The Meaning of Atonement

[brlenox]

1 hour 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. 

 

And that's fully what I expected you to say.  However, can you see the problem that we might have when I can find maybe 30 different voices from those called of God to be our leaders who say something diametrically opposed to what you are saying.  You are asking those around you to ignore the servants of the Lord, to not listen to our own spiritual guidance, and to accept your singular and private interpretation as superior to all other sources.  Can you see any reason to not be somewhat skeptical about your teachings. Does it really seem wise to you that we should forsake living and dead prophets and choose you? We would all have to break with the proper order of things as David of the Old Testament characterizes it and that caused Uzzah to die.  Just think about it.  Does it really seem wise?

Edited January 8, 2018 by brlenox

[Rob Osborn]

34 minutes ago, brlenox said:

And that's fully what I expected you to say.  However, can you see the problem that we might have when I can find maybe 30 different voices from those called of God to be our leaders who say something diametrically opposed to what you are saying.  You are asking those around you to ignore the servants of the Lord, to not listen to our own spiritual guidance, and to accept your singular and private interpretation as superior to all other sources.  Can you see any reason to not be somewhat skeptical about your teachings. Does it really seem wise to you that we should forsake living and dead prophets and choose you? We would all have to break with the proper order of things as David of the Old Testament characterizes it and that caused Uzzah to die.  Just think about it.  Does it really seem wise?

The true test is that it must comply with what the scriptures testify of. We can all interpret holy scripture our own way but the reality is the scriptures must be the last and great witness. The reality, as I have pointed out, is the scriptures testify that the Father was with Christ during the ordeal of the atonement. The true test for you is to show me where in scripture it states that the Father did indeed turn his face from Christ and did not hear his cries- that the Father withdrew his spirit from Christ.

[person0]

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The true test for you is to show me where in scripture it states that the Father did indeed turn his face from Christ and did not hear his cries- that the Father withdrew his spirit from Christ.

The scriptures don't say what you are suggesting either.  If it was really all that obvious would this even be a part of our discussion?  No!  It is your interpretation of what is written, vs Elder Holland's and other General Authorities.  You are free to believe whatever you want, but don't act like you have solid scriptural proof for what you are saying.  If you did, if it were there, that would be what the Apostles would be teaching us.

[Rob Osborn]

19 minutes ago, person0 said:

The scriptures don't say what you are suggesting either.  If it was really all that obvious would this even be a part of our discussion?  No!  It is your interpretation of what is written, vs Elder Holland's and other General Authorities.  You are free to believe whatever you want, but don't act like you have solid scriptural proof for what you are saying.  If you did, if it were there, that would be what the Apostles would be teaching us.

Its not what I am saying, it is what Jesus Christ is saying. He prophesied to the pharisees right before his atonement that all men would scatter and leave him alone yet the Father would be with him and that on the cross then would they know it.

[brlenox]

34 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The true test is that it must comply with what the scriptures testify of. We can all interpret holy scripture our own way but the reality is the scriptures must be the last and great witness. The reality, as I have pointed out, is the scriptures testify that the Father was with Christ during the ordeal of the atonement. The true test for you is to show me where in scripture it states that the Father did indeed turn his face from Christ and did not hear his cries- that the Father withdrew his spirit from Christ.

Eloi Eloi, lama sabachthani

[Rob Osborn]

20 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Eloi Eloi, lama sabachthani

How do you get God turning his face from Christ for Christ making a statement?

[Guest]

I'm afraid Rob requires a scripture that says,"The Father was in no way associated with the Son in any way shape or form and any scripture talking about Christ's unity with the Father cannot be possibly construed to detract from the fact that the Father had completely withdrawn from the Son in every conceivable way at the time of the Atonement."

Anything short of that has wiggle room, so he's choosing to take it because nothing else will change his mind.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Guest

[zil]

Just now, Carborendum said:

"The Father was in no way associated with the Son in any way shape or form and [this scripture] cannot be possibly construed to mean [anything except] that the Father had completely withdrawn from the Son in every conceivable way."

?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

?

Fixed.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'm afraid Rob requires a scripture that says,"The Father was in no way associated with the Son in any way shape or form and any scripture talking about Christ's unity with the Father cannot be possibly construed to detract from the fact that the Father had completely withdrawn from the Son in every conceivable way at the time of the Atonement."

