Full Video: • N.T. Wright | The Cros... The book Tom is referring to is: The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus's Crucifixion
I haven't seen a clip of NT Wright that has any amount of clarity. A lot of the time I notice he answers a question by saying people have been getting a subject wrong for quite some time, then says that the answer isn't found in the epistles, but really found in the four gospels. I still don't really know what he thinks.
@N8R_Quizzie I think most of the subjects that he deals with cannot be reduced by a simple "yes" or "no". That's our problem. We don't wanna question by ourselves. Wright takes the subject to another level of discussion. Most of the times he prefers to bring questions rather than answers. If we want to get to a real understanding of something, first we need to start from what it doesn't mean so then we can begin to understand what it means.
But he never gets there, he convolutes the concepts so much that the answer is a form circular reasoning where agrees with himself. The writing styles in scripture can be manipulated to pretty much mean whatever you want. Without the atoning sacrifice there is no good news. theologians of every stripe have been saying this for centuries and he thinks he found a way to “correct” all our misunderstandings from every denomination.
It amazes me how our western cultures find it so hard to comprehend the sacrifce of Jesus as an act of love, forguiveness, justice (not retributive justice), mercy, restoration and reconciliation rather than enforcing wrath, punishment, payment, death, penatly and debt. Our sense of justice based on the roman law has distorted the meaning of God's work on the cross through Jesus. Jesus is fulfilling all the jewish tradition had spoken about the Lord's day in which God would begin a new creation (in Luke 4 Jesus acomplhishes Isaiah 61). “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” How can we distort and turn the good news of God's favor into some bloody killing sacrifice required to satisty his wrath. We lost something along the way. We have gone too far away from the concept of justice demonstrated through the hebrew tradition.
Here is a partial list of Penal Substitutionary Atonement problems: 5. Basic logic tells us that a complete payment cancels forgiveness. You cannot forgive a debt that has already been paid, and you do not need to pay a debt that has been forgiven. Forgiveness is granted because a debt has NOT been paid, not after the payment has been made! 6. Forgiveness that can be bought or sold is not true forgiveness. If you think that you or a third party can purchase genuine forgiveness, you do not understand forgiveness! 7. We humans are able to forgive others when they sin against us. To claim that God cannot do a good thing that we can do is to make us more moral than God. 8. PSA’s "infinite justice” claim has God incapable of truly forgiving us without first getting a proxy payment by murder and blood. How can that be genuine forgiveness? 9. If someone says, “I forgive you,” you assume it is done right then, not secretly projecting it into a nebulous future when a payment will eventually be made by someone else. Secretly projecting the act of forgiving into the distant future would be considered deceptive. God is not a deceiver for forgiving people before Christ died. 10. God said many times that He would forgive, and He forgave (past tense), long before Jesus was born. Many texts could be listed. The following are just a few of these: “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin.” 2 Chronicles 7:14 “I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,” and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.” Psalm 32:5 “You forgave the iniquity of your people; you covered all their sin.” Psalm 85:2 “LORD our God, you answered them; you were to Israel a forgiving God, though you punished their misdeeds.” Psalm 99:8 NIV “Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love.” Micah 7:18 “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:7 11. Jesus did not seem to think that he was going to make a payment to God for the sins of humanity. Even while on the cross He did not speak as if he was making a payment when he said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk 23:34). Jesus did not say, “Father, wait until I am finished paying for their sins, then you can forgive them.” 12. Every example of forgiveness we have from Jesus shows forgiveness in the normal human sense, not in some unheard-of future forgiveness, transfer, imputation, payment, or third-party justice. “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors...for if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses...” Matthew 6:12, 14-15 “And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” Mark 11:25 (See also Matthew 9:2-8, 18:21-35, Luke 5:20, 6:37, 7:47-48, 11:4, 15:11-32.) 13. A literal payment requires a literal transfer and a literal recipient of that payment. How can a death (an action, not a substance) be a literal payment? Who collected this payment? 14. If God has been paid in full for our sins, then why does He still demand that we stop sinning and live right, and even have wrath and threaten judgment for disobedience? If Jesus paid it all, God got what He wanted. 15. Would not a payment for sin be a type of indulgence payment, a bribe to ignore sin and to issue a pardon? A blood sacrifice as a payment to a god is a pagan idea, which is why God ordered the Old Testament people many times to stop their sacrifices - they began treating sacrifices as if they were indulgences, and that stinks to God. Ps. 40:6, 51:16, Jer. 6:20, Is. 1:11-18, 1 Samuel 15:22, Hosea 6:6, Micah 6:6-8, Amos 5:22. (The God of the Bible is relational, and sacrifices were supposed to be a token of this relationship, not a payment to get Him to change.) For more on this topic, see the book “Atonement and Reconciliation” by Kevin George.
