Misunderstood Concepts--- Atonement

[Wick Stick]

Gen 5 gives us the generations of Adam to Noah. Gen 6 picks up right where Gen 5 leaves off.

It does, but, um... they're basically the same names as the ones in the genealogy of Cain in the prior chapter:

Cain -> Cainan
Enoch -> Enoch
Irad -> Jared
Mehujael -> Mahalaleel
Methsael -> Methuselah
Lamech -> Lamech

If that's literal, it's one heckuva coincidence. Then again, Jesus and Paul tell us to ignore genealogies.

Is there another layer of meaning? Absolutely. If we look at the meanings of those names, they are a sort of downward spiral. Enoch means "to set up" but then Jared/Irad means "to go down" and we progress downwards til Methuselah which is basically "rest in peace."

Gen 9 tells us that from Noah's three sons and their wives, the whole earth is populated.

Yep. The Generations of Noah, and The Generations of Shem, Ham, and Japheth come from a common source, and it's pretty easy to trace it to the area of Ararat - a civilization that archaeologists call Urartu (same word). But it isn't the same source as The Generations of Adam.

Gen 16 introduces a guy named Abraham and follows his family line. (it's all pretty chronological)

The records on Abram/Abraham duplicate themselves, sometimes with small differences (e.g. the treaty with Abimelech over the well of Beersheba). That's because they come from 2 sources. One handed down through Jacob/Israel, and one handed down through Esau/Edom. That's also the reason why everybody has 2 names.

Gen 36 accounts the generations of Edom. And this you contend is actually what Genesis 2- Gen 5 is referencing? --I can't help you there.

Yeah. So, something funky in this chapter is that we get 2 section titles that are only 8 verses apart.

v. 1 Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom.
v. 9 And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in mount Seir

It's not strange that there are 2 duplicate sections. What's strange is that every other statement of this sort comes with several chapters of content. My hypothesis here is that a big chunk of The Generations of Esau who is Edom was re-located within the compilation of books, and probably should be here instead.

But it does seem that you do understand what "leaving your father and mother" must mean in the physical sense. What might if refer to in a spiritual sense? You say- there is...

It's talking about abandoning one's parentage. That turns out to be important later in Jesus' teachings... one has to leave behind their old parents to be adopted unto Christ. To put a philosophical spin on it... a man's destiny is largely tied to his clan and heredity... Priests begat priests, and carpenters begat carpenters. So then, for a man to change his destiny, he needs to change his clan and heredity. The old parents must be relegated for the new Parent to adopt.

According to nurture and nature, you do seem to understand where babies physically come from. Does God violate nature?

Rarely.

If spirit gives birth to spirit (and flesh to flesh) -in the spiritual sense, where do babies come from?

Birth always comes through water. Shall we quibble over how literal the water is?

 

[Mr E]

It does, but, um... they're basically the same names as the ones in the genealogy of Cain in the prior chapter:

Cain -> Cainan
Enoch -> Enoch
Irad -> Jared
Mehujael -> Mahalaleel
Methsael -> Methuselah
Lamech -> Lamech

I don't understand what you are referring to here above.^^^

Yep. The Generations of Noah, and The Generations of Shem, Ham, and Japheth come from a common source, and it's pretty easy to trace it to the area of Ararat - a civilization that archaeologists call Urartu (same word). But it isn't the same source as The Generations of Adam.

According to Luke, it's one line....

So Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Yeah. So, something funky in this chapter is that we get 2 section titles that are only 8 verses apart.

v. 1 Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom.
v. 9 And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in mount Seir

It's not strange that there are 2 duplicate sections. What's strange is that every other statement of this sort comes with several chapters of content. My hypothesis here is that a big chunk of The Generations of Esau who is Edom was re-located within the compilation of books, and probably should be here instead.

I'm not following you here either. Gen 36 verse 1 says who his wives were. Verse 9 goes into detail with respect to the sons he had with each of those wives.


What's rare is finding someone with an interest in exploring these things. I'm enjoying the conversation.

