The Meaning of Atonement


Grunt

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, brlenox said:

It was his law breached and only he can allow any deviations to how his judgement will be administered.

The only other area where I see us differing is that I believe that justice and mercy are self existing, and while they emanate from the Father, they do not originate with Him.  I had actually made a post about that a while back.

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, hes quoting a known psalm so that they will know it is the prophesied Christ. Imagine that.

Rob - It seems to me that you are hung on a particular verse of ambiguous implications.  A spirit is directing your understanding and that is the sole witness you have to your interpretation.  Out of Thousands of General authorities, including a great many apostles and several presidents of the church and  I cannot find even one that makes for the interpretation that you have.  However, I can find a good number that understand that moment in Christ's life the same as I do - that His Father withdrew for a moment and then returned.  That means that these individuals were all able to get a common spirit of guidance which taught them all the same.  However, you have not been able to get the same spirit of guidance that they have as a whole acquired.

This is not the only subject where you are a singular interpretation of meaning.  The spirit that is teaching you is not the spirit of the prophets and the apostles.  Your goal and objective is to get the same spirit of the apostles and prophets and then the law of witnesses kicks in.  You learn from the spirit and then to confirm proper origin of your spiritual guidance you will find that you have acquired the same spirit  that has instructed the apostles and prophets of the Lord.  Now having a witness in the words of those whom the Lord has specifically placed, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God," then you know you are matching the pattern of the Lord of confirming at least two distinct legitimate sources as witnesses of the truth. In this instance there are scriptures that speak also to this very subject - some that are not as ambiguous as the one you prefer. You can easily see potential for a full three witnesses that Jesus trod the wine press alone.

As long as it is apparent that you are ignoring the apostles and prophets, what can we do but hope you will find a better spirit to guide you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Rob - It seems to me that you are hung on a particular verse of ambiguous implications.  A spirit is directing your understanding and that is the sole witness you have to your interpretation.  Out of Thousands of General authorities, including a great many apostles and several presidents of the church and  I cannot find even one that makes for the interpretation that you have.  However, I can find a good number that understand that moment in Christ's life the same as I do - that His Father withdrew for a moment and then returned.  That means that these individuals were all able to get a common spirit of guidance which taught them all the same.  However, you have not been able to get the same spirit of guidance that they have as a whole acquired.

This is not the only subject where you are a singular interpretation of meaning.  The spirit that is teaching you is not the spirit of the prophets and the apostles.  Your goal and objective is to get the same spirit of the apostles and prophets and then the law of witnesses kicks in.  You learn from the spirit and then to confirm proper origin of your spiritual guidance you will find that you have acquired the same spirit  that has instructed the apostles and prophets of the Lord.  Now having a witness in the words of those whom the Lord has specifically placed, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God," then you know you are matching the pattern of the Lord of confirming at least two distinct legitimate sources as witnesses of the truth. In this instance there are scriptures that speak also to this very subject - some that are not as ambiguous as the one you prefer. You can easily see potential for a full three witnesses that Jesus trod the wine press alone.

As long as it is apparent that you are ignoring the apostles and prophets, what can we do but hope you will find a better spirit to guide you.  

I do not like the tone you judge me with nor the judgement you make with me supposedly thinking I am led by a false spirit. I am a witness of Jesus the Christ. The witness I have is that Christ never doubted, never questioned the Father. Do you not believe the scriptures when Christ is speaking of being lifted up on the cross and telling the Pharisees that the Father will not ever leave him alone?

28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
            29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, brlenox said:

If an infinite being is willing to pay the price to mend an broken law and that price is a process of suffering which justice demands must be addressed then Christ garners privilege.  Observe how he appeals to the Father for the right to forgive sins.  He cites what has earned him the privilege of making this request first. 

"The sufferings and death of him who did no sin"  are condition's of consideration for his request of the Father.  So the Father, just as President Eyring states, recognizes the suffering and also knows that justice demands that undeserved suffering be recompensed, and on these grounds extends the right to forgive the sins of mankind upon conditions.  Thus you are forgiven and it is as simple as that, if you meet the conditions for forgiveness of your sins.