You may enjoy the work of Paul Vendredi on this subject. He takes the earlier eastern orthodox and coptic view he calls "Restored Icon" 'atonement theology', although atonement as we would normall understand it is absent from the model since atonement theology is rooted in augustinian PSA.
Hebrews 9 explains it very well if you think this is part of the word of God, 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins'. When I was in sin, I could not stand before God as He is holy and I was not, so in His great love He sent Jesus roughly 2000 years ago to die in my place on the cross, He shed is own blood for me in my stead. As soon as I believed in Jesus for the payment of my sins and believed on Him as Lord I was pardoned for all my sins, I entered into a relationship with Jesus because He is risen from the dead and He filled me with His Holy Spirit. Forgiveness is offered as a gift, I don’t pay for my own sins-justice has been done Jesus has paid, He is the propitiation for our sins, not only ours but for the sins of the whole world, but you have to believe in Jesus as your sin-bearer otherwise your sins are not forgiven because you reject His Son and refuse His forgiveness.
@@blackcoffee2 The words “of sins” are not in the Greek text of Hebrews 9:22. Also, the word “forgiveness” is the Greek word “aphesis” which means “to let go, to release.” “Aphesis” is only forgiveness in a derivative, secondary sense, as a metaphor. In Chapters 8-9, the author explains to a Jewish audience that there is now a new and better covenant. A practicing Jew couldn’t just flippantly abandon the Mosaic covenant for a new idea; something and someone must authorize the setting aside of the old to be superseded by the new. This scenario is the context. The summary of 9:1-24 is that Moses inaugurated the first covenant on earth with animal blood and an earthly tabernacle, while Christ inaugurated this new superseding covenant with his own blood. “By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear” Heb. 8:13. Verse 9:22 indicates the legal principle with two claims: 1. "under the law almost everything [but not everything] is purified [set apart, dedicated] with blood," and 2. "without the shedding of blood there is no" release (aphesis) of the prior covenant for inaugurating a second. Once the entire context is understood, at least in the big picture, it becomes clear that verse 22 has nothing to do with forgiveness of sin, but rather that there was no release of the former covenant without first shedding blood.
ATONEMENT as COSMIC JUSTICE: After thinking deeply through atonement in order to explain it to Muslims, Hebrews 2:10 lit up the whole subject for me. "For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering." On the cross Jesus identified with all humanity, and as their Creator took responsibility for their wrongs. Although God did not sin, he created those that did. As a parent takes responsibility for a child's broken window, our Creator takes responsibility for us. It is cosmic justice. You can see more of how we explain this in our videos. Click our icon for a 2-minute intro.
Your focus on Muslims is important as it allows others to look at the subject from another important perspective. Another perspective is that we as creatures had nothing of such value to offer as sacrifice to atone for our sins. Only God could do that and did so out of love. God the Father was not angry but pleased by Jesus' obedience - the obedience we lack/lacked. Your parent analogy is good!
15 biblical reasons Jesus died, listed in no particular order: 1. God wanted a faithful man to take Adam’s place. 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45-49, Philippians 2:8-11 2. To reconcile us to God. 2 Cor. 5:17-21, Ephesians 2:13-16, Romans 5:6-10, Colossians 1:19-22 3. To be an example. 1 Peter 2:21, 3:18, Philippians 2:4-10 4. To stop sin. Matthew 26:27-28, Mark 10:45, Romans 6:6-14, 1 Peter 2:24, Galatians 1:4, 2:21, Titus 2:14, Revelation 1:5 5. To defeat the powers of evil. Colossians 2:15 6. To become the firstborn from the dead. Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:18 7. To supersede the Mosaic law with a blood covenant. Ephesians 2:13-17, Galatians 3:13 8. To express God’s love. John 3:16, Romans 5:8 9. To set us right by faith. Galatians 2:21, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 10. To defeat death. Romans 6:9, 1 Corinthians 15:26, 2 Timothy 1:10 11. To triumph over the power of sin. Romans 6:10-11 12. To crush the serpent’s head. Genesis 3:15 13. To bring resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 14. To draw others to himself. John 12:32-33 15. To become our High Priest. Hebrews 10:19-22 Appendix A of the book entitled “Atonement and Reconciliation” by Kevin George
But it seems that NT Wright still holds to a penal substitutionary atonement. Just very complicated in his explanation (full video). And clearly, it not about individualism - even though we each need to know our broken, sinful lives are in need of the finished work of the Cross.
