Misunderstood Concepts--- Atonement

[Mr E]

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.

It's not the only time he spoke in those same terms. In John 8, he told the Jewish leaders-- Where I'm going, you cannot come... And- You are from below, I am from above. You are from this world. I am not from this world.

But-- Jesus was from around here. He was born in Bethlehem. He grew up in Nazareth. He wasn't from above. So he wasn't speaking of himself. He wasn't speaking of his physical person, but of and by the spirit within him.

 

[Waiting on him]

It's not the only time he spoke in those same terms. In John 8, he told the Jewish leaders-- Where I'm going, you cannot come... And- You are from below, I am from above. You are from this world. I am not from this world.

But-- Jesus was from around here. He was born in Bethlehem. He grew up in Nazareth. He wasn't from above. So he wasn't speaking of himself. He wasn't speaking of his physical person, but of and by the spirit within him.

It’s a hard thing to grasp. Jesus tells them to take up their cross but why. We’ve been told it was once for all?

 

[Mr E]

It’s a hard thing to grasp. Jesus tells them to take up their cross but why. We’ve been told it was once for all?

Because the sacrifice was heavenly, in the beginning as recorded in scripture, when He breathed His spirit into man, giving him life. That was the sacrifice, the filling of the vessel, the redemption and rescue of mankind.

It might help to understand how you view this world. Do you see this earth as a permanent home? Probably not. After all our bodies are born, we live and then we die and these vessels decay and are no more, but those contents return to the source, which is heavenly (divine) not physical.

Some people see this life we live here as a sort of school, where we live and learn and eventually "graduate" from and having done so, we move on to the next life in heaven-- the after-life.

Some people see this life as a prison of sorts, where we have fallen and serve essentially a life sentence and after doing our time here, we are set free from this earthly bondage. I'm in this camp, personally-- as that's how scripture alludes, in places like Jude 1

You also know that the angels who did not keep within their proper domain but abandoned their own place of residence, he has kept in eternal chains in utter darkness, locked up for the judgment of the great Day.

Also in Luke 10, Jesus says-

“I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

And Isaiah 24, where it is said of judgment--


At that time the LORD will punish the heavenly forces in the heavens and the earthly kings on the earth. They will be imprisoned in a pit, locked up in a prison, and after staying there for a long time, they will be punished.

 

[Mr E]

We’ve been told it was once for all?

Yes. That's what we've been told. And if you can understand that the sacrifice was made in the beginning as the atonement for sin, then it all makes sense. Once, for all time. For each and every one of us and we only have to accept it. Believe and receive.

In John 2 we read this>>

When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

What scripture was it that they then believed? Well nothing that Jesus had said was recorded yet as scripture so the writer is obviously talking about scriptures that they already had concerning the raising of the dead.

Scriptures like-

Psalm 16:10
You will not abandon me to Sheol; you will not allow your faithful follower to see the Pit.

And Hosea 6-

Come on! Let’s return to the LORD. He himself has torn us to pieces, but he will heal us! He has injured us, but he will bandage our wounds! He will restore us in a very short time; he will heal us in a little while, so that we may live in his presence.

 

[Waiting on him]

Because the sacrifice was heavenly, in the beginning as recorded in scripture, when He breathed His spirit into man, giving him life. That was the sacrifice, the filling of the vessel, the redemption and rescue of mankind.

For the last couple of years I’ve seen the beginning of Gods creation as beginning with the birth of Jesus- the man Jesus in the Jordan where John baptized him. He received the breath of life/ Holy Spirit. This was very unique in that he was the first born of God. The beginning of His creation.

I’ve also viewed this account in Genesis as a sort of of foretelling of this event coming.

I would probably fall into all four camps as is see all of nature following an algorithm of birth, growth, entropy, and then death… only to repeat the cycle. For some there is spiritual birth in the process. I can’t seem to really wrap my mind around what the new birth all entails.

When I read the 19th psalm it speaks to me as the heavens being the apostles of Christ going forward in the first century. They declare the glory of God. I’m not certain that some us are not a sort of heaven because after all heaven is where God dwells. The thing that concerns me is I’m not certain that this is the case with me, because I’m only in the beginnings of starting to see some of these important doctrines.

I do thank you for sharing what insights that God has given you!