The theme is found several times in scripture:

 

 

I am convinced that there are principles and elements of the atonement that are yet to be revealed and understood.  I am convinced that when these things are known that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is the Christ.  Perhaps even @Rob Osborn will recognize the full (complete and perfect) extent of Christ’s unique suffering and complete (infinite) condescension of divine stature.   I am of the opinion that none of us will fully appreciate his personal sacrifice until we pass the portals of death and ourselves see clearly the awful abyss of Hell and know the full extent of what we are saved from.

In a response to @person0 I pointed out a portion of the damage of sin.  Most realize that no unclean thing can endure the presents of the Father.  The as our advocate with the Father Jesus makes clean the demands of justice.  This Jesus did for all the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve so that all may stand in the presents of the Father at the day of “final judgement”.  One principle of sin that we do not talk much about is that we must forsake all sin and forgive ourselves of our transgressions.  This is the one task that Christ could not do for us.  It is called repentance.  Not a sorrow for sin but a forsaking of sin – and that must be done by each and every individual before they are free themselves from the clutches of sin.  I believe this is why there is a Telestial and Terrestrial Kingdom.  I do not believe we can or will forsake our sins and forgive ourselves until we realize that each and every sin has been fully redeemed and has no more claim upon us or those we have offended.

Thus, there are two parts one part is to release and forgive all those that have transgressed against us and the other part is to release and forgive ourselves for the transgressions we have against others.  I personally struggle most with the second than the first.  But both come from understanding that the atoning sacrifice of Christ is complete and covers all transgressions against us and all transgressions that we have allowed inflict our thoughts and actions.

Thank you for your input and kind discussion.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

So, do you believe Christ, in moment of greatest anguish is questioning the Father or had doubts?

The asking of "why" is not the same as expressing doubts.  I know you can't see that.  You never see anything but your own interpretation, regardless of how many others can see different interpretations, and regardless of linguistic reality.  But the record deserved to have verb tense pointed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zil said:

The asking of "why" is not the same as expressing doubts.  I know you can't see that.  You never see anything but your own interpretation, regardless of how many others can see different interpretations, and regardless of linguistic reality.  But the record deserved to have verb tense pointed out.

Okay, so then, do you believe Christ wasnt honest in saying that during the atonement the Father would be with him?

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, zil said:

Present tense.  Not future tense.

I am betting that Christ is speaking in an eternal sense here about the principle involved. In the next verse it says he had already overcome the world but yet the atonement had not yet taken place. Many instances Christ speaks in an eternal sense even though it had yet to come.

You still have to explain why you believe the Father removed his presence from Christ when Christ says 

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

What do you think Christ means when he says "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I do not like the tone you judge me with nor the judgement you make with me supposedly thinking I am led by a false spirit. I am a witness of Jesus the Christ. The witness I have is that Christ never doubted, never questioned the Father. Do you not believe the scriptures when Christ is speaking of being lifted up on the cross and telling the Pharisees that the Father will not ever leave him alone?

28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
            29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him

It is not a tone that I intend and I apologize if you took one. I am simply being candid and speaking to a pattern.  The pattern is that consistently and near exclusively if you have a private interpretation that differs with the words of the prophets - they are wrong and you are right.  Once maybe twice would be one thing but every single time implies a message to us who observe this pattern.

As far as a spirit, we all have them constantly trying to lead us astray.  Some of us have adopted protective behaviors that are designed to limit the risk that we will be led astray.  Others and this is increasingly common have placed an unnatural priority of a single witness while ignoring direct and obvious conflict with the witnesses of the Lord.

As to your verse, I do not want to indicate that it is a slam dunk of what it implies, if you could provide even one other witness that sees this as you do then I would at least be interested.  However I give you a quote from Elder Holland who puts your verse back into context and recognizes a situation differently than you do. Please note:

 

Quote

 

Now I speak very carefully, even reverently, of what may have been the most difficult moment in all of this solitary journey to Atonement. I speak of those final moments for which Jesus must have been prepared intellectually and physically but which He may not have fully anticipated emotionally and spiritually—that concluding descent into the paralyzing despair of divine withdrawal when He cries in ultimate loneliness, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”16  Matthew 27:46 emphasis added.]