I think he is saying that Christ is still taking on sin and death and defeating it by His resurrection as opposed to taking on the anger of the Father so God can look past the power of sin still at work.
I think he what means is that there really is penal substitutionary atonement but the Jesus on the cross didn't just buy our justification but also our sanctification, and collectively as a Church God enacts the Kingdom of Heaven on a societal level to bring restoration to the world even now. I wish he'd spell it out like that, but I could also be wrong I've only listened to him about a total of an hour.
Not totally right. Gospels teach on the propitiation and expiration of the work of Christ. Kingdom teaching for on earth was at the beginning, not toward the end as much. See Acts 1:6,7. Ps 2 BTW, is concerning the coming kingdom. Not now.
When I first found N T Wright I was excited. I though he was on the right track. Now I realize he is completely wrong. God concentrated evil in Jesus and then judged it? God punished Evil not Jesus? I guess the death of Jesus was just collateral damage. Sorry, Bart Ehrman is probably right. Jesus of Nazareth never taught atonement. Jesus taught repentance and forgiveness. There never was an atonement. That is why no one can explain it.
I think you are onto something here, but you are inappropriately disregarding “atonement” because you are accepting an unbiblical definition as used by many teachers and theologians in the modern church in the west. The word atonement messed me up for a while. I think I understand it better now after having invested a lot of time studying it and reflecting on it as it is used in the Bible. The reason for this confusion is because translators use this one word, or variations of it, to translate three different types of words. The word “atonement”, when originally created, meant reconciliation. The problem is translators use it to represent a Hebrew word in the OT that is best understood as “cover” or “cleanse”. In the NT, it has been used to represent Greek words that mean reconciliation while also being used to represent other Greek words that are also found in the LXX version of the OT and are used to represent the “covering” or “cleansing” Hebrew words mentioned above.
I am not sure how clear my comment just above will be so let me add this for additional clarity. Biblical atonement is about reconciliation with God and the cleansing of our sins. It is the Word, Christ’s life and His spirit that cleanses us. Repentance leads to forgiveness as you said, but forgiveness is not enough for eternal life. Only the righteous will inherit eternal life so we must be made righteous and that is where the cleansing comes in, along with the regular renewing of our minds which, in my view, is just repentance anew as the Holy Spirit brings new things to our attention helping make us in the likeness of the Son.
It is important that Bishop Wright understands the Christian view of the Afterlife. According to Christian doctrine, there was no Afterlife, no Heaven or Hell, before two thousand years ago. There is no mention in the Old Testament of any doctrine a person had to believe to get to Heaven, the rejection of which meant eternal Hell fire. After Jesus, that all changed. If a person believed that Jesus had died for their sins, he or she went to heaven. If they rejected this doctrine, they went to Hell.(John 11 verse 25). Those, living after Jesus, and had not been told the "Good News" unfortunately went to Hell through no fault of their own. This is why Christian missionaries frantically travel the world, trying to convert the Heathen. (1 Corinthians 9 verse 16 "Yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel!") "A short cut to Heaven" is what the Church announces, when a missionary dies of a tropical disease, gets murdered, or suffers a similar fate. We, of sound mind, reject this fantasy.
If we ask what causes mass hysteria in humans, it is certainly not the labours of theologians and philosophers, whose .effect on human behaviour has been virtually nil. Take Germany, for example, home to the finest theologians and philosophers. In the 1930's and '40's the German people, taking leave of their senses, worshipped a madman. The adulation millions of them showed for Adolf Hitler defies belief. Thronging the streets and stadiums, giving the Nazi salute, they were obsessed with the man and his message. Compare this with the life of Jesus, who was virtually unnoticed in his lifetime, not even gaining a mention by respectable historians of his day. The reason for this is theology and philosophy are incomprehensible subjects for the common man. We fall asleep listening to a sermon on the mysteries of the Trinity, but go wild with delight, when our local team scores the winning goal at Wembley. And rightly so.