 

[Mr E]

Galatians 4:28-29 KJV
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. [29] But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

It's incredible, because folks completely miss what Paul is saying here. Don't forget that the comparison he is making identifies the physical Jerusalem (that is-- the Jewish people) as the sons of the slave woman, --the ones born into slavery. So it isn't a physical son that he is talking about when he talks about Issac, being the son of a promise, one sent by God. He's pointing to another realm. A spiritual son that is sent down to a physical man.

He sets this out early in the same chapter- identifying the spiritual son as one sent into our hearts.

Now I mean that the heir, as long as he is a minor, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything. But he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. So also we, when we were minors, were enslaved under the basic forces of the world. But when the appropriate time had come, God sent out his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we may be adopted as sons with full rights. And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, who calls“Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if you are a son, then you are also an heir through God.

 

[Wick Stick]

I don't understand what you are referring to here above.^^^

If you were to open Genesis 4 and put it next to Genesis 5... you know what? I can just do it like this:

Gen 4: And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch... And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

Gen 5: And Seth... begat Enos.. And Enos... begat Cainan... And Cainan... begat Mahalaleel... Mahalaleel begat Jared... Jared begat Enoch... Enoch begat Methuselah... Methuselah begat Lamech.

Now, these aren't identical, but they're awfully close. Irad and Jared are the same name in Hebrew, only the translators have distinguished them. Enoch and Lamech are the same in each list. And there are 3 other names that are slightly different, but have functionally the same meanings.

If there were 1 or 2 names that were similar, we'd brush it off as a coincidence. But there are 6 names in mostly the same order here. This is not a coincidence.

According to Luke, it's one line....

So Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

What do we suppose was Luke's purpose for recording Jesus' genealogy? Was it to have a literal record of His genealogy?

If so, that would be strange, since part of Jesus' doctrine is that genealogies are unreliable... that we ought to look at actions to determine who is a real child of Abraham. And then there's the matter of it not matching the other genealogy in Matthew.

I'm not following you here either. Gen 36 verse 1 says who his wives were. Verse 9 goes into detail with respect to the sons he had with each of those wives.

There are a bunch of verses in Genesis that appear to be titles for sections of the book. They're sometimes called toledoth statements, and they take the same form each time one appears: "these are the generations of _____."

Usually, there are several chapters for each heading. But in Genesis 36, there are two of these titles, and they're only 8 verses apart. So... either this is an abnormally short section here, or else part of the section here got deleted... or moved.

What's rare is finding someone with an interest in exploring these things. I'm enjoying the conversation.

Me too.

 

[Mr E]

If you were to open Genesis 4 and put it next to Genesis 5... you know what? I can just do it like this:

Gen 4: And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch... And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

Gen 5: And Seth... begat Enos.. And Enos... begat Cainan... And Cainan... begat Mahalaleel... Mahalaleel begat Jared... Jared begat Enoch... Enoch begat Methuselah... Methuselah begat Lamech.

Now, these aren't identical, but they're awfully close. Irad and Jared are the same name in Hebrew, only the translators have distinguished them. Enoch and Lamech are the same in each list. And there are 3 other names that are slightly different, but have functionally the same meanings.

If there were 1 or 2 names that were similar, we'd brush it off as a coincidence. But there are 6 names in mostly the same order here. This is not a coincidence.


What do we suppose was Luke's purpose for recording Jesus' genealogy? Was it to have a literal record of His genealogy?

If so, that would be strange, since part of Jesus' doctrine is that genealogies are unreliable... that we ought to look at actions to determine who is a real child of Abraham. And then there's the matter of it not matching the other genealogy in Matthew.

There are a bunch of verses in Genesis that appear to be titles for sections of the book. They're sometimes called toledoth statements, and they take the same form each time one appears: "these are the generations of _____."

Usually, there are several chapters for each heading. But in Genesis 36, there are two of these titles, and they're only 8 verses apart. So... either this is an abnormally short section here, or else part of the section here got deleted... or moved.

Me too.