The loss of mortal support He had anticipated, but apparently He had not comprehended this. Had He not said to His disciples, “Behold, the hour … is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me” and “The Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him”?(None Were with Him Elder Jeffrey R. Holland)

 

In context, as Elder Holland observes, it seems that prior to the actual crucifixion Christ has a sense of what is going to be the circumstances of those moments during his crucifixion and it appears that Christ was speaking to the conditions that has always prevailed in his life and that his Father had always been with him.  Elder Holland sees your verses as indicating that Christ was surprised by the withdrawal of His Father. For myself, I find I am drawn to the words of Elder Holland ahead of your interpretation. It seems to fit with the sheer anguish of his voice when he states Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani.  He is shocked and surprised that this moment has found him without his Fathers presence, a state and condition that has never occurred before this moment.  Now in my mind for you there is only one path, Elder Holland has provided insight on this set of verses.  If you believe Christ, that he will provide apostles and prophets for the edifying of the body of Christ ... "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine," then at some point you must realize that it is inconsistent to say you believe him but not that he will do as he said. Yours is another wind of doctrine and differs from a multitude of legitimate sources. 

I'm just thinking that at some point you are going to have to acknowledge that you consider your source of inspiration as better than the prophets and apostles and then you are going to look yourself in the mirror and state "that ain't right".

 

Edited by brlenox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Okay, so then, do you believe Christ wasnt honest in saying that during the atonement the Father would be with him?

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

Do you think he wasn't honest when he said he wasn't with him? Eloi Eloi Lama sabachthani.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You still have to explain why you believe the Father removed his presence from Christ when Christ says 

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

What do you think Christ means when he says "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

To what end?  It's already been explained.  You reject the explanation (anyone with experience knew that would happen).  The sky could split open in front of you, a chorus of angels could announce the coming of God, who could then appear and tell you the meaning of this verse, and you'd declare him a false spirit if he disagrees with you - that's how stubborn I perceive your personal opinions to be.

Christ was surprised.  He wanted to know why this happened.  Wanting to know why something happened is not doubt.  Doubt is skepticism, willful rejection of an idea as being unbelievable without more convincing evidence - there is no skepticism here, only a desire for understanding.  I also suspect this was a way of saying "please come back" or "please don't leave me alone".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Do you think he wasn't honest when he said he wasn't with him? Eloi Eloi Lama sabachthani.

PS: If the only point of this utterance was to prove through repetition of a psalm-prophecy that Christ was the prophesied Messiah, why not have the psalm-prophecy predict that Christ would say something true, instead of something false - it's not like God couldn't predict these things and ensure His Son had a completely true utterance to recite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zil said:

PS: If the only point of this utterance was to prove through repetition of a psalm-prophecy that Christ was the prophesied Messiah, why not have the psalm-prophecy predict that Christ would say something true, instead of something false - it's not like God couldn't predict these things and ensure His Son had a completely true utterance to recite.

My apologies but somehow I am not sure I am understanding your point here.  Would you please elaborate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, brlenox said:

It is not a tone that I intend and I apologize if you took one. I am simply being candid and speaking to a pattern.  The pattern is that consistently and near exclusively if you have a private interpretation that differs with the words of the prophets - they are wrong and you are right.  Once maybe twice would be one thing but every single time implies a message to us who observe this pattern.

As far as a spirit, we all have them constantly trying to lead us astray.  Some of us have adopted protective behaviors that are designed to limit the risk that we will be led astray.  Others and this is increasingly common have placed an unnatural priority of a single witness while ignoring direct and obvious conflict with the witnesses of the Lord.

As to your verse, I do not want to indicate that it is a slam dunk of what it implies, if you could provide even one other witness that sees this as you do then I would at least be interested.  However I give you a quote from Elder Holland who puts your verse back into context and recognizes a situation differently than you do. Please note:

 

In context, as Elder Holland observes, it seems that prior to the actual crucifixion Christ has a sense of what is going to be the circumstances of those moments during his crucifixion and it appears that Christ was speaking to the conditions that has always prevailed in his life and that his Father had always been with him.  Elder Holland sees your verses as indicating that Christ was surprised by the withdrawal of His Father. For myself, I find I am drawn to the words of Elder Holland ahead of your interpretation. It seems to fit with the sheer anguish of his voice when he states Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani.  He is shocked and surprised that this moment as found him without his Fathers presence, a state and condition that has never occurred before this moment.  Now in my mind for you there is only one path, Elder Holland has provided insight on this set of verses.  If you believe Christ, that he will provide apostles and prophets for the edifying of the body of Christ ... "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine," then at some point you must realize that it is inconsistent to say you believe him but not that he will do as he said. Yours is another wind of doctrine and differs from a multitude of legitimate sources. 