" Something happens at the cross which changes cosmic power relations" says the Bishop. Yeah. The only thing Jesus said on the cross was " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me". Funny thing to say, if, as the Bishop believes, Jesus was God.
Makes sense of this, Bishop, from the Gospel of Thomas which I regard as authentic. "Simon Peter said to him, Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life. Jesus said, I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven. "
Bishop Wright is seriously in error in studying the sayings of St.Paul, rather than those of Jesus. The life of Jesus meant nothing to St.Paul. In 2 Corinthians chapter 5 verse 16, St. Paul admits he knew Jesus, but nothing in Jesus' life was worth a mention. Jesus, however, never mentions Paul, and certainly did not make him one of his disciples. I, however, take the correct view, and only study the sayings of Jesus, some of which are bizarre, to say the least.
Jesus was a war lord. In Luke 22 verse 36 he tells his disciples, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" In Matthew 10 verse 34 Jesus says "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" In Luke 22 verse 50 one of the disciples cuts off someone ear with a sword. Jesus is God, says the Bishop. But he still needs bodyguards armed with swords. Very odd......
Jesus and St.Paul were obsessed with the word "Sin" without defining what a "Sin" was. Even admiring a woman's body was a "Sin" to Jesus. What was a man supposed to do? Find women repulsive?
In the gospel of salvation which is the epistle to the Romans Paul defines the imputation of sin in Romans 3:20. To make the case Paul was making I have made a series of Ytube videos 'Myths in so-called Christianity' and #1 covers this subject. As you will see I wrote to Tom who follows the Reformation and is in error, I also wrote to the Queen and English Dictionary but none replied so I made the video.
@Brian Wright Not true. I have two Ytube videos explaining this error and invite you to watch them as it is a matter of salvation. 'All have sinned' and 'Original sin' in the series 'Myths in so-called Christianity', in my full name Simon John Skinner.
St. Paul said the most disgraceful thing in 1 Corinthians 15 verse 32 " If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Firstly, St. Paul is not sure if there is an Afterlife, and secondly, this life is worthless unless there is one. If St.Paul's caveman ancestor had taken this philosophy, the human race would have died out. Many people have achieved great things for society without believing in an Afterlife. I suggest people who study the Letters of St.Paul, would be better employed reading the Beano.
The most disgraceful contradiction in Christianity is in Matthew 12 verse 31 where Jesus says "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." Every year, hundreds of thousands of women die in childbirth, and countless numbers are saved from certain death by Caesarean operations. This has been going on since the dawn of human history. According to Jesus, who believed in the Old Testament, and therefore Genesis 3 verse 16, this carnage is caused by Eve, in the garden of Eden, eating forbidden fruit, and God, in his fury, condemned innumerable innocent women to suffer unspeakable agony and even death in childbirth. So, Jesus, it's about time your Loving Heavenly Father forgave Eve of her sin of eating a forbidden banana. Of Course, Evolution which the Christian has to reject, has a far more rational explanation of women's problems in childbirth, namely the rapid expansion of the human brain from about 300cc to 1300 cc in a short space of time.
Painful childbirth wasn't a punishment by God. That was an act of mercy from God. Mortallity and hardships are the tool of God to bring people to repentance. If God wanted to punish Adam and Eve, He would just let them continue live forever in sin aka making their lives infinitly miserable, cuz they are separeted from Him and He is the source of everything good. ua-cam.com/video/akZce7_VWq8/v-deo.html&ab_channel=IdolKiller
I could listen to him all day.
The book he is referring to: The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus's Crucifixion
The clip is too short to get the the actual "answer" of "what is the atonement?" - but he sets a broad context which is important.
I haven't seen a clip of NT Wright that has any amount of clarity.
A lot of the time I notice he answers a question by saying people have been getting a subject wrong for quite some time, then says that the answer isn't found in the epistles, but really found in the four gospels. I still don't really know what he thinks.