Not identical. Not in my family, but common in some--- a man might be named John and that man might have a brother named Jack.


Now Jacob has two sons, one he names John and the other Jack. John has a son and he names him after his brother Jack, then he has a second son and he names him John Jr. So now we have two Johns and two Jacks, but then Jack (Sr) has three sons and he names them John (after his brother) Jack Jr, and Jacob (after his own father, Jake's grandfather) ------


The book of Jasher might be worth looking at to gain some additional perspective. The names are similar, yes. They are not the same people. There are two lines-- one of Adam's son Cain, and the other of Adam's son Seth. Abel was murdered before he had any recorded wife or children.

 

[Wick Stick]

Not identical. Not in my family, but common in some--- a man might be named John and that man might have a brother named Jack.


Now Jacob has two sons, one he names John and the other Jack. John has a son and he names him after his brother Jack, then he has a second son and he names him John Jr. So now we have two Johns and two Jacks, but then Jack (Sr) has three sons and he names them John (after his brother) Jack Jr, and Jacob (after his own father, Jake's grandfather) ------

Too many coincidences for my tastes, but you do.

The book of Jasher might be worth looking at to gain some additional perspective. The names are similar, yes. They are not the same people. There are two lines-- one of Adam's son Cain, and the other of Adam's son Seth. Abel was murdered before he had any recorded wife or children.

I have looked into it. The Book of Jasher that we have today was written in the 15th century in Spain. It's not the same as the one referenced in the Bible.

There's also a Mormon book of the same name, I think.

 

[Mr E]

I have looked into it. The Book of Jasher that we have today was written in the 15th century in Spain. It's not the same as the one referenced in the Bible.

There are forgeries, to be sure. Look elsewhere.

You are referring to one in particiular, written by Jacob Ilive -a forgery, (mentioned here ) rather than one published in 1840 by a man named Mordecai Manuel Noah. It was published in 1887 as a republication of the original 1840 Mordecai Manuel Noah copy which was first published in New York. —-of course it didn’t come from New York.

The 1840 publication came from much, much older copies and it was translated from Hebrew to English— its this translation that Mordecai Noah published.

Following the link below--- Use the arrow at the top to orient the page for reading and the + button if you'd like to enlarge. In the article Rabbi Chiel points to an earlier work in 1625 translated from the Hebrew at that time by an editor/publisher called Joseph ben Samuel in Venice. Mr Samuel provides an account of the legendary origins of this particular book of Jasher he made public- saying a copy came from a collection of treasures- books among them that were found in a residence when Titus took Jerusalem by conquest. This of course would have been that most famous destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The treasure of books and scrolls made their way to Spain with the ranking Roman Officer who had secured them.

Among the treasure trove, the most valuable of all was this Book of Jasher (sefer ha-Yashar) and interestingly the story goes on to say that twelve copies of the ancient work were recovered, 'none differing from another' "nothing added, nothing deficient."

But Joseph ben Samuel doesn't leave it there with an origin of 70AD for these intact copies. He goes farther back in time still, to the days of Ptolemy II the ruler of Egypt and his famous library in Alexandria. This is the era of almost 300 BC when the collection of scrolls at the Alexandria Library was growing and growing as the world's greatest database of knowledge. Ptolemy gathered originals or a copy of every ancient scroll he encountered amassing the greatest collection of ancient times. Ptolemy of course wanted a copy of the Hebrew Book of the Laws (Book of Moses) and so he sent a delegation to Jerusalem which his father (Ptolemy I) had inherited before him after Alexander the Great made it part of the Greek (Macedonian) kingdom in 332BC. Those tricksy Jewish leaders wouldn't part with an actual book of the Law, not inclined to hand one over to gentile heathen, they instead slipped the delegation a copy of the Book of Jasher.

