:

Alma 42:13, 22, 23, 25 "Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God...justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God. But God ceaseth not to be God...What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God."

Mormon 9:19 "And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles."

Note that in both cases, the scripture is not saying, "Here are the conditions under which God might stop being God." Rather, both are sayiing, "Thus-and such [the endurance of justice, the performance of miracles] is an eternal principle, and saying it is not leads to the absurd, self-annihilating idea that God would stop being God."

Don't mean to thread-jack; just thought that was worth pointing out.

[person0]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

As a Latter-day Saint, I would respond that I think this is a misreading of scripture.

I am not sure the thread jack is a problem at this point.  It does not appear many people are still trying to answer the original question.  Besides, if there is a perceived flaw in the original premise, it ought to be addressed eventually.  Anyway, while I might concede a more effective method of presenting the concept may exist, I most certainly do not consider my statement a misreading/misinterpretation of scripture.

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

The implication is not "God would stop being God under condition X", but rather "Look at how silly this proposition is!"

I appreciate what you are noting here, and I can easily see this interpretation coming out of Mormon 9:19 (In fact, one might speculate that Mormon got the idea for this phraseology from Alma and applied it to make his point).  I also can respect this position in the context of 2 Nephi 2 (which I also would say is technically correct even if impossible).  However, I think that when read in full context the example is a true example, regardless that it might also be a 'silly proposition'.  That is the impression I personally get from Alma's words.  In verses 1 and 2 he states:

Quote

And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand—which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery.  Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee. . .

Alma is explaining to his son the reason why sinners must be punished.  Why?  Because justice demands it.  He goes forward to explain that the atonement was necessary to fulfill justice and that if God did not use it to comply with justice, He would cease to be God.  I gain from Alma's writing that this would occur solely because God would be circumventing the requirements of justice by extending too much 'non-compliant' mercy.  Which to your point, is silly, because he wouldn't even be capable of accomplishing it; but to my point, he wouldn't be capable because by the time he actually attempted it he would immediately cease to be God.

I fully agree with your premise from one perspective, and that is that God would never try to do any of this because He knows in advance exactly what would happen.  So in that light, yes, it would be silly to consider such a proposition.  That said, even if we accept it as entirely correct to assess these verses in the context you have stipulated, I don't think it changes the fact that the example must flow both ways.  Yes it might be 'crazy' to consider, but it doesn't make it any less of a reality.  If God did those things he would in fact cease to be God.  If that aspect of what is taught in these verses were not true, then the whole example is completely invalidated, because the example would be itself like a nonpunishable law.  Alma in verse 17 says:

Quote

Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

I would also say that is equally true in reverse, how can there be a punishment without a law?  If 'God would cease to be God' is a claim Alma makes, that claim is based on a law.  One is law, one is punishment/effect of breaking the law, neither can exist without the other (hmm 2 Nephi 2 again ).

All of this must still be considered, in my mind, as a never occurring possibility.  It would pretty much be the least intelligent decision that could possibly ever be made throughout all eternity!  It will not happen, ever, only because of the nature of God.  Yet, that does not alter the fact that if God were to make the applicable choice(s), it is a technical possibility.

[ProDeo]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Well, I did say that your logic seemed to be internally consistent.  But I have a problem with "a certain level of speculation."  If your purpose was just to brainstorm, ok.  I can see that.  But Person0's question was really asking for a more solid answer than simple speculation.  So, that was the context of my comment.

I hope you don't take my comment personally.  But I can see how you did.  

It just seemed so far outside the norm of traditional Christian thinking (even LDS thinking) that I found it quite shocking to hear it offered up to the question at hand.

Okay, then let's do this in a different way. I asked 2 questions which IMO can not be answered from Scripture and I think both questions are related to the OP, the subject at hand.

[Q1] - why God did not sent the devil immediately into the LOF but allowed the devil to do so much harm?

[Q2] - why the need for Jesus, can God not just forgive us instead of sacrificing his own Son taking a lot of pain and suffering upon Himself?