@N8R_Quizzie I think most of the subjects that he deals with cannot be reduced by a simple "yes" or "no". That's our problem. We don't wanna question by ourselves. Wright takes the subject to another level of discussion. Most of the times he prefers to bring questions rather than answers. If we want to get to a real understanding of something, first we need to start from what it doesn't mean so then we can begin to understand what it means.
But he never gets there, he convolutes the concepts so much that the answer is a form circular reasoning where agrees with himself. The writing styles in scripture can be manipulated to pretty much mean whatever you want. Without the atoning sacrifice there is no good news. theologians of every stripe have been saying this for centuries and he thinks he found a way to “correct” all our misunderstandings from every denomination.
It amazes me how our western cultures find it so hard to comprehend the sacrifce of Jesus as an act of love, forguiveness, justice (not retributive justice), mercy, restoration and reconciliation rather than enforcing wrath, punishment, payment, death, penatly and debt. Our sense of justice based on the roman law has distorted the meaning of God's work on the cross through Jesus.
Jesus is fulfilling all the jewish tradition had spoken about the Lord's day in which God would begin a new creation (in Luke 4 Jesus acomplhishes Isaiah 61).
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
How can we distort and turn the good news of God's favor into some bloody killing sacrifice required to satisty his wrath. We lost something along the way. We have gone too far away from the concept of justice demonstrated through the hebrew tradition.
Here is a partial list of Penal Substitutionary Atonement problems:
5. Basic logic tells us that a complete payment cancels forgiveness. You cannot forgive a debt that has already been paid, and you do not need to pay a debt that has been forgiven. Forgiveness is granted because a debt has NOT been paid, not after the payment has been made!
6. Forgiveness that can be bought or sold is not true forgiveness. If you think that you or a third party can purchase genuine forgiveness, you do not understand forgiveness!
7. We humans are able to forgive others when they sin against us. To claim that God cannot do a good thing that we can do is to make us more moral than God.
8. PSA’s "infinite justice” claim has God incapable of truly forgiving us without first getting a proxy payment by murder and blood. How can that be genuine forgiveness?
9. If someone says, “I forgive you,” you assume it is done right then, not secretly projecting it into a nebulous future when a payment will eventually be made by someone else. Secretly projecting the act of forgiving into the distant future would be considered deceptive. God is not a deceiver for forgiving people before Christ died.
10. God said many times that He would forgive, and He forgave (past tense), long before Jesus was born. Many texts could be listed. The following are just a few of these: “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin.” 2 Chronicles 7:14 “I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,” and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.” Psalm 32:5 “You forgave the iniquity of your people; you covered all their sin.” Psalm 85:2 “LORD our God, you answered them; you were to Israel a forgiving God, though you punished their misdeeds.” Psalm 99:8 NIV “Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love.” Micah 7:18 “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:7
11. Jesus did not seem to think that he was going to make a payment to God for the sins of humanity. Even while on the cross He did not speak as if he was making a payment when he said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk 23:34). Jesus did not say, “Father, wait until I am finished paying for their sins, then you can forgive them.”
12. Every example of forgiveness we have from Jesus shows forgiveness in the normal human sense, not in some unheard-of future forgiveness, transfer, imputation, payment, or third-party justice. “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors...for if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses...” Matthew 6:12, 14-15 “And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” Mark 11:25 (See also Matthew 9:2-8, 18:21-35, Luke 5:20, 6:37, 7:47-48, 11:4, 15:11-32.) 13. A literal payment requires a literal transfer and a literal recipient of that payment. How can a death (an action, not a substance) be a literal payment? Who collected this payment? 14. If God has been paid in full for our sins, then why does He still demand that we stop sinning and live right, and even have wrath and threaten judgment for disobedience? If Jesus paid it all, God got what He wanted. 15. Would not a payment for sin be a type of indulgence payment, a bribe to ignore sin and to issue a pardon? A blood sacrifice as a payment to a god is a pagan idea, which is why God ordered the Old Testament people many times to stop their sacrifices - they began treating sacrifices as if they were indulgences, and that stinks to God. Ps. 40:6, 51:16, Jer. 6:20, Is. 1:11-18, 1 Samuel 15:22, Hosea 6:6, Micah 6:6-8, Amos 5:22. (The God of the Bible is relational, and sacrifices were supposed to be a token of this relationship, not a payment to get Him to change.)
For more on this topic, see the book “Atonement and Reconciliation” by Kevin George.