When Ptolemy II realized he'd been duped he brought 70 elders from Jerusalem and kept them in separated quarters (house arrest) until each one of them produced for him an independent version of the book of laws to ensure that there was no more trickery. He collected those seventy copies and checked them for accuracy one against another to establish authenticity. In this way he ended up with both the Pentateuch and the Book of Jasher in his library.


https://drmsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Chiel-The-Mysterious-Book-of-Jasher.pdf

Another link, if interested in the back story-- Sefer Hayashar

 

[Mr E]

There's an interesting story within that book that very much pertains to this atonement concept. It traces a bit of the history of that original animal skin that God provided for Adam and Eve as their original 'covering.' Adam's mantel became a sort of family heirloom-- a hand me down.


Noah has a fancy coat. A mantel that he wears as a covering, but it's more than a covering. It's a symbol of authority. Wearing it means that you are the one in charge. You are the Lord of the land. -And this is no ordinary animal skin. This is the 'actual' garment that God gave Adam and Eve as the atonement covering when they fell from grace -- when they became flesh. Get the picture? Think silence of the lambs.

And the garments of skin which God made for Adam and his wife, when they went out of the garden, were given to Cush.
For after the death of Adam and his wife, the garments were given to Enoch, the son of Jared, and when Enoch was taken up to God, he gave them to Methuselah, his son.
And at the death of Methuselah, Noah took them and brought them to the ark, and they were with him until he went out of the ark.

And in their going out, Ham stole those garments from Noah his father, and he took them and hid them from his brothers.
And when Ham begat his first born Cush, he gave him the garments in secret, and they were with Cush many days.
And Cush also concealed them from his sons and brothers, and when Cush had begotten Nimrod, he gave him those garments through his love for him, and Nimrod grew up, and when he was twenty years old he put on those garments.

From Genesis 9- (my paraphrase)

Noah got drunk and left this most treasured possession unattended. He took off this garment and Ham stole it, usurping his authority. He never gave it back... he passed it on to his son and eventually it went into the hands of his grandson Nimrod who in wearing it became a mighty one, ruler, Lord over all the earth.

 

[Wick Stick]

There are forgeries, to be sure. Look elsewhere.

You are referring to one in particiular, written by Jacob Ilive -a forgery, (mentioned here ) rather than one published in 1840 by a man named Mordecai Manuel Noah.

I was referring to this one (wikipedia), which I think may be the same one you're talking about here?

It was published in 1887 as a republication of the original 1840 Mordecai Manuel Noah copy which was first published in New York. —-of course it didn’t come from New York.

The 1840 publication came from much, much older copies and it was translated from Hebrew to English— its this translation that Mordecai Noah published.

Following the link below--- Use the arrow at the top to orient the page for reading and the + button if you'd like to enlarge. In the article Rabbi Chiel points to an earlier work in 1625 translated from the Hebrew at that time by an editor/publisher called Joseph ben Samuel in Venice. Mr Samuel provides an account of the legendary origins of this particular book of Jasher he made public- saying a copy came from a collection of treasures- books among them that were found in a residence when Titus took Jerusalem by conquest. This of course would have been that most famous destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The treasure of books and scrolls made their way to Spain with the ranking Roman Officer who had secured them.

Among the treasure trove, the most valuable of all was this Book of Jasher (sefer ha-Yashar) and interestingly the story goes on to say that twelve copies of the ancient work were recovered, 'none differing from another' "nothing added, nothing deficient."

But Joseph ben Samuel doesn't leave it there with an origin of 70AD for these intact copies. He goes farther back in time still, to the days of Ptolemy II the ruler of Egypt and his famous library in Alexandria. This is the era of almost 300 BC when the collection of scrolls at the Alexandria Library was growing and growing as the world's greatest database of knowledge. Ptolemy gathered originals or a copy of every ancient scroll he encountered amassing the greatest collection of ancient times. Ptolemy of course wanted a copy of the Hebrew Book of the Laws (Book of Moses) and so he sent a delegation to Jerusalem which his father (Ptolemy I) had inherited before him after Alexander the Great made it part of the Greek (Macedonian) kingdom in 332BC. Those tricksy Jewish leaders wouldn't part with an actual book of the Law, not inclined to hand one over to gentile heathen, they instead slipped the delegation a copy of the Book of Jasher.