Both decisions of God had a very deep impact so I am confident God had very good reasons for both of them.

Can you answer the questons?

[Larry Cotrell]

14 hours ago, person0 said:

Do you believe in the Pythagorean theorem?

 

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Gematriot.

I found an article on that (you can find anything on the internet). Here is the article. 

It says, "In Hebrew, I AM THAT I AM is written as  אהיה  אשר  אהיה  (Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh), which has a gematria value of 543. Moses, or in Hebrew משה (Moshe) has a gematria value of 345. The numbers 3, 4 and 5 constitute the first Pythagorean triple."

However, please note that I am not into Bible codes and gematria.

I just couldn't resist! 

Edited July 20, 2017 by Larry Cotrell

[Earl]

New member here

I am a non LDS in this forum community

I can give a view but

There are at least 4 versions of the Christian atonement doctrine in use today which means when a person who a believer of it may not have investigated which avenue he she is in.

Thus there are mixed interpretations and confusion as to which is and which is not accurate in the Christian community.

Because of this a believer might become offended when their belief on this subject is open to honest inquiry on this subject.

One topic to clarify on this is what is called sin transference.And a clear cut example is at Ezekiel  Ch.18 and the use of a belief he  called sour grapes and not to believe it no more.

From this the transfer of sin has been rooted for a very long time in our history and remains a belief today.

This comes partly from Moses teaching that man's iniquity will be visited in his third and fourth generations.

From this the saying ,in part ,there is this saying the world had become full of sin through continuous sin throughout the ages.

But consider that the Bible reads that God flooded the world because of sin was so great and he shortened man's life span because of it.

But the world of sin resurfaced again.

This statement is in no way complete.There are other matters of the atonement doctrine also, And from discussing this topic with Christians it is objectional  material to them.

Mainly ,because as I see it ,it is set in tradition.But also no one reads that Paul openly states in his letters he has no commandment from God.And he says "my gospel"

Paul's atonement doctrine and predestiny are his main principles of Christianity as I see them.

There is much debate when this tradition is brought up in forums because so many people see this doctrine in so many ways.

 

[person0]

17 minutes ago, Earl said:

There is much debate when this tradition is brought up in forums because so many people see this doctrine in so many ways.

This is absolutely true.  I think the real intent of my question is more along the lines of, 'why was it necessary for God to use the atonement of Christ to save us?'  I was hoping to garner different perspectives on this question.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, person0 said:

This is absolutely true.  I think the real intent of my question is more along the lines of, 'why was it necessary for God to use the atonement of Christ to save us?'  I was hoping to garner different perspectives on this question.

If you're looking for different questions, consider what other faiths think about their equivalent of "repentance".  Ask a Jew about repentance and it is pretty much what we say are the steps of repentance, but you just take any aspect of Christ's Atonement out of it -- obviously.  To others, it takes no higher power to change and grow and learn to be better. The higher power is only there to teach us what is right and what is wrong so we have a direction to move towards in our repentance/growth.

Then you have many view from sectarians which require the Atonement.  But nothing really "required" of actual change.

LDS theology combines the two and says that both are required.  While the eternal mechanism of forgiveness, justification, and sanctification are by Divine means only, the practical consideration is that in order to obtain such, we need to learn from our mistakes and grow from such learning.  In addition, the very means of learning from our mistakes requires Divine, guidance, strength, etc.

[Earl]

New member here

Hi PersonO

To clarify,

Are you asking for a different perspective to clarify it's truth or to 

for someone to demonstrate that it has flaws subjecting it to invalid reasoning .

I am very new here 

This topic is heavy doctrine and dense and ,and ,and.

[person0]

22 minutes ago, Earl said:

New member here

Hi PersonO

To clarify,

Are you asking for a different perspective to clarify it's truth or to 

for someone to demonstrate that it has flaws subjecting it to invalid reasoning .

I am very new here 

This topic is heavy doctrine and dense and ,and ,and.