You may enjoy the work of Paul Vendredi on this subject. He takes the earlier eastern orthodox and coptic view he calls "Restored Icon" 'atonement theology', although atonement as we would normall understand it is absent from the model since atonement theology is rooted in augustinian PSA.
@@Elmarias777 Yes. He is a scholar in this area. We are in touch.
Hebrews 9 explains it very well if you think this is part of the word of God, 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins'. When I was in sin, I could not stand before God as He is holy and I was not, so in His great love He sent Jesus roughly 2000 years ago to die in my place on the cross, He shed is own blood for me in my stead. As soon as I believed in Jesus for the payment of my sins and believed on Him as Lord I was pardoned for all my sins, I entered into a relationship with Jesus because He is risen from the dead and He filled me with His Holy Spirit. Forgiveness is offered as a gift, I don’t pay for my own sins-justice has been done Jesus has paid, He is the propitiation for our sins, not only ours but for the sins of the whole world, but you have to believe in Jesus as your sin-bearer otherwise your sins are not forgiven because you reject His Son and refuse His forgiveness.
@@blackcoffee2 The words “of sins” are not in the Greek text of Hebrews 9:22. Also, the word “forgiveness” is the Greek word “aphesis” which means “to let go, to release.” “Aphesis” is only forgiveness in a derivative, secondary sense, as a metaphor.
In Chapters 8-9, the author explains to a Jewish audience that there is now a new and better covenant. A practicing Jew couldn’t just flippantly abandon the Mosaic covenant for a new idea; something and someone must authorize the setting aside of the old to be superseded by the new. This scenario is the context.
The summary of 9:1-24 is that Moses inaugurated the first covenant on earth with animal blood and an earthly tabernacle, while Christ inaugurated this new superseding covenant with his own blood. “By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear” Heb. 8:13.
Verse 9:22 indicates the legal principle with two claims: 1. "under the law almost everything [but not everything] is purified [set apart, dedicated] with blood," and 2. "without the shedding of blood there is no" release (aphesis) of the prior covenant for inaugurating a second. Once the entire context is understood, at least in the big picture, it becomes clear that verse 22 has nothing to do with forgiveness of sin, but rather that there was no release of the former covenant without first shedding blood.
@@kevingeorge1095 that’s how I read this as well thanks for articulating it.
ATONEMENT as COSMIC JUSTICE:
After thinking deeply through atonement in order to explain it to Muslims, Hebrews 2:10 lit up the whole subject for me.
"For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering."
On the cross Jesus identified with all humanity, and as their Creator took responsibility for their wrongs.
Although God did not sin, he created those that did. As a parent takes responsibility for a child's broken window, our Creator takes responsibility for us.
It is cosmic justice.
You can see more of how we explain this in our videos. Click our icon for a 2-minute intro.
Your focus on Muslims is important as it allows others to look at the subject from another important perspective.
Another perspective is that we as creatures had nothing of such value to offer as sacrifice to atone for our sins.
Only God could do that and did so out of love.
God the Father was not angry but pleased by Jesus' obedience - the obedience we lack/lacked.
Your parent analogy is good!
Wonderful!
15 biblical reasons Jesus died, listed in no particular order:
1. God wanted a faithful man to take Adam’s place. 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45-49, Philippians 2:8-11
2. To reconcile us to God. 2 Cor. 5:17-21, Ephesians 2:13-16, Romans 5:6-10, Colossians 1:19-22
3. To be an example. 1 Peter 2:21, 3:18, Philippians 2:4-10
4. To stop sin. Matthew 26:27-28, Mark 10:45, Romans 6:6-14, 1 Peter 2:24, Galatians 1:4, 2:21, Titus 2:14, Revelation 1:5
5. To defeat the powers of evil. Colossians 2:15
6. To become the firstborn from the dead. Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:18
7. To supersede the Mosaic law with a blood covenant. Ephesians 2:13-17, Galatians 3:13
8. To express God’s love. John 3:16, Romans 5:8
9. To set us right by faith. Galatians 2:21, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15
10. To defeat death. Romans 6:9, 1 Corinthians 15:26, 2 Timothy 1:10
11. To triumph over the power of sin. Romans 6:10-11
12. To crush the serpent’s head. Genesis 3:15
13. To bring resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22
14. To draw others to himself. John 12:32-33
15. To become our High Priest. Hebrews 10:19-22
Appendix A of the book entitled “Atonement and Reconciliation” by Kevin George
But it seems that NT Wright still holds to a penal substitutionary atonement. Just very complicated in his explanation (full video). And clearly, it not about individualism - even though we each need to know our broken, sinful lives are in need of the finished work of the Cross.