Anything short of that has wiggle room, so he's choosing to take it because nothing else will change his mind.

Thats not it at all. 

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

How do you get God turning his face from Christ for Christ making a statement?

Okay, if it is as you say that the word commonly translated as "forsaken" in the English New Testament should be something of a variant that should be translated as "turned his face from" and that is not comparable to forsaken heuristically Then please do a little research and teach me how the Greek actually should be considered differently than what we see....Never mind - I'll do it for you.

The word translated as forsaken comes from the Greek egkatelipes.  It is often defined as abandoned.  Abandoned is a pretty good synonym for forsaken. It does not work for kind of looked away as I was peaking through my barely closed fingers.

Now the word sabachthani is a nuanced word of significance.  It is hard to pin down from the sources I found but several saw the best definition as abandoned for a reason, which is very different from Abandoned to be discarded.  Now to be abandoned for a reason fits in perfectly with LDS theology where we often see descriptions that the Father forsook his son in order that his sacrifice could be completely his as was required by the Law.

However, I have never really understood the burden of this word until today.  Martin Luther and you have something in common and it is more than skin color. He is the only one I have found that seconds your definition.  He preferred to translate this as "turn his face from."  However, the reason why is quite special.  A lot of the Churches after the council of Nicea had difficulty with God saying that God had forsaken himself.  How Could a Triune God forsake himself.  As one being he couldn't tear himself into pieces and abandon parts of himself.  So you can see the difficulty that Trinity definitions placed on Martin Luther.  Because of his Trinitarian doctrine it was easier for him to reconcile that God could turn away from himself than that he could forsake himself. So I have found you a resource that you can use to validate your particular definition - Martin Luther.  It will never work for me perhaps it will fit your needs.

Finally, if you do a run through on various English Translations such as the Wycliff Bible, or the Tyndale or the Cloverdale etc is the only variable is whether it will be forsaken or abandon as the word choice of the translator.

 

[brlenox]

5 hours ago, brlenox said:

And that's fully what I expected you to say.  However, can you see the problem that we might have when I can find maybe 30 different voices from those called of God to be our leaders who say something diametrically opposed to what you are saying.  You are asking those around you to ignore the servants of the Lord, to not listen to our own spiritual guidance, and to accept your singular and private interpretation as superior to all other sources.  Can you see any reason to not be somewhat skeptical about your teachings. Does it really seem wise to you that we should forsake living and dead prophets and choose you? We would all have to break with the proper order of things as David of the Old Testament characterizes it and that caused Uzzah to die.  Just think about it.  Does it really seem wise?

 

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The true test is that it must comply with what the scriptures testify of. We can all interpret holy scripture our own way but the reality is the scriptures must be the last and great witness. The reality, as I have pointed out, is the scriptures testify that the Father was with Christ during the ordeal of the atonement. The true test for you is to show me where in scripture it states that the Father did indeed turn his face from Christ and did not hear his cries- that the Father withdrew his spirit from Christ.

You did not answer the question that I asked.  If I can find a multitude of others who receive the same spirit of understanding that we also find agreement with, why should all of us ignore the correct spirit of inspiration to agree with your incorrect spirit of inspiration?  At some point you have to realize not everybody can always be wrong and only you are right.  You have to see that that is not even feasible.

[Rob Osborn]

45 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Okay, if it is as you say that the word commonly translated as "forsaken" in the English New Testament should be something of a variant that should be translated as "turned his face from" and that is not comparable to forsaken heuristically Then please do a little research and teach me how the Greek actually should be considered differently than what we see....Never mind - I'll do it for you.

The word translated as forsaken comes from the Greek egkatelipes.  It is often defined as abandoned.  Abandoned is a pretty good synonym for forsaken. It does not work for kind of looked away as I was peaking through my barely closed fingers.

Now the word sabachthani is a nuanced word of significance.  It is hard to pin down from the sources I found but several saw the best definition as abandoned for a reason, which is very different from Abandoned to be discarded.  Now to be abandoned for a reason fits in perfectly with LDS theology where we often see descriptions that the Father forsook his son in order that his sacrifice could be completely his as was required by the Law.