I believe that most denominations do not adequately deal with answering the question of why God used the atonement of Jesus Christ as the means to bring about our salvation.  For example, my father, who is a Muslim, and also those of the Jewish faith (as @Carborendum noted) do not believe the atonement is necessary.  They believe God can forgive our sins without the need for a Savior to suffer and/or die for our sins.  I was trying to get different perspectives on this to see how other people approach this doctrine and how they answer it for themselves.

To me, it appears to be illogical that God would cause his Only Begotten Son to suffer and die for our sins, if there were any other way to accomplish our salvation.  As a result, I believe that there must not have been any other way to achieve it.  Why was there no other way to achieve it?  Obviously, I have my own thoughts about why, which I laid out in the original post, but was looking to gain the perspective of others, to see if anyone else has a method of understanding this that I can understand and that is logical to me.

[Earl]

Paul's atonement doctrine is based on sin entering the world through the first man Adam and  Adam's sin.Why Eve did not get into this mix is uncertain since she broke the garden rule first.

Ro.5.12-21 KJV Therefore human death followed for all who will be born after.And all men to condemnation.This belief is as I said earlier 'sin transferance".Where when one goes wrong all others are guilty and receive the same condemnation as the first.This is also based on the belief that the world was a perfect place up to when Adam sinned.And when he did it all no longer was.

And there is more and more and more.

 

Person0,here is a part of answering your question,

What Paul did not know , in recognition of his knowledge and works ,and in no way to belittle him,was that Adam was not the first man as he was taught and as others were taught and as people are taught today..

The Bible openly says Adam was the first man.It does but it can't prove it.It literally says he is but it can be disproved,using the Bible and nothing else to .

This itself breaks down the first human and the first human who sinned causing all mankind to need atonement through Jesus..

I have   a 5 page paper  I wrote in long hand detailing what the old Jewish historians did when oral  history finally was inked onto paper to cover up man's existence before Adam come on the scene..I keep copies to give away in my community.

In fact last week I gave this paper to two Mormon missionaries who I invited into my home twice and had good conversations with for over two hours.They are going to give me their feed back next time they are in my community.

I have  the  concrete proof .

Stating this comes with enormous criticism.Nothing new here.

Paul has lost his atonement  leg to stand on when there was man before Adam.

This statement may also displease supervision here ,don't know if this makes some uncomfortable.Will see

 

[ProDeo]

3 hours ago, Earl said:

I have   a 5 page paper  I wrote in long hand detailing what the old Jewish historians did when oral  history finally was inked onto paper to cover up man's existence before Adam come on the scene..I keep copies to give away in my community.

I am interested in your paper.

[ProDeo]

3 hours ago, Earl said:

Paul has lost his atonement  leg to stand on when there was man before Adam.

Not if you read the Fall story in Gen 3 as an event in Heaven or Paradise where eternal beings lived in direct communication with God. On a bad day these eternal creatures were tempted by the (fallen) devil and a great part of them were lured into his rebellion. As a result God banned those creates from Paradise to..... Earth. And we are here to learn about good and evil, what one act of disobedience may cause and to find our way back to heaven through Christ. Christ being the Husband willing to give His life for His adulterous bride.

[person0]

4 hours ago, Earl said:

Where when one goes wrong all others are guilty and receive the same condemnation as the first.

LDS doctrine would disagree on this point somewhat from traditional Christianity.  To us there is no such thing as 'sin transference' or as I presume most would call it, 'original sin'.  Instead, we accept that the effects of Adam's fall would come to mankind, but not the transgression itself.  The effects of the fall being separation from the presence of God (spiritual death) and mortality (physical death).

4 hours ago, Earl said:

What Paul did not know , in recognition of his knowledge and works ,and in no way to belittle him,was that Adam was not the first man as he was taught and as others were taught and as people are taught today..

In the LDS paradigm, the idea that Adam was not the first man is inconsistent with our doctrine and our scriptures.  In addition to the Bible, in book we have called the Pearl of Great Price we read of God saying:

Quote

And the first man of all men have I called Adam
(Moses 1:34)

4 hours ago, Earl said:

This statement may also displease supervision here ,don't know if this makes some uncomfortable.Will see

Presenting your ideas in a non-confrontational way generally will not result in any form of censure, even if they may be unusual to others.

