comment below that Substitutionary Atonement wasn't Jesus' teaching, but rather Paul's:. In support of a more global, supportive approach beyond Paul, proponents offer John 3:14-18, John 12:27-33; Isaiah 53: 1-12; I Peter 3:18, and Luke 4:16-22. (from Wiki): ... " Technically speaking, substitutionary atonement is the name given to a number of Christian models of the atonement that all regard Jesus as dying as a substitute for others, "instead of" them. It is thought to be expressed in the Bible in passages such as "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness,"[1 Pet. 2:24] and "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God."[1 Pet. 3:18] (although other ways of reading passages like this are also offered).[1][2]
There is also a less technical use of the term 'substitution' in discussion about atonement when it is used in 'the sense that [Jesus, through his death,] did for us that which we can never do for ourselves'.[3] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon <mdixon.6569@> wrote: > > > > The problem I see with Jesus being a man in UC,according to > > M's teaching, is that you need a master in UC to bring you > > into that awareness. The master enlightens the disciple with > > the Mahavakya, I am that, Thou art That, all This is That > > and nothing but That Is. I don't see any figures in Jesus' > > life to fit that bill. > > John the Baptist? > > Or what about during the "missing years"? > > I'm not convinced it *has* to happen this way, though. > > > I know it's hard for many to believe the accounts of the > > Gospels, for whatever reasons they can come up with. I mean... > > if they were true,that would mean that all those mean, > > dastardly, vile, hypocrites were right and all my self > > exploration and self righteousness was a waste of time, > > money and a life. > > I'm not getting this. Which hypocrites are you talking > about? > > > But after 41 years of off and on regular meditation and M > > teaching about yagyas, I had to ask myself, why couldn't > > God Almighty see mankind as so hopeless that only a > > particular *yagya*, descending as a man, living a perfect > > life and offering that perfect sinless life in atonement > > for all of mankind's sins was man's only hope. All that > > was required was acceptance of the *yagya*, the sacrifice, > > on your behalf and a repentant heart, not a perfect heart, > > but a repentant one. > > Thing is, all this about sacrifice and substitutionary > atonement wasn't Jesus's teaching, it was Paul's. > > I happen to think it's an absolutely brilliant teaching > psychologically, and it's obviously worked wonderfully > for many people who believe in it. It's just way too > anthropomorphic for me; it simply doesn't resonate. > > Of course, Jesus wasn't teaching > > Moksha, but redemption, salvation and resurrection. > > Perhaps both moksha and salvation both exist and we have a > > choice. Tens of thousands of life times doing your program > > and still entering heaven and hell between births to get > > liberated or one life time to attain salvation. > > Or maybe both...maybe you have to go through thouse > tens of thousands of lives before you're ready to have > that one life where you attain salvation. > > > Personally, I love the Gospel of John, Jesus' best friend and > > first disciple. "In the beginning, the Word already existed. > > He was with God, and he was God.He was in the beginning with > > God. He created everything there is. Nothing exists that he > > didn't make. Life itself was in him,and this life gives > > light to everyone. The light shines through the darkness, and > > the darkness can never extinguish it." > > > > Life is about choices. Some see the light, others don't. > > But is that really a *choice*, to see the light or not? > I don't think you can choose to believe, in Jesus or > anything else. I think belief is something that happens > to you. > > And I actively *disbelieve* in the notion that God > requires a certain very specific belief or you're out of > luck. I find that repugnant. > > I envy those who have faith. But it's never been something > I could talk myself into. >