When Ptolemy II realized he'd been duped he brought 70 elders from Jerusalem and kept them in separated quarters (house arrest) until each one of them produced for him an independent version of the book of laws to ensure that there was no more trickery. He collected those seventy copies and checked them for accuracy one against another to establish authenticity. In this way he ended up with both the Pentateuch and the Book of Jasher in his library.

https://drmsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Chiel-The-Mysterious-Book-of-Jasher.pdf

Another link, if interested in the back story-- Sefer Hayashar

Those pictures of old pages are kinda rough. Here's a text version of the book: The Book of Jasher

This is the one that the LDS church believes. It clearly didn't originate with them, but they have been the ones to keep re-printing it over the years.

It's been almost a decade since I looked into this text. What do I remember? At the time I was investigating Kabbalah, which ultimately is Jewish-flavored gnosticism. I may be confusing it with the Zohar, which I definitely read... and that isn't an endorsement. The Zohar is either a forgery or else authored by the single greatest enemy of the Christian faith that has ever existed, but I digress...

I think I bailed on Jasher after a few chapters because (a) there were questions about it being authentically antique, and (b) the first few chapters didn't seem to contain any information that wasn't in Genesis?

Is there something there you think is worthwhile? I'm probably not reading the whole thing to find it myself, but if you want to point out the good bits, I would take a look.

 

[Wick Stick]

There's an interesting story within that book that very much pertains to this atonement concept. It traces a bit of the history of that original animal skin that God provided for Adam and Eve as their original 'covering.' Adam's mantel became a sort of family heirloom-- a hand me down.


Noah has a fancy coat. A mantel that he wears as a covering, but it's more than a covering. It's a symbol of authority. Wearing it means that you are the one in charge. You are the Lord of the land. -And this is no ordinary animal skin. This is the 'actual' garment that God gave Adam and Eve as the atonement covering when they fell from grace -- when they became flesh. Get the picture? Think silence of the lambs.

And the garments of skin which God made for Adam and his wife, when they went out of the garden, were given to Cush.
For after the death of Adam and his wife, the garments were given to Enoch, the son of Jared, and when Enoch was taken up to God, he gave them to Methuselah, his son.
And at the death of Methuselah, Noah took them and brought them to the ark, and they were with him until he went out of the ark.

And in their going out, Ham stole those garments from Noah his father, and he took them and hid them from his brothers.
And when Ham begat his first born Cush, he gave him the garments in secret, and they were with Cush many days.
And Cush also concealed them from his sons and brothers, and when Cush had begotten Nimrod, he gave him those garments through his love for him, and Nimrod grew up, and when he was twenty years old he put on those garments.

From Genesis 9- (my paraphrase)

Noah got drunk and left this most treasured possession unattended. He took off this garment and Ham stole it, usurping his authority. He never gave it back... he passed it on to his son and eventually it went into the hands of his grandson Nimrod who in wearing it became a mighty one, ruler, Lord over all the earth.

Oh! I remember this story! It's interesting and would make for a great movie, but... I think it's fiction.

The story of Noah comes from a different place and people that the story of Adam.

Actually... all of the stories in Genesis can be loosely categorized by their origin. Some come from a northern tradition that originates in Syria/Turkey/northern Iraq, and others from a southern tradition originating in the Negev/Arabia/Jordan. Noah comes from the northern tradition, while Adam is from the southern.

 

[Mr E]

I have looked into it. The Book of Jasher that we have today was written in the 15th century in Spain. It's not the same as the one referenced in the Bible.

This above is what made me think we weren't talking about the same book-- It certainly was not "written" in the 15th century in Spain, rather it may have been copied, or published many times, but always from an earlier original source.

the preface to the 1625 version still claims that its original source book came from the ruins of Jerusalem in AD 70, where a Roman officer named Sidrus allegedly discovered a Hebrew scholar hiding in a hidden library.


I'd like to get back to that original covering, for atonement.