 

[Waiting on him]

Yes. That's what we've been told. And if you can understand that the sacrifice was made in the beginning as the atonement for sin, then it all makes sense. Once, for all time. For each and every one of us and we only have to accept it. Believe and receive.

In John 2 we read this>>

When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

What scripture was it that they then believed? Well nothing that Jesus had said was recorded yet as scripture so the writer is obviously talking about scriptures that they already had concerning the raising of the dead.

Scriptures like-

Psalm 16:10
You will not abandon me to Sheol; you will not allow your faithful follower to see the Pit.

And Hosea 6-

Come on! Let’s return to the LORD. He himself has torn us to pieces, but he will heal us! He has injured us, but he will bandage our wounds! He will restore us in a very short time; he will heal us in a little while, so that we may live in his presence.

Have a look at the 19th psalm? I believe God discloses what the heavens are. I see an allegorical reference, almost as if I’m seeing what literally took place in the first century. In the epistles Paul eluded to the running of this race the bridegroom going out of His chamber.

 

[Johann]

I want to introduce a different way of looking at it all.

You want to introduce a "different way" when there is no different way.

ATONEMENT

The Hebrew root (BDB 497, KB 493) combines several OT images.

the holiness of God which is offended by human rebellion
the cost of rebellion is death (cf. Ezek. 18:4,20)
the life of a sacrificial animal substituted for the death penalty of sinful human beings
The basic meaning of the root is "to cover" (it can also mean "ransom", cf. Exodus 30:16), which may best be illustrated by the "Day of Atonement" or "Day of Covering" (i.e., Leviticus 16). YHWH dwelt between the wings of the Cherubim on the ark of the covenant. Inside the gold box were the laws given to Moses by YHWH on Mt. Sinai. As the High Priest sprinkled blood on the lid of the ark, it symbolically obscured God's eyes from the Law.
The perfect and eternal blood of the covenant (see the NT book of Hebrews) was the innocent blood of Jesus (cf. John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21).
The NT term "propitiation" also relates to the lid of the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant. For extra information see the following Special Topics.
SPECIAL TOPIC: ARK OF THE COVENANT (Exodus 25:10-22; 37:1-9)
SPECIAL TOPIC: CHERUBIM
SPECIAL TOPIC: MERCY SEAT

 

[Mr E]

For the last couple of years I’ve seen the beginning of Gods creation as beginning with the birth of Jesus- the man Jesus in the Jordan where John baptized him. He received the breath of life/ Holy Spirit. This was very unique in that he was the first born of God. The beginning of His creation.

I’ve also viewed this account in Genesis as a sort of of foretelling of this event coming.

I would probably fall into all four camps as is see all of nature following an algorithm of birth, growth, entropy, and then death… only to repeat the cycle. For some there is spiritual birth in the process. I can’t seem to really wrap my mind around what the new birth all entails.

When I read the 19th psalm it speaks to me as the heavens being the apostles of Christ going forward in the first century. They declare the glory of God. I’m not certain that some us are not a sort of heaven because after all heaven is where God dwells. The thing that concerns me is I’m not certain that this is the case with me, because I’m only in the beginnings of starting to see some of these important doctrines.

I do thank you for sharing what insights that God has given you!

You are getting good glimpses of it all. Are you familiar with fractals? I'll post an example, but in general, they are never-ending patterns that repeat in various ways, infinitely. A simple design repeats itself in different dimensional scales in self-similar ways where close examination includes the realization that we've seen this before. In a way it's a bit like Moses in the wilderness for forty years.

When you start recognizing these 'circles and cycles' and repeating patterns in scripture and can accept them for what they are (rather than theologizing them into something else) it's like kick-starting an awakening within you. As if someone next door pulled out a chainsaw next door at 7:00 am on a Saturday morning when you were planning on sleeping in. At first it might be annoying, or even irritating to your soul, but once awakened, there's no going back to sleep.

Regarding Psalm 19-- I love it. I believe it. The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky displays his handiwork.

It's not a stretch at all to consider this an example of 'the gospel' message being taken everywhere. The stars shine as ever present witnesses to creation and they speak of His glory. Paul expresses the same sentiment in Col 1-- This gospel has also been preached in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become its servant. But David said it first. David said it best, right there in Ps 19.

David, the anointed one. David Christ.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The first time that the word atonement is used in scripture, is in Genesis 6, where it's introduced as a concept in the context of the great flood, where God instructs Noah to make that box (ark) and to protect all within with a covering of pitch. In it's simplest form, atonement is a coating, or a membrane that forms a barrier between two things that are not compatible. It's the separation between the inner and the outer.

