A Baha'i's view of atonement

[LoAmmi]

I think It is anti messianic .

It is Messianic. In the article you posted, at the bottom, it speaks of needing the sacrifice of Yeshua and the main page of the site has as a banner "Honoring Yeshua".

 

[Rationalt]

I messed ( ) up by quoting the wrong source

It is Messianic. In the article you posted, at the bottom, it speaks of needing the sacrifice of Yeshua and the main page of the site has as a banner "Honoring Yeshua".

 

[LoAmmi]

I messed ( ) up by quoting the wrong source

No worries. I've been dealing with them long enough to pick up on Messianics quickly. Big clue is, oddly enough, the use of the name Yeshua when writing in English. Most Jewish articles I've read would just write Jesus (or Jsus depending on how Orthodox they are).

 

[Rationalt]

The Torah makes some vague mentions of life after death, but it simply wasn't important. The threat of willfully violating the Torah for a normal person would be to get cut off from the people of Israel. We don't do what we do because it gets us in good with the gatekeeper to some afterlife but because it is what HaShem told us to do. Being cut off from our people is a pretty horrible thing, especially back then.

It is mostly to do with the nation of Israel.Do what pleases the Lord and he will protect the nation and it's people like protecting the crops, assigning land (of gentiles) etc etc . Am I correct ?.

 

[LoAmmi]

It is mostly to do with the nation of Israel.Do what pleases the Lord and he will protect the nation and it's people like protecting the crops, assigning land (of gentiles) etc etc . Am I correct ?.

Yeah. The promises for keeping the Torah are almost all relating to the entire nation. Very few things are promises for individuals for keeping the Torah. It's something a lot of people don't necessarily get. Judaism is a communal thing. It would be very difficult if not impossible to practice it completely on your own. You could if you had to, but you'd be missing out on a lot of things. We have prayers, for example, that cannot be said unless there are ten present to say them.

 

[dazed]

Yeah. The promises for keeping the Torah are almost all relating to the entire nation. Very few things are promises for individuals for keeping the Torah. It's something a lot of people don't necessarily get. Judaism is a communal thing. It would be very difficult if not impossible to practice it completely on your own. You could if you had to, but you'd be missing out on a lot of things. We have prayers, for example, that cannot be said unless there are ten present to say them.

What was the enforcement penalty to keep a Jew honest? The OT has a wood gather stoned to death for breaking the Sabbath. The OT God was a bit temperamental in delivering the Jews to slavery if He was not pleased. It wouldn't be fair if the Jews community could not punish the cheaters and God delivered His judgement.

Er, what happened if you miscounted and said those prayers when there is only 9 present?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, probably close enough, I would imagine that even as temperamental as god was, that kind of mistake (when it is accidental) doesn't bother him too much.

 

[LoAmmi]

Er, what happened if you miscounted and said those prayers when there is only 9 present?

Those prayers are tradition. We devised them and setup the rules because of the nature of the prayers. There's no penalty for not following them, as far as I know, but one is still supposed to do so.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What ticks him off tends to be more frequent poor choices of worship than miscounting.

 

[LoAmmi]

What ticks him off tends to be more frequent poor choices of worship than miscounting.

Remembering that the Torah is only binding upon Jews, the two big things that seem to get bad reactions are idolatry and treating others badly. Our sages actually believe the second Temple was destroyed because of infighting, basically.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, that explains why there aren't nearly as many different sects of the Jewish faith as the Christian faith.

 

[LoAmmi]

Well, that explains why there aren't nearly as many different sects of the Jewish faith as the Christian faith.

and the differences between the branches are smaller than a lot of differences in Christian demonstrations. Generally speaking, the question between the branches is how binding is the Torah and how literally are the commandments taken? That's really it when you boil it down. Well, until you get to things that don't really resemble Judaism anymore and seem to just be social clubs that Jews hang out at.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Trust me, that is more faithful than the Christians who have never gone to church or read the bible or even know the difference between the religious sect they claim from other ones. But the best one has to be my grandmother, an agnostic who, when asked, says she is Protestant so people leave her alone.

 

[smaneck]

Why do you people ride on other scriptures and come up with some funny theology ?.

That was not the question you asked and you do nothing but hurl insults.

 

[LoAmmi]

Trust me, that is more faithful than the Christians who have never gone to church or read the bible or even know the difference between the religious sect they claim from other ones. But the best one has to be my grandmother, an agnostic who, when asked, says she is Protestant so people leave her alone.

I'm not trying to say anything's better or worse.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I was more mad at my grandma for lying about how she feels than what her religious views are. I value honesty greatly, so I hate it when people discard it for their own convenience.

 

[bling]

In various context the issue of atonement has come up in this forum, whether it is by Christians insisting that we can only be saved by Christ's blood or Muslims asking how the crucifixion can ever be an expression of divine love. I'd like to address both of these things here from the standpoint of both a Baha'i and a historian (the latter means this will be a long post.)
.