 

[Wick Stick]

I'd like to get back to that original covering, for atonement.

Sorry I took you so far off-topic. So, uh...

There seems to be some link between atonement and anointing. Atonement means covering, and anointing means smearing, and those seem pretty similar to me.

Exodus 29:
And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.

 

[Mr E]

Sorry I took you so far off-topic. So, uh...

There seems to be some link between atonement and anointing. Atonement means covering, and anointing means smearing, and those seem pretty similar to me.

Exodus 29:
And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.

An obvious link, yes. It's blood.

The atonement (covering) required the shedding of blood, and it was the smearing of blood that signified the sacrifice. It's an offering of blood-- or in other words -physical life.... that's is given in exchange, for making amends.

He is to take some of the bull’s blood and with his finger sprinkle it on the front of the atonement cover; then he shall sprinkle some of it with his finger seven times before the atonement cover.

What began as a simple concept, became a religious system.

 

[Mr E]

The question is-- Why?

Let me ask a different one. When your kid offends you, or 'does wrong' in disobedience, doesn't listen, screws up, 'sins' or otherwise commits some sort of transgression..... do you require of them a blood sacrifice? Do you condemn them to death?

Why would you think that God does? It's a very big question. My favorite kind.

 

[Waiting on him]

The question is-- Why?

Let me ask a different one. When your kid offends you, or 'does wrong' in disobedience, doesn't listen, screws up, 'sins' or otherwise commits some sort of transgression..... do you require of them a blood sacrifice? Do you condemn them to death?

Why would you think that God does? It's a very big question. My favorite kind.

Sorry in advance for the short answer, but the truth of it all is that, God doesn’t require blood or sacrifice. It’s much more painful that than that. He requires that we love unconditional.

 

[Mr E]

Sorry in advance for the short answer, but the truth of it all is that, God doesn’t require blood or sacrifice. It’s much more painful that than that. He requires that we love unconditional.

It's that ^^^ for sure, and actually more than that. He asks us to give up our own lives and this is the example we see in Jesus. This is
the way' to eternal life. No one can pay this price on your behalf because it's already been paid. This is where the concept gets lost and the purpose for this thread...

You've heard it said, that Jesus paid it all. Yes, Jesus was a manifestation of the atonement.

You know that from your empty way of life inherited from your ancestors you were ransomed—not by perishable things like silver or gold, but by precious blood like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb, namely Christ. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was manifested in these last times for your sake. Through him you now trust in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

It is through Jesus, that we have an understanding of salvation and the way back to the Father, the way to our heavenly (spiritual) home.

The lamb, is spiritual, not physical at the beginning. The blood of the lamb was shed, and the 'skin' of the lamb was provided as our covering. If you think of these things in physical terms, you might picture Adam and Eve being given garments of lamb's skin to cover their nakedness and shame, and their punishment as banishment from a physical garden paradise, but this is a mere reflection of the reality above, where 'the man and his wife' were in relationship with God in spirit, communing/walking with Him with His presence, which is spirit. The lamb He sacrificed for them was not physical anymore than they were physical, but it was a spiritual sacrifice and spiritual blood and a spiritual covering. All this manifests in the physical world, but originates in the spiritual realm. The Christ, the spiritual anointing occurs in the heavens, and it is this spiritual lamb that is sacrificed and that descends and the physical realm reflects the spiritual reality. And always in opposition to this one sent from above there is an antichrist spirit that also manifests.... Cain, slays his brother Abel.

 

[Waiting on him]

It's that ^^^ for sure, and actually more than that. He asks us to give up our own lives and this is the example we see in Jesus. This is
the way' to eternal life. No one can pay this price on your behalf because it's already been paid. This is where the concept gets lost and the purpose for this thread...

You've heard it said, that Jesus paid it all. Yes, Jesus was a manifestation of the atonement.

You know that from your empty way of life inherited from your ancestors you were ransomed—not by perishable things like silver or gold, but by precious blood like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb, namely Christ. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was manifested in these last times for your sake. Through him you now trust in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

It is through Jesus, that we have an understanding of salvation and the way back to the Father, the way to our heavenly (spiritual) home.