I think he is saying that Christ is still taking on sin and death and defeating it by His resurrection as opposed to taking on the anger of the Father so God can look past the power of sin still at work.
This is an issue with N.T. Wright. No one ever seems to know for sure what he's saying.
Why is he the lamb of God? What did the hebrews do to lambs?
I think he what means is that there really is penal substitutionary atonement but the Jesus on the cross didn't just buy our justification but also our sanctification, and collectively as a Church God enacts the Kingdom of Heaven on a societal level to bring restoration to the world even now.
I wish he'd spell it out like that, but I could also be wrong I've only listened to him about a total of an hour.
Full Video: ua-cam.com/video/GGJ7M1CDhBU/v-deo.html
Wow
Not totally right. Gospels teach on the propitiation and expiration of the work of Christ. Kingdom teaching for on earth was at the beginning, not toward the end as much. See Acts 1:6,7. Ps 2 BTW, is concerning the coming kingdom. Not now.
2:49 - pt.. 1
Bulls of Bashan as Jesus said are evil entities. See Heiser: Unseen Realm
When I first found N T Wright I was excited. I though he was on the right track. Now I realize he is completely wrong. God concentrated evil in Jesus and then judged it? God punished Evil not Jesus? I guess the death of Jesus was just collateral damage. Sorry, Bart Ehrman is probably right. Jesus of Nazareth never taught atonement. Jesus taught repentance and forgiveness. There never was an atonement. That is why no one can explain it.
I think you are onto something here, but you are inappropriately disregarding “atonement” because you are accepting an unbiblical definition as used by many teachers and theologians in the modern church in the west. The word atonement messed me up for a while. I think I understand it better now after having invested a lot of time studying it and reflecting on it as it is used in the Bible. The reason for this confusion is because translators use this one word, or variations of it, to translate three different types of words. The word “atonement”, when originally created, meant reconciliation. The problem is translators use it to represent a Hebrew word in the OT that is best understood as “cover” or “cleanse”. In the NT, it has been used to represent Greek words that mean reconciliation while also being used to represent other Greek words that are also found in the LXX version of the OT and are used to represent the “covering” or “cleansing” Hebrew words mentioned above.
I am not sure how clear my comment just above will be so let me add this for additional clarity. Biblical atonement is about reconciliation with God and the cleansing of our sins. It is the Word, Christ’s life and His spirit that cleanses us. Repentance leads to forgiveness as you said, but forgiveness is not enough for eternal life. Only the righteous will inherit eternal life so we must be made righteous and that is where the cleansing comes in, along with the regular renewing of our minds which, in my view, is just repentance anew as the Holy Spirit brings new things to our attention helping make us in the likeness of the Son.
Wrong knowledge is worst than poison, it kills, destroy.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the correct view.
Doubtful.
This is a great argument. “PSA is correct because we say so”
@@paulallenscards It's social media. Works fine.
penal substitution is illogical
@@robertjohn8711 how so? Maybe you're just misunderstanding it.
It is important that Bishop Wright understands the Christian view of the Afterlife. According to Christian doctrine, there was no Afterlife, no Heaven or Hell, before two thousand years ago. There is no mention in the Old Testament of any doctrine a person had to believe to get to Heaven, the rejection of which meant eternal Hell fire. After Jesus, that all changed. If a person believed that Jesus had died for their sins, he or she went to heaven. If they rejected this doctrine, they went to Hell.(John 11 verse 25). Those, living after Jesus, and had not been told the "Good News" unfortunately went to Hell through no fault of their own. This is why Christian missionaries frantically travel the world, trying to convert the Heathen. (1 Corinthians 9 verse 16 "Yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel!")
"A short cut to Heaven" is what the Church announces, when a missionary dies of a tropical disease, gets murdered, or suffers a similar fate. We, of sound mind, reject this fantasy.
Look up dr Michael Heiser if you're missing some context with this.