I'm just thinking that at some point you are going to have to acknowledge that you consider your source of inspiration as better than the prophets and apostles and then you are going to look yourself in the mirror and state "that ain't right".

 

I dont know how else to say it nicely but its his interpretation and quite frankly, hes entitled to believe it but I believe its wrong. And I do so in context that perhaps he is not understanding that Christ is reciting Davids song as now recorded in Psalms 22. In that Psalm David explains that the Father has or never will forsake the Son. Not only that but in his most dire pain on the cross the Father is near Christ to bear him up and hear his voice and help him. Thats the message of Psalms 22- that even though it may appear the Father isnt near us in our most dire struggles in fact that is when he is most near and does help and does hear our cry and does bear us up and help us.

To otherwise believe Christ had actually doubted, even for a small instance, on the cross would have made the atonement null and void as it would have been Satan he was believing because it is Satan who is the author of doubt. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, zil said:

To what end?  It's already been explained.  You reject the explanation (anyone with experience knew that would happen).  The sky could split open in front of you, a chorus of angels could announce the coming of God, who could then appear and tell you the meaning of this verse, and you'd declare him a false spirit if he disagrees with you - that's how stubborn I perceive your personal opinions to be.

Christ was surprised.  He wanted to know why this happened.  Wanting to know why something happened is not doubt.  Doubt is skepticism, willful rejection of an idea as being unbelievable without more convincing evidence - there is no skepticism here, only a desire for understanding.  I also suspect this was a way of saying "please come back" or "please don't leave me alone".

Christ was surprised when the Father withdrew his presence from him? Is this what you are saying? It almost appears that under scrutiny, in fear that Christ nay have been doubting that yoy are changing your tune. Is it because we no that Christ, in order to be perfect cannot doubt nor lack faith in God in all things? Its for this very reason I reject this notion of Christ questioning the Father. That is certainly not what Christ meant on the cross. Christ had perfect faith, never doubting, not even in the ever so slightest of degrees!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, brlenox said:

My apologies but somehow I am not sure I am understanding your point here.  Would you please elaborate?

Rob asserted that the only reason Christ said these words was to fulfill prophecy as found in Psalm 22, and that it was not because the Father had withdrawn His presence.  If that were the only reason for Christ to say these words - if the sole purpose was to recite Psalm 22, as predicted, then the very Being who inspired Psalm 22 could have inspired other words, words which would could be both recited and true.  Of course, you and I know that the words are true, that the Father did withdraw his presence from the Son.  Rob contends that Christ recited the words without meaning them - that a later verse in the Psalm declares that even though Christ made this cry, the words themselves didn't describe reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Christ was surprised when the Father withdrew his presence from him? Is this what you are saying? It almost appears that under scrutiny, in fear that Christ nay have been doubting that yoy are changing your tune. Is it because we no that Christ, in order to be perfect cannot doubt nor lack faith in God in all things? Its for this very reason I reject this notion of Christ questioning the Father. That is certainly not what Christ meant on the cross. Christ had perfect faith, never doubting, not even in the ever so slightest of degrees!

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont know how else to say it nicely but its his interpretation and quite frankly, hes entitled to believe it but I believe its wrong. And I do so in context that perhaps he is not understanding that Christ is reciting Davids song as now recorded in Psalms 22. In that Psalm David explains that the Father has or never will forsake the Son. Not only that but in his most dire pain on the cross the Father is near Christ to bear him up and hear his voice and help him. Thats the message of Psalms 22- that even though it may appear the Father isnt near us in our most dire struggles in fact that is when he is most near and does help and does hear our cry and does bear us up and help us.

To otherwise believe Christ had actually doubted, even for a small instance, on the cross would have made the atonement null and void as it would have been Satan he was believing because it is Satan who is the author of doubt. 

 

You are conflating doubt with recognition of fact.  What about Christ's statements on the Cross can be construed to be expressing doubt? If you were to cite Elder Bednar and his take on these kind of experiences I might at least give way that perhaps this might apply to Christ in similar fashion as Elder Bednar describes it happening to us.  Please note the underlined portion:

The natural man and the natural woman says, "There is no way I'm taking this step. There's no way I'm moving into the darkness until the light moves and I can see where I'm going." The requirement is that we take this step anticipating that when our foot hits the ground, the light will move.