I am curious about your evidence regarding your belief about Adam not being the first man, and the paper you have written.  That said, recognize that members of the forum (myself included) will probably point out doctrinal differences and other observations.  With that in mind, if you wish to share it please do, as this sub-forum is intended for the discussion of Christian beliefs of other denominations.

Also, perhaps you will address it in another upcoming post, but at this point, I fail to see how whether or not Adam was the first man would help answer the question of "why did God have to use the atonement of Jesus Christ to save us?"

Edited March 24, 2018 by person0

[Earl]

After reading what Paul has written .

He could not reason out why Jesus died on the cross considering his power and authority that he could at any time come down from the cross.

He apparently believed there was a spiritual meaning attached to this event since he remained on the cross .

Throughout Jewish history animal sacrificing was the norm for atonement for a man's sin .

In Heb.ch 10 Paul says animal sacrifices were not good enough and God was not pleased so a greater once and for all human sacrifice,as it reads, was prepared to please God.

In that day it was normal to think God was both good and evil,God having anger emotions so much that animal and  a human death was an accepted method to please God.

Human sacrificing was nothing new .Paul was  a Roman citizen from Tarsus and the Mithric cult flourished there.

The atonement doctrine is a belief based on the belief that God desired a human death to atone for a world of sin.

Today people scratch their heads in disbelief of God acting in such a manner  that he required a human sacrifice.

when It is unGodlly by today's standard to think or believe God would require such a malicious act 

Even Moses 10 commandments say thou shalt not kill.

Does God have a license plate saying exempt from his own commandment? No

Does God act above his own law he established ?No

Above all else man stands alone at judgement .His sins are on display.None of his sins are pre exempt and none are sin transferred to another.

And  the atonement doctrine is in total conflict with's the loving nature of God

Why would require the death of a sinless human?He did't but men of Earth did..

 

 

[Earl]

From all of this Paul was the main character in establishing Christianity.Without him Christianity may have failed.

And He did by his reasoning stop once and for all sacrificing of animals or humans.

 

[Earl]

Is there such a thing as doing evil for a good reason? No

Or God by proxy for the same?No

[person0]

11 hours ago, Earl said:

Why would require the death of a sinless human?He did't but men of Earth did..

To me it sounds like you are saying that for God, it was not necessary for Jesus Christ to fulfill the atonement; and that God the Father could have saved us even if Christ did not die and resurrect himself; and that Mankind required the death of Christ on their own, although in actuality it was an unnecessary sacrifice.  Am I interpreting your words correctly?

[Earl]

God sent his son that people will believe on him .Those that were taking part in killing Jesus did it independently of any Godly influence.God did not send his son to die on a cross.God did not make that happen, men  did.

If it were true that God did send his son to die on the cross consider how many evil people God influenced to kill an innocent man..That would make your God and my God more evil than Satan.Would it not?Man did not need God's help to kill Jesus.(As a side note the Jews did say they was doing God a favor )

There was no atonement There was no sacrifice.Paul created an atonement belief because he could not understand why Jesus did not come down from the cross.

Saved us? Saved us from what?

It is a common belief that an atonement must take place so that man can have salvation.

Have you read in the OT where a man prayed to God asking him not to remove his name from the book?

So I understand that no person was ever from the beginning ,,then and now was ever denied access to salvation because of a  required human sacrifice of a sinless man was needed to sooth the attitude of God all because of the first man's sin transference, Adam's sin ,and whom was not the first man alive.

 

[Earl]

On Salvation

Who so ever believeth upon him will have eternal life. Spiritually speaking that is as God as it gets.

[person0]

1 hour ago, Earl said:

On Salvation

Who so ever believeth upon him will have eternal life. Spiritually speaking that is as God as it gets.