An excellent example of this can be seen here>>>




When a baby is formed in the womb of its mother a temporary, but physical barrier, is formed between mother and child. The amniotic sac envelops the growing babe as a protective covering and in that sac with the baby is the placenta that allows the bloodstream of the child inside to be nourished and supplied with oxygen from the mother's bloodstream, without ever mixing them. The inside person is within (obviously) dependent upon, and yet still independent of that outer person. It's miraculous.

While Genesis 6 is the first time we see this "kaphar/kopher" used-- translated later in scripture as atonement covering, it isn't where the idea is first introduced. To see the first form of the concept we have to revisit the first time an atonement was required and to see that we have to look at what Christians commonly refer to as the original sin. That first transgression that caused the separation between God and man.

The tale is told in Genesis 3 and though it's one of the most familiar in all of scripture, many miss the required atonement and subsequent separation that was formed between the inner (spirit) and the outer (host) of man.

Adam and Eve sinned. A transgression occurred and then--

The LORD God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.


And then they were sent away-- separated from His presence.

I like what you said here. And as with the ark, It has the same picture.

The nakedness of adam was his soul, which was damaged or dead because of sin.

God covered that nakedness with the slaughter and spilt blood of an innocent animal, and used it skin to cover the flesh of the one who sinned.. So it was hidden from those who would look at him (in this case. Only God could look at him.

I disagree that he separated from his presence. God went with them wherever they went. Because they were covered. And because of the promise he made how the woman’s child would overcome (that son being Christ)

He sent them away from the tree of life. Is it not ironic. When we have the decision to choose life or knowledge. why is it we always chose knowledge?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

@Mr E

So is the covering a good thing, or a bad thing?

I was always taught that having my sins covered was good. But you seem to be suggesting that the covering is a barrier between God and man, in a bad way. Have I misunderstood?

I think you have to go to the day of atonement to see what the covering, or blood atonement did.

It did separate a thing between us and God.. Its ironic. That in doing us, He restores us to God. And the veil was torn in two.. We could now approach God where we stand..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It's a wonderful thing, but it really is a barrier at the same time. This is easily understood with respect to that amniotic sac. The baby is it's own person. It has it's own blood and organs and DNA that is entirely different than the mother's-- (the host). If not for that covering the baby could not form or function or exist-- it would be treated by the mother's immune system as a foreign body (which it is) and attacked.

In the spiritual sense, the barrier (or covering) both protects and separates us from a Holy God. Our corrupted flesh is completely incompatible with His Holy Spirit. The division is between spirit and flesh. Between the spiritual and the physical, between God and man.

In Genesis, we see that covering as a membrane-- skin. It keeps the inside inside, and the outside outside. I'm speaking in archetypes where there is an inner man that is spiritual in nature and an outer man that is physical. That inner man must pass through that veil (shedding it) in order to be united with God, who is spirit and not flesh.

Ok, now I am not only getting confused but I am getting worried

 

[Eternally Grateful]

That priesthood has been replaced, but if it's replaced, then it stands to reason that there is still a covering to be made...

View attachment 38189

Is there. Or was there a better covering made, that negated the need for the Leviticus priesthood. Which as Hebrews said, could never take away sin.. because it was flawed.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Maybe you can expound on your understanding for me? Can we agree that the text is speaking about Adam and Eve?

Who would be the mother and father they left to be united as man and wife?

Where they not created man and wife?

God made eve as a “help meat” for adam, He made her special and different, to bring them together. so as a whole (1) they are more than the slice (singular)

 

[Mr E]

Ok, now I am not only getting confused but I am getting worried

No problem. Let me know when you catch your breath... or take one.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Genesis is a compilation of books. Some pious person millennia ago tried to put them in chronological order, and that was a mistake because they don't all run together chronologically. That's because they have (at least) two sources.

This section, The Book of the Generations of Adam (Genesis 2:5 - 5:2), has been placed after The Generations of the Heavens and of the Earth (Gen 1:1 - 2:4), and if these two run together chronologically and have the same author, as Christianity traditionally holds, that makes Adam and Eve the first people in creation. The verse here makes no literal sense, because Adam had no parents to leave.