Now, the first time we do that, it's not doubt. But there's a little bit of uncertainty, even a little bit of apprehension, which is quite normal. So it works almost like a helix, where we take that first step based on the substance of things hoped for. There comes the evidence of things not seen. It's not a perfect cycle that's never interrupted or that is totally smooth, but line upon line, that increases incrementally and gradually. (David A. Bednar, Unity in Diversity, Transcript from comment from link 08/28/2017 retrieved from ( https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2016-03-0019-being-an-agent-to-act?lang=eng )  Brilliant very short little talk by the way...

 Now, I am not saying that Christ would feel apprehension like you or I might, but it is within the realm of possibility that it might be something like Elder Bednar describes. Thus not doubt as you are characterizing it but perhaps more as apprehension. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, zil said:

PS: If the only point of this utterance was to prove through repetition of a psalm-prophecy that Christ was the prophesied Messiah, why not have the psalm-prophecy predict that Christ would say something true, instead of something false - it's not like God couldn't predict these things and ensure His Son had a completely true utterance to recite.

Try googling about how Christ and prophets contempirary with him would cite the first and last line of scripture to bring into remebrance what doctrine or scriptute reference they are referring to. They did not have verses and chapter separatiins like we currently do. It was thus common to recite the first or/ and last to bring into remebrance noted prophesy and scripture. Jesus thus gives the first and last part of Psalms 22 on the cross to testify he is the very Savior David prophesied about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Try googling about how Christ and prophets contempirary with him would cite the first and last line of scripture to bring into remebrance what doctrine or scriptute reference they are referring to. They did not have verses and chapter separatiins like we currently do. It was thus common to recite the first or/ and last to bring into remebrance noted prophesy and scripture. Jesus thus gives the first and last part of Psalms 22 on the cross to testify he is the very Savior David prophesied about.

No one is arguing that.  That is all well-known.  The contention is your interpretation that the words of the first line were mere recitation and not a true expression of something which really happened.  Bruce R. McConkie, in The Promised Messiah explains a shift from the cross to the millennium, around verse 22 - which seems like a fairly obvious shift (between v21 and 22) to me.  But if you have rejected Elder Holland, you will reject Elder McConkie as well and for us to keep citing prophets who disagree with you would just be to heap further condemnation on you as you reject them, so I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, brlenox said:

You are conflating doubt with recognition of fact.  What about Christ's statements on the Cross can be construed to be expressing doubt? If you were to cite Elder Bednar and his take on these kind of experiences I might at least give way that perhaps this might apply to Christ in similar fashion as Elder Bednar describes it happening to us.  Please note the underlined portion:

The natural man and the natural woman says, "There is no way I'm taking this step. There's no way I'm moving into the darkness until the light moves and I can see where I'm going." The requirement is that we take this step anticipating that when our foot hits the ground, the light will move.

Now, the first time we do that, it's not doubt. But there's a little bit of uncertainty, even a little bit of apprehension, which is quite normal. So it works almost like a helix, where we take that first step based on the substance of things hoped for. There comes the evidence of things not seen. It's not a perfect cycle that's never interrupted or that is totally smooth, but line upon line, that increases incrementally and gradually. (David A. Bednar, Unity in Diversity, Transcript from comment from link 08/28/2017 retrieved from ( https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2016-03-0019-being-an-agent-to-act?lang=eng )  Brilliant very short little talk by the way...

 Now, I am not saying that Christ would feel apprehension like you or I might, but it is within the realm of possibility that it might be something like Elder Bednar describes. Thus not doubt as you are characterizing it but perhaps more as apprehension. 

Perhaps so but the verse in question reads only one of two ways. Either Christ is actually questioning the Father, which indeed is doubt, or, Christ is making a statement. If he is making a statement, what is it in reference to? To Psalms 22 declaring he is the Christ and showing through prophesy what he said to the phirisees (In John ch.8) had come true and that the Father had not left him alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, zil said:

No one is arguing that.  That is all well-known.  The contention is your interpretation that the words of the first line were mere recitation and not a true expression of something which really happened.  Bruce R. McConkie, in The Promised Messiah explains a shift from the cross to the millennium, around verse 22 - which seems like a fairly obvious shift (between v21 and 22) to me.  But if you have rejected Elder Holland, you will reject Elder McConkie as well and for us to keep citing prophets who disagree with you would just be to heap further condemnation on you as you reject them, so I'm done.

Good bye then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...