Once again, to make sure I am understanding your belief correctly, I will repeat what I understood.  The Atonement of Jesus Christ was a theory developed by Paul, because he was unable to understand why Jesus would not save himself from the cross.  However, there is no such thing as the atonement, but in reality, the only requirement to gain salvation and eternal life is to believe in Jesus Christ.  Is this correct regarding what you believe?

If that is correct, I have another question for you in relation to the original purpose of this thread.  In your opinion why do we need to believe in Jesus Christ to have eternal life?  Why doesn't God just save everyone, regardless?

[Earl]

Jesus came here to give a revelation of his Father..A revelation like no other.He was killed for doing it because :

Jesus said

i and my Father are one

If you see me you have seen the Father

I go back to my Father's side and sit t at his right hand 

There is more on this

And

 

Moses taught there was no one beside God and no one equal to God.

At that time there was no son of God being taught

Monoetheism was the standard belief in that day.

Jesus  has a devil in him to heal

To the Jews this was blasphemy to the max

And there is more

Again, without quoting,

Jesus came here to give us a revelation of the Father .One like never before.

Jesus said I come to do the will of the Father

The Father is in me 

I come to reveal the Father

I do the works of the Father who sent me .

Believe on him that sent me

If you believe me then you believe the one who sent me

Jesus prayed to the Father saying I have finished the work you have given me to do

Jesus demonstrated the way to eternal life in that he taught how 

He taught that faith is the key and after that one must do something 

 

And ,without disecting  the Trinity or the Godhead

Spiritually speaking

If we do not believe in Jesus one cannot believe in the one who sent him

We need to believe in Jesus because he and God are one and the same and God gives salvation and eternal life to those who ask

As Jesus forgave sin on Earth to men God equally does to any who are sincere

It is my understanding God does not give eternal life to all people,Paul states there is a judgement of the just and unjust.

Jo.3.16 For God so loved the world he sent his only begotten so so that whosoever believeth on him shall have eternal life (and believing will cause faith and will make one do God's will)

For all practical purposes and intent Jesus is God and he walked on Earth .

 

And a person ,above all else ,must have faith to be saved.( but without a relationship with God the soul is empty)( which means one must have to do the will of the Father)( which means one can say I know God but has nothing to show for it)

On the subject of new revelation Jesus taught

New revelation will always conflict with traditional beliefs

As LDS is waiting for the "greater part" I believe it will not come without conflict with the old part.Jesus ,with his new revelation to man, was killed doing it.

Rev.2.17 As the hidden manna surfaces so will conflict with the old

 

[Earl]

PersonO

Instead of a yes or no answer I am making these answers long so that my answers are Biblically supported  or with valid reasoning.

 

[Earl]

Another interesting bit of information

Why am I saying that Paul  atatched a spiritual meaning to why Jesus did not come down from the cross?

During the hours Jesus was on the cross his accusers shouted "you can save others but you can't save yourself".

So the question that Jesus's followers were thinking is why did Jesus not save himself?The Jews disowned Jesus so the Abraham sacrifice of Iassic was not compatable so what is left is Mithric influence.There are some shared beliefs between Christianity and Mithraism.The most major difference that dried up Mithraism is it excluded women where Christianity invited women into the religion.

Then Paul ,a man who never met Jesus,comes up with his reasoning.Note the apostles that Jesus trained and who lived with him did not write of Paul's atonement doctrine.

 

[person0]

4 hours ago, Earl said:

Instead of a yes or no answer I am making these answers long so that my answers are Biblically supported  or with valid reasoning.

Okay.  It is completely reasonable and acceptable to do that.  However, I am not sure you are understanding the question.  I am aware the scriptures are clear that we must have faith in Jesus Christ in order to be saved, but that is not what I am asking.  I am asking, why do God and/or Jesus require such a thing?  Why doesn't God just save everyone, regardless of how much they sin, and regardless of who or what they believe in?  Just because the scriptures tell us that that is what is required, it still does not answer to know why is it required.  Sin separates us from God, okay, but why does it separate us from God?  Etc, etc.  Does that explain the original question a little bit better?