However, I have never really understood the burden of this word until today.  Martin Luther and you have something in common and it is more than skin color. He is the only one I have found that seconds your definition.  He preferred to translate this as "turn his face from."  However, the reason why is quite special.  A lot of the Churches after the council of Nicea had difficulty with God saying that God had forsaken himself.  How Could a Triune God forsake himself.  As one being he couldn't tear himself into pieces and abandon parts of himself.  So you can see the difficulty that Trinity definitions placed on Martin Luther.  Because of his Trinitarian doctrine it was easier for him to reconcile that God could turn away from himself than that he could forsake himself. So I have found you a resource that you can use to validate your particular definition - Martin Luther.  It will never work for me perhaps it will fit your needs.

Finally, if you do a run through on various English Translations such as the Wycliff Bible, or the Tyndale or the Cloverdale etc is the only variable is whether it will be forsaken or abandon as the word choice of the translator.

 

And we havent even got into the depth of tansliteration and semantics. Some of the best scholars actually say that what Christ really said was "My God, My God, for this reason I was kept".

We could pribably shoot back and forth all night but needless to say, it doesnt mean what most think it means- that God withdrew himself from the Son. Too many scriptures refute that notion altogether.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

 

You did not answer the question that I asked.  If I can find a multitude of others who receive the same spirit of understanding that we also find agreement with, why should all of us ignore the correct spirit of inspiration to agree with your incorrect spirit of inspiration?  At some point you have to realize not everybody can always be wrong and only you are right.  You have to see that that is not even feasible.

I actually have a certain passion about this topic. About 15 years ago I actually got into a heated discussion over this very issue at church. I had the teacher accuse me of having a false spirit on this matter. I spent a lot of research and was very passionate about it, wrote a letter and took it to my bishop. He read it, prayed over it and told me I was correct and not worry about it again. So, how does that play into this? Was my bishop, who had power of discernment and stewardship over me wrong? Im curious to hear your answer.

[person0]

39 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Too many scriptures refute that notion altogether.

Okay, now I am actually legitimately curious.  Besides the one scripture you have recited, where Christ uses the present tense to state that the father never leaves Him, what other scriptures are there that establish that the Father would not have fully withdrawn from the Son in accomplishing the atonement?

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, person0 said:

Okay, now I am actually legitimately curious.  Besides the one scripture you have recited, where Christ uses the present tense to state that the father never leaves Him, what other scriptures are there that establish that the Father would not have fully withdrawn from the Son in accomplishing the atonement?

One scripture?

I gave no less than three. Nowhere do the scriptures say the Father withdrew his spirit. So that would be at least 3-0 in favor of God not withdrawing his spirit.

[brlenox]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I actually have a certain passion about this topic. About 15 years ago I actually got into a heated discussion over this very issue at church. I had the teacher accuse me of having a false spirit on this matter. I spent a lot of research and was very passionate about it, wrote a letter and took it to my bishop. He read it, prayed over it and told me I was correct and not worry about it again. So, how does that play into this? Was my bishop, who had power of discernment and stewardship over me wrong? Im curious to hear your answer.

I don't know...Let's see the paper. And if you give me your exbishops phone number I will followup with him. Really I will.

Edited January 9, 2018 by brlenox

[brlenox]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

And we havent even got into the depth of tansliteration and semantics. Some of the best scholars actually say that what Christ really said was "My God, My God, for this reason I was kept".

We could pribably shoot back and forth all night but needless to say, it doesnt mean what most think it means- that God withdrew himself from the Son. Too many scriptures refute that notion altogether.

Your missing the point.  The issues with the word heuristics comes to bear quite often from those religious scholars who are trying to justify trinitarian doctrine.  To them the original translation read as God forsaking God and for those of a traditional Christian background they had to work with the definitions to keep their errant doctrine in place.

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I don't know...Let's see the paper. And if you give me your exbishops phone number I will followup with him. Really I will.

No thanks, its personal.

(The confirmation was personal.)

Edited January 9, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Your missing the point.  The issues with the word heuristics comes to bear quite often from those religious scholars who are trying to justify trinitarian doctrine.  To them the original translation read as God forsaking God and for those of a traditional Christian background they had to work with the definitions to keep their errant doctrine in place.

I dont totally agree.

One of the problems in all of this is our assumptions play out in ilogical ways. For instance, some scholars believe that since Christ was made the sin offering that he literally became sin of which God could not thus look at him and so he withdrew his presence. Another set of scholars believe Christ had to literally descend into hell because he became the sinner and thats where sinners go. Even in LDS doctrine, along with others, we wrongly assume that in order for Christ to make the perfect atonement he had to suffer spiritual death along with physical death. All of these assumptions defy logic though.