The lamb, is spiritual, not physical at the beginning. The blood of the lamb was shed, and the 'skin' of the lamb was provided as our covering. If you think of these things in physical terms, you might picture Adam and Eve being given garments of lamb's skin to cover their nakedness and shame, and their punishment as banishment from a physical garden paradise, but this is a mere reflection of the reality above, where 'the man and his wife' were in relationship with God in spirit, communing/walking with Him with His presence, which is spirit. The lamb He sacrificed for them was not physical anymore than they were physical, but it was a spiritual sacrifice and spiritual blood and a spiritual covering. All this manifests in the physical world, but originates in the spiritual realm. The Christ, the spiritual anointing occurs in the heavens, and it is this spiritual lamb that is sacrificed and that descends and the physical realm reflects the spiritual reality. And always in opposition to this one sent from above there is an antichrist spirit that also manifests.... Cain, slays his brother Abel.

I’m gonna need a while to process all of this.

 

[Mr E]

I’m gonna need a while to process all of this.

It's some deep water. Just float on it awhile.

 

[Mr E]

We read in places like Jeremiah, in Hebrews, in the Psalms-- that God did not desire sacrifice.

How many messengers (prophets) did He send to us trying making this point?

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hos 6:6

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Ps 40:6

“Of what importance to me are your many sacrifices?” says the LORD. “I have had my fill of burnt sacrifices, of rams and the fat from steers. The blood of bulls, lambs, and goats I do not want. Is 1:11

Consider this>>>

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. So when he came into the world, he said, “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me. Whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you took no delight in. Then I said, ‘Here I am: I have come—it is written of me in the scroll of the book—to do your will, O God.’”

When he says above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you did not desire nor did you take delight in them” (which are offered according to the law), then he says, “Here I am: I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first to establish the second. By his will, we have been made holy through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands day after day serving and offering the same sacrifices again and again—sacrifices that can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, he sat down at the right hand of God, where he is now waiting until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet. For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are made holy. And the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us, for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will establish with them after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws on their hearts and I will inscribe them on their minds,” then he says, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no longer.” Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

You have to admit.... it's odd. Indeed, for a very long period of time an entire religious construct was erected on this "atonement" through sacrifice concept, yet God himself said, and the prophets confirmed (including Jesus himself) that God never wanted it. Yet Christians too, have built "a religion" on top of the idea that God "sacrificed" His own son.

Have we missed something?

 

[Waiting on him]

We read in places like Jeremiah, in Hebrews, in the Psalms-- that God did not desire sacrifice.

How many messengers (prophets) did He send to us trying making this point?

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hos 6:6

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Ps 40:6

“Of what importance to me are your many sacrifices?” says the LORD. “I have had my fill of burnt sacrifices, of rams and the fat from steers. The blood of bulls, lambs, and goats I do not want. Is 1:11

Consider this>>>

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. So when he came into the world, he said, “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me. Whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you took no delight in. Then I said, ‘Here I am: I have come—it is written of me in the scroll of the book—to do your will, O God.’”

When he says above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you did not desire nor did you take delight in them” (which are offered according to the law), then he says, “Here I am: I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first to establish the second. By his will, we have been made holy through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands day after day serving and offering the same sacrifices again and again—sacrifices that can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, he sat down at the right hand of God, where he is now waiting until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet. For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are made holy. And the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us, for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will establish with them after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws on their hearts and I will inscribe them on their minds,” then he says, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no longer.” Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

You have to admit.... it's odd. Indeed, for a very long period of time an entire religious construct was erected on this "atonement" through sacrifice concept, yet God himself said, and the prophets confirmed (including Jesus himself) that God never wanted it. Yet Christians too, have built "a religion" on top of the idea that God "sacrificed" His own son.

Have we missed something?

I see it now!

John 13:36 KJV
Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.

It’s the weirdest feeling that comes upon you in an instant.