redefining 'atonement'......
redefining 'atonement'......
My former posts stand on The Word of God, so they have a firm foundation. Yours are built upon sand. If Jesus' Blood is not designed to remit sins then you're making Him out to be a liar.
Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Not only that, but you are stomping on Him and counting His Blood an un-holy thing:
Hebrews 10:29
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace
That is showing hatred of the very Spirit of Grace with which God has chosen to sanctify men unto Himself. You are very close to falling into hell itself when you do that.Without His Blood there is no cleanliness from sin. You're lost and without hope altogether.Either you believe that His Blood washes away sin or you don't. There is no fence.You're merely avoiding the issue at stake: His Blood is what gives us a clean slate. Without His sacrifice there could be no Kingdom. It would be empty. Only God and the angels who were not deceived in the fall. You are following the ones who were deceived and trying to deceive others into believing there is no punishment for sin. The wages of sin is death and after this the judgment. Without applying The Blood of Jesus to your sin you will be judged. No two ways about it.
The Papers definition of 'sin' and the universal concept of atonement-methods without blood still holds, shared earlier. I've
never considered the blood of Jesus as something 'unholy', and as a mystic have respected its 'holiness' and 'power' in an esoteric understanding of its mystery (this may include aspects of traditional concepts of the symbolism, and more 'occult' and 'speculative' ones). This goes without saying for those who know my teaching. I've also had a classic thread "Atonement without blood" upon this very subject, so know whereof I speak. The OT is a good example of a system who did at one time use blood sacrifices, but also continues in their religious life without such 'rituals', enjoying 'at-one-ment' with 'God' via prayer, repentance, obedience to divine principles, service to others, right doing, etc. Remember,...it is the DOING of God's will that avails,.....actually obeying and following divine laws and principles, abiding in harmony with God and his laws....that is the dynamic and continuum of LIFE.
The narrow assumption above and interpretation from a NT perspective, particularly from the angle of Paul's gospel,
focuses on Jesus blood as the main 'agent' in redeeming the soul,
but such remains 'figurative, metaphoric, symbolic' anyways, no matter how its 'applied'. Its a matter of 'faith' about how Jesus blood saves a soul, given any number of 'explanations' relative to 'atonement'. One could argue the blood of Jesus has no magical properties or is not a physical substance but that it still has some spiritual power made efficacious by faith. Still,...its a matter of faith in that 'blood', to cause some kind of effect. Nevertheless...one still has to repent, do God's will and change his life aligning himself with God and his laws (the law of the Spirit of Life) to enjoy the fruit of such fellowship and communion. If a mere belief in Jesus blood does not effect such a transformation, we would have to look again at the doctrine.
Also how much subjective 'proof' would be needed to confirm the power of the blood, or if any failure was due to a weakness in faith or that the concept of 'blood-atonement' itself is insufficient to effect a transformation?
The 'blood' is the life-soul of the Master who gives his life for the sheep as a demonstration of love, it is the living wine, the renewing spirit of life, the fruit of the vine. It does not have to connote or refer to a vicarious blood-atonement, but the sharing of spiritual life. In this sense it is a 'sacrament'.
In any case,...I mentioned early that the revelators of this epochal work, call our planet Urantia, the
'world of the cross' because Jesus, our Creator Son, also called 'Christ-Michael' (because he is of the order of Michael, who are Creator-Sons) suffered such an ordeal on this planet during his bestowal(incarnation) on this planet. Below we learn more from the papers -
~*~*~
20:6.6 When the bestowal Sons, Creator or Magisterial, enter the portals of death, they reappear on the third day. But you should not entertain the idea that they always meet with the tragic end encountered by the Creator Son who sojourned on your world nineteen hundred years ago. The extraordinary and unusually cruel experience through which Jesus of Nazareth passed has caused Urantia to become locally known as “the world of the cross.” It is not necessary that such inhuman treatment be accorded a Son of God, and the vast majority of planets have afforded them a more considerate reception, allowing them to finish their mortal careers, terminate the age, adjudicate the sleeping survivors, and inaugurate a new dispensation, without imposing a violent death. A bestowal Son must encounter death, must pass through the whole of the actual experience of mortals of the realms, but it is not a requirement of the divine plan that this death be either violent or unusual.
119:8.8 Urantia is the sentimental shrine of all Nebadon, the chief of ten million inhabited worlds, the mortal home of Christ Michael, sovereign of all Nebadon, a Melchizedek minister to the realms, a system savior, an Adamic redeemer, a seraphic fellow, an associate of ascending spirits, a morontia progressor, a Son of Man in the likeness of mortal flesh, and the Planetary Prince of Urantia. And your record tells the truth when it says that this same Jesus has promised sometime to return to the world of his terminal bestowal, the World of the Cross.
188:4.1 Although Jesus did not die this death on the cross to atone for the racial guilt of mortal man nor to provide some sort of effective approach to an otherwise offended and unforgiving God; even though the Son of Man did not offer himself as a sacrifice to appease the wrath of God and to open the way for sinful man to obtain salvation; notwithstanding that these ideas of atonement and propitiation are erroneous, nonetheless, there are significances attached to this death of Jesus on the cross which should not be overlooked. It is a fact that Urantia has become known among other neighboring inhabited planets as the “World of the Cross.”
More on the meaning of the cross, to come........
pj