Christ never had to become sin but rather a sacrifice for sin. Christ is holy and as such darkness cannot be part of him.

Christ also cannot descend into hell as Christ is holy.

Christ also never suffered or had to suffer spiritual death which can only come because one is dead to good works. When did Christ do dead works that would bring spiritual death?

For these same reasons we wrongly assume the Father had to withdraw his presence so that Christ could feel the full wrath. But this makes no sense. Spiritual connection is a law that cannot be nullified. Light cleaveth to light. God is light, Christ is light. They cannot dispel each other but always cleaveth to each other. Spirit is truth, truth is light. The spirit can only withdraw because of darkness. If the spirit withdrew from Christ then Christ has no guide, no truth to guide and darkness would fill his soul. But, and this is important, Christ himself is God he is in the Father and the Father in him and this through the manifestation of the spirit within. Christ has light within, perfect light. In order for God to withdraw the part that makes up their oneness, it would mean the spirit they share- the light and truth would have to be removed. How does one remove light and truth from God though? 

The only reason people believe the Father withdrew the Spirit fom Christ is because of those transliterated words "why hast thou forsaken me?"

Now, we dont know for sure exactly what Christ did or didnt say on the cross and what he meant by what he did say. Were all kind of guessing in a lot of ways at this point. Its logical though to understand Christ was fully aware and knew all scriptures, all prophecy concerning his mission, suffering, etc. There were no surprises that were coming, he could see the end from the beginning for he is God. Yes, he still had to suffer, and it was extremely difficult, but that light of the Father, that unique knowledge they shared was not removed. There was never a point where the heavens were shut from him, where darkness and confusion became a part of him. If the heavens shut or close on a person no truth is manifest, only darkness can reign in ones mind. Its an irrevocable law. One cannot dispel or close off the light of truth in a perfect righteous being. They are the very essence of spirit and light which cannot be hid. Sure, Satan had veiled the whole world at that point with darkness and thus why even his apostles turned away from him. But, Christ was still connected to the Father through the atonement because of the law of light and truth.

 

[wenglund]

On 1/1/2018 at 7:59 PM, brlenox said:

 

Let's look at this image and see if we can get our thousand words out of it. I am going to forgo scriptures and quotes as that seems to be where people get bored and the posts get long.  The first image represents Adam and Eve living in the Garden of Eden interacting freely with God and Jesus Christ.  They do something wrong.  We have not discussed what that is and it is helpful but not necessary at this moment.  Still the King of the Kingdom - God the Father - convenes a court to try the three individuals involved with breaking the law of the King. It is his law and he is responsible to see to its adjudication and to ensure that justice is rendered.  The source for this is the temple.  He questions the three individuals and determines three levels of culpability. We won't go into this either for now.  However, the law has been served and justice has been rendered and the crime was determined to be of such serious nature that a death penalty is warranted.  The one individual is banished and the two are exiled with the promise of a Savior.

The end result is image number 2.  Man is spiritually dead.  They no longer have free access to God the father as he has exiled them from His kingdom.  Thus they no longer have claim on The Father as he has in not so many words stated that if you cannot abide the law of my kingdom (D & C 88:22) you cannot remain here.  So they are remanded over to a telestial state which based on their crime is the only kingdom that will abide their actions.

Getting back to the meaning of the atonement, at least as wonderfully explained by @brlenox, I have a question about figure two.  Since we all are represented by Adam and Eve, then the same question posed to Christ regarding the blind man has relevance: "Rabbi, who sinned, this man [(i.e. all mankind)] or his parents, that he was born blind [(or fallen)]?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

[brlenox]

3 hours ago, wenglund said:

Getting back to the meaning of the atonement, at least as wonderfully explained by @brlenox, I have a question about figure two.  Since we all are represented by Adam and Eve, then the same question posed to Christ regarding the blind man has relevance: "Rabbi, who sinned, this man [(i.e. all mankind)] or his parents, that he was born blind [(or fallen)]?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I am not quite following the entirety of your question or thought.  It does follow that man was not born in sin because of preexistent behaviors. When we come into this existence we are born pure. (Doctrine and Covenants 29:46—50) However, that does not mean that man did not sin in the preexistence and thus many failed to keep their first estate but still were able to progress to the receipt of a body. Others were not even permitted that for the degree of their rebellion. (SOP)
 

Quote

Abraham 3:26-28

26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by brlenox

[Traveler]

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 12:22 PM, Rob Osborn said:

The true test is that it must comply with what the scriptures testify of. We can all interpret holy scripture our own way but the reality is the scriptures must be the last and great witness. The reality, as I have pointed out, is the scriptures testify that the Father was with Christ during the ordeal of the atonement. The true test for you is to show me where in scripture it states that the Father did indeed turn his face from Christ and did not hear his cries- that the Father withdrew his spirit from Christ.