I don't think these two sections have the same author, though. And I don't think they run together chronologically. I think that The Book of the Generations of Adam comes to us from the Edomites, as the story of their eponymous ancestor, Edom... ahem... Adam. Those are the same name in Hebrew. The translators have done a little work to separate them for us.

Since we have the rest of the book, we know more about Edom from the other account, where he is usually called Esau. His parents were Isaac and Rebekah, and...

Genesis 26:
And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite, which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.

Esau's parents didn't get along with his wives, and he DID leave them and move away.

They were put in order as God intended them

Many believe the stories were passed down from generation to generation, and came through the flood.

But whether Moses wrote. As daniel and others. What God told him to write. Or he wrote as he was led to god through the traditions and maybe book that come from the pre-flood. The creation account was all from God..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It doesn't seem to make sense, I agree with you that far. If we ignore that there is a spiritual/heavenly Adam, and it only refers to a physical man on earth, it would make no sense at all. But to look only at the physical realm is like looking at a shadow of what is real, or trying to cipher what software does by looking at 1's and 0's. You might get a semblance or perceive the general shape and flavor, but you simply don't ever approach reality, or what we might call the full picture. Ask a young child to draw his mommy and daddy and you'll get stick figures. And that young one has no conception of where babies come from, or how it all might work in reality, but he knows his little sister in some sense did indeed come out of his mommy's stomach. He perceives truth, without understanding it. He recognizes nature because it's natural.

Gen 5 gives us the generations of Adam to Noah.

Gen 6 picks up right where Gen 5 leaves off. Gen 9 tells us that from Noah's three sons and their wives, the whole earth is populated.

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

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.

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...




According to nurture and nature, you do seem to understand where babies physically come from. Does God violate nature? If spirit gives birth to spirit (and flesh to flesh) -in the spiritual sense, where do babies come from?

I think you may be trying to look to deep.

The man is Adam, He is the one who was given control yet he was also given responsibility. Thats why when HE fell. His sin was passed to all mankind. Even though Eve was the one who sinned first.

The woman is Eve, She is the one who was given to help adam, These two were told to take care of the earth (their family)

When a man and woman leaves their parents. And become one. They become this new Adam and Eve, given responsibility to take care of their part of the world (their families) and through God. To help take care of the earth (a problem which man has failed and keep failing. As the earth gets sicker and sicker and sicker. And in the future, unless God intervenes the world will suffer a catastrophic even where “no flesh will survive”

 

[Eternally Grateful]

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."


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.


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.


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.

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.

Rarely.

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

Do you think the word is flawed? Just asking

Geniologies were used for a purpose.

The greatest purpose is Christ.

We can trace his teleology to adam,

But more importantly, we can trace it to David, as he was called the son of David. And will fill fill a coven at between God and David

Eeven more important, we can trace it to Abraham, Wen we are told of a greater covenant, In you (your seed) shall at nations be blessed.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

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.

Again i disagree

Issac was the child of the spirit.

1. He was a miracle (His mother was passed the time of childbearing)
2. He was the one promised to Abraham.
3. He was the one who through the seed, all the nations of the world would be blessed

Ishmael was a child of the flesh

1. He was born die to Abraham’s lack of faith
2. He was an attempt from Abraham to fulfill Gods promise his way (since he lacked Gods faith)
3. he was a child of sin. He was born through the adulterous sexual encounter of abraham and Hagar.

Isaac represents Gods promise, He represents Gods will and that no matter what Man does to try to stop God. His word will come true

Ishmael represents human good. The flesh. Our trying to fulfill Gods will through our own power. And our lack of faith in God.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

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.

or maybe the had the same name, which if we look at history. We see this happened a lot?

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

To give yet one more proof Jesus was the messiah, the son of david, the rightful king

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.

If genealogies are unreliable concerning christ. The proof of who he is is lost. It is just like if the prophecies all do not point to christ. The proof he is the messiah is lost.

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.

Which would make the Bible unreliable would it not?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

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.

Yet

1. If you love conditional, you still are dead in your sin
2. You can not love unconditional unless you are first love unconditional by God (we love because he first loved us)
3. The word love here (agape) is the greatest form of love. It is unconditional. It would be the type of love that you are willing to sacrifice your life for the other person
4. What jesus suffered on the cross is more than we can bare.. His shedding of blood did not cause hi to scream, something else did. It was that that made atonement for our sin..