If we ask what causes mass hysteria in humans, it is certainly not the labours of theologians and philosophers, whose .effect on human behaviour has been virtually nil. Take Germany, for example, home to the finest theologians and philosophers. In the 1930's and '40's the German people, taking leave of their senses, worshipped a madman. The adulation millions of them showed for Adolf Hitler defies belief. Thronging the streets and stadiums, giving the Nazi salute, they were obsessed with the man and his message. Compare this with the life of Jesus, who was virtually unnoticed in his lifetime, not even gaining a mention by respectable historians of his day. The reason for this is theology and philosophy are incomprehensible subjects for the common man. We fall asleep listening to a sermon on the mysteries of the Trinity, but go wild with delight, when our local team scores the winning goal at Wembley. And rightly so.
" Something happens at the cross which changes cosmic power relations" says the Bishop. Yeah. The only thing Jesus said on the cross was " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me". Funny thing to say, if, as the Bishop believes, Jesus was God.
Psalm 22…
It wasn't the only thing he said - there are 7 'sayings from the cross'
Makes sense of this, Bishop, from the Gospel of Thomas which I regard as authentic.
"Simon Peter said to him, Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.
Jesus said, I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven. "
Bishop Wright is seriously in error in studying the sayings of St.Paul, rather than those of Jesus. The life of Jesus meant nothing to St.Paul. In 2 Corinthians chapter 5 verse 16, St. Paul admits he knew Jesus, but nothing in Jesus' life was worth a mention. Jesus, however, never mentions Paul, and certainly did not make him one of his disciples. I, however, take the correct view, and only study the sayings of Jesus, some of which are bizarre, to say the least.
Jesus was a war lord. In Luke 22 verse 36 he tells his disciples, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" In Matthew 10 verse 34 Jesus says "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" In Luke 22 verse 50 one of the disciples cuts off someone ear with a sword. Jesus is God, says the Bishop. But he still needs bodyguards armed with swords. Very odd......
Jesus and St.Paul were obsessed with the word "Sin" without defining what a "Sin" was. Even admiring a woman's body was a "Sin" to Jesus. What was a man supposed to do? Find women repulsive?
In the gospel of salvation which is the epistle to the Romans Paul defines the imputation of sin in Romans 3:20.
To make the case Paul was making I have made a series of Ytube videos 'Myths in so-called Christianity' and #1 covers this subject.
As you will see I wrote to Tom who follows the Reformation and is in error, I also wrote to the Queen and English Dictionary but none replied so I made the video.
@Brian Wright Not true.
I have two Ytube videos explaining this error and invite you to watch them as it is a matter of salvation.
'All have sinned' and 'Original sin' in the series 'Myths in so-called Christianity', in my full name Simon John Skinner.
St. Paul said the most disgraceful thing in 1 Corinthians 15 verse 32 " If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Firstly, St. Paul is not sure if there is an Afterlife, and secondly, this life is worthless unless there is one. If St.Paul's caveman ancestor had taken this philosophy, the human race would have died out.
Many people have achieved great things for society without believing in an Afterlife. I suggest people who study the Letters of St.Paul, would be better employed reading the Beano.
The most disgraceful contradiction in Christianity is in Matthew 12 verse 31 where Jesus says "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." Every year, hundreds of thousands of women die in childbirth, and countless numbers are saved from certain death by Caesarean operations. This has been going on since the dawn of human history. According to Jesus, who believed in the Old Testament, and therefore Genesis 3 verse 16, this carnage is caused by Eve, in the garden of Eden, eating forbidden fruit, and God, in his fury, condemned innumerable innocent women to suffer unspeakable agony and even death in childbirth. So, Jesus, it's about time your Loving Heavenly Father forgave Eve of her sin of eating a forbidden banana. Of Course, Evolution which the Christian has to reject,
has a far more rational explanation of women's problems in childbirth, namely the rapid expansion of the human brain from about 300cc to 1300 cc in a short space of time.
Painful childbirth wasn't a punishment by God. That was an act of mercy from God. Mortallity and hardships are the tool of God to bring people to repentance.
If God wanted to punish Adam and Eve, He would just let them continue live forever in sin aka making their lives infinitly miserable, cuz they are separeted from Him and He is the source of everything good.
ua-cam.com/video/akZce7_VWq8/v-deo.html&ab_channel=IdolKiller