Why do you think and believe that "the scriptures must be the last and great witness"?

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

Getting back to the meaning of the atonement, at least as wonderfully explained by @brlenox, I have a question about figure two.  Since we all are represented by Adam and Eve, then the same question posed to Christ regarding the blind man has relevance: "Rabbi, who sinned, this man [(i.e. all mankind)] or his parents, that he was born blind [(or fallen)]?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I am very impressed @wenglund - Just wondering if you also considered Jesus' response?

 

The Traveler

[brlenox]

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 9:22 PM, Rob Osborn said:

I dont totally agree.

One of the problems in all of this is our assumptions play out in ilogical ways. For instance, some scholars believe that since Christ was made the sin offering that he literally became sin of which God could not thus look at him and so he withdrew his presence. Another set of scholars believe Christ had to literally descend into hell because he became the sinner and thats where sinners go. Even in LDS doctrine, along with others, we wrongly assume that in order for Christ to make the perfect atonement he had to suffer spiritual death along with physical death. All of these assumptions defy logic though.

Fifty years in the church and I have never heard nor deduced another claiming that Christ had to suffer spiritual death.

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 9:22 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Christ never had to become sin but rather a sacrifice for sin. Christ is holy and as such darkness cannot be part of him.

Christ also cannot descend into hell as Christ is holy.

Christ also never suffered or had to suffer spiritual death which can only come because one is dead to good works. When did Christ do dead works that would bring spiritual death?

For these same reasons we wrongly assume the Father had to withdraw his presence so that Christ could feel the full wrath. But this makes no sense. Spiritual connection is a law that cannot be nullified. Light cleaveth to light. God is light, Christ is light. They cannot dispel each other but always cleaveth to each other. Spirit is truth, truth is light. The spirit can only withdraw because of darkness. If the spirit withdrew from Christ then Christ has no guide, no truth to guide and darkness would fill his soul. But, and this is important, Christ himself is God he is in the Father and the Father in him and this through the manifestation of the spirit within. Christ has light within, perfect light. In order for God to withdraw the part that makes up their oneness, it would mean the spirit they share- the light and truth would have to be removed. How does one remove light and truth from God though? 

The only reason people believe the Father withdrew the Spirit fom Christ is because of those transliterated words "why hast thou forsaken me?"

Now, we dont know for sure exactly what Christ did or didnt say on the cross and what he meant by what he did say. Were all kind of guessing in a lot of ways at this point. Its logical though to understand Christ was fully aware and knew all scriptures, all prophecy concerning his mission, suffering, etc. There were no surprises that were coming, he could see the end from the beginning for he is God. Yes, he still had to suffer, and it was extremely difficult, but that light of the Father, that unique knowledge they shared was not removed. There was never a point where the heavens were shut from him, where darkness and confusion became a part of him. If the heavens shut or close on a person no truth is manifest, only darkness can reign in ones mind. Its an irrevocable law. One cannot dispel or close off the light of truth in a perfect righteous being. They are the very essence of spirit and light which cannot be hid. Sure, Satan had veiled the whole world at that point with darkness and thus why even his apostles turned away from him. But, Christ was still connected to the Father through the atonement because of the law of light and truth.

 

Were you of a different religious background before becoming LDS? Your theology concerning Christ becoming sin...this is all extra-LDS doctrine. First the Catholics and then subsequent Christian religions sought to justify the Father withdrawing his presence on the conclusions that Christ was somehow unworthy to have his presence having become anathema for taking on Him our sins. That is not LDS doctrine. Thereafter seems just intellectual machinations.  Your comparisons to light and God having to shut off light in order to forsake him, seem a bit presumptuous for me at this time.  As always if you would guide me to what resources you are using to come to your conclusions perhaps they might assist me in understanding your perspective. Of the material I recognize that you have opined it all seems to have its root in non-LDS doctrine.