You are right about some stuff, but miss represent todays understanding of Christian Atonement in some areas.

You are very right to say: God has forgiven in the past without blood sacrifices. You can start with Lev. 5 which really explains the atonement sacrifice under the Old Law in which if the person could only afford a bag of flour for the atonement sacrifice it was good enough. If atonement was done right those unintentional sins could then be forgiven by God (no blood needed).

Some “Christians” love to use (misuse) Lev. 17 to show “Blood is needed for atonement”, but Lev. 17 is teaching why we should not drink the blood of animals and uses the example of the blood of animals being sacrificed (it is teaching the significance of blood by using the example of the blood in sacrifices but not teach: only blood can be used for atonement).

We also have the examples in the prophets of God forgiving repentant individuals without blood sacrifices being mentioned.

Blood is needed very symbolically to sanctify everything “holy”.

You are also very right to understand atonement is not needed for God to do something, but has to do with the relationship between God and man, but you do not present how/what atonement does for that relationship.

You also do well to understand atonement has to fit the analogy of a ransom (this is used by Christ, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer), but that does not mean the “Ransom Theory” of atonement is correct.

OK, if you want to take the time I will briefly try to take you through the Christian atonement concept I ascribe to:

From Ro 3: 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.

This last part is important “sins committed beforehand unpunished”, this seems to be saying God did forgive repentant sinners prior to Christ going to the cross but did not “punish” them, and the word “punish” (this is true for most scripture references) can mean “disciplining” (since God should and does when possible; “disciplines” and does not really punish, His repentant children). This also means with Christ going to the cross God can see to the disciplining (punishing) of His repentant children.

Why would it be helpful/beneficial/of value to the repent child to be Lovingly disciplined by a wonderful Father?

If disciplining is done correctly by the Loving Parent and humbly accepted correctly by the child, will the relationship be as strong and even stronger between the parent and the child than it was prior to the child’s rebellious disobedience?

As a Loving wonderful parent God would not have any difficulty in forgiving His repentant rebellious disobedient children, but does a Loving parent also have the responsibility to seeing to the disciplining of his/her children if at all possible?

Lev. 5 may give us a hint of how atonement is to work, by see what happens with “minor” unintentional sins only. The person that commits an unintentional sin (something very minor by most accounts) still has to be burdened with the loss of some time, energy and money (with the money being in proportion to the person’s income making it somewhat an equal “burden” for different sinners). The forgiveness from God comes after the atonement is completed, but not really “because” of the atonement. The involvement of the sinner in all this is important.

So how does Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, help, benefit, and/or have value to those that believe (faith) in what all happened and yet does not benefit those that do not believe?

We need to begin by looking at the first sizable conversion of nonbelievers to Christian believers: Acts 2: 14-41. (Please read this)

The result was 3000 conversions (v 41), but what did those 3000 require to make such a change on Pentecost?

Was it just Peter saying: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”?

Did these 3000 require going through Acts 2: 37 in order to have the response needed to Acts 2: 38?

What gets these 3000 to the point: (Acts 2: 37) “…they were cut to the heart…” to feel a death blow to their heart?

Do these 3000 have to feel, believe, understand: “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah…” in order to respond to Peter’s invitation?

If Christ had dies of heatstroke on his way into the city (so these 3000 would not feel any responsibility), would they have had that death blow to their hearts and would they have responded to Peter’s command in Acts 2: 38?

Did Christ’s cruel murder on the cross, help in the conversion of those 3000 on Pentecost?

Those 3000 could/did experience the worst possible feeling they could have (a severe disciplining) and yet they still lived through it (they had murdered the Messiah) and it had benefit in their conversion and their relationship with God would be stronger afterwards, especially realizing God has forgiven them of murdering the Messiah.

Christ not only went to the cross for those 3000, but also for my benefit in that I personally caused Christ to have to go to the cross (this concept requires a lengthy explanation, so I will wait for your response first).

As far as the “ransom” goes:


We can agree on, who paid it, what the payment was and who was freed to return to the father, but the question is: “To whom was the ransom paid” (who is the kidnapper?)

All popular theories say one of the following: “satan, God, Death, sin, evil or no one”.

So who do you say?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I say, no way am I reading all of that.

 

[gord44]

I say, no way am I reading all of that.

I read it and still don't get it (and I was a Christian for many years). As I mentioned above, so confusing and convoluted. Why not just sincerely turn to G-d and ask forgiveness and go about your business? (not saying this to you Sarah, but to the wall of text above.)

 

[smaneck]

We can agree on, who paid it, what the payment was and who was freed to return to the father, but the question is: “To whom was the ransom paid” (who is the kidnapper?)

All popular theories say one of the following: “satan, God, Death, sin, evil or no one”.

So who do you say?

Well, if you followed my argument I would say that the ransom is paid *to* us as well as for us. God doesn't need a ransom.