Notes: What does atonement mean? 0:40 greek and hebrew: to cleanse, to purge, to expiate sin or impurity 1:07 Biblical vs etymotologically 1:30 How did Jesus see his death? 2:56 Christus Victor 4:50 Moral Influence theory 5:23 Satisfaction? 6:01 Penal Substitution 6:52

The fact that this has 500 views shows this channel is underrated. Amazing content Cameron!

Your intro is the definition of Quality and Dedication in work

Well rounded short presentation 👍👍💕...there is a kernel of ransom aspect in scriptures, but very hard to determine much about it with confidence...at least for me at this time🤔

Thank you! Excellent approach. Definitely have a lot to think about with this. Never thought to look at the angle other faiths viewed before, and it has me all the more compelled to continue studying this subject. Seems the more I search for an understanding, the more I find my previous one to be vague and realize I still have much to learn about the atonement from God. Thank you for helping me find more truth today.

I thought I’d listen to this while I did something else. Silly me! This is W L Craig. I sat down and took a page of notes. Would love to hear more like this.

thank you for the knowledge.

First meanings of ationtiment in english (etymologically) is oneness/ reconciliation/ Hebrew/ Greek meaning of ationtiment is cleanse, purge, purification.

Only Christians can think that there's a God who would send us a very important message which everyone would understand differently, even those who desperately want this god to be real and want to understand the message.

Still makes no sense to me why an eternally sinless person is the only thing that can be offered to appease god. Why not an eternally sinful person? Also, makes no sense that the sinless offering to god is god himself. How is that a sacrifice?

That was fascinating going through all the different models. This goes into much more depth to the reasons behind the Crucifixion that is not always understood during normal sermons.

Är det CS Lewis teori (the ransom theory) som den framställs i Narnia?

His balanced approach is right on..

Outstanding post by a solid Christian philosopher.

In case yo're like me... Etymological - relating to the origin and historical development of words and their meanings this means the words are altered over time (even if only a little)

Sir never be discouraged . love your channel. Be courageous and know God loves u.

This is the most helpful video I have seen in a long time. Thank you Cameron. What I personally valued is that the foundation of Christian belief is the Atonement; in particular the Biblical definition which is to cleanse and purge impurity and why Christ willingly suffered for us. The living and active work of this in our own lives is what defines the spine of our belief through repentance and the paradigm of looking at it from a much bigger understanding makes our faith in our Lord redeemer even stronger. Thank you. Really cool 🙂

Well, purging and cleansing ends up as reconciliation and harmony. 🤗 But why need repentance if there is purging, and, vice versa, need cancelling if there is repentance?

Christ paid the price IN OUR PLACE, for our moral debts. It's quite simple to ME... But I do appreciate William Lane Craig laying out the various theories, and using such technically precise (and sometimes difficult to understand) terminology LOL. I always tend to LEARN a thing or two, whenever I listen to him.

Throughout our study of Exodus in Men's group, and now the Synagogue and its system of atonement. The symbolism of sacrifice is very integral, and Dr. Craig unpacks the historical meaning and evolution of that word "atonement" very effectively and inspirationally. Thanks

Disappointing that WLC doesn’t really go to the Bible for any of his reasons for presenting a good “atonement theory” I just did a two part series on my channel for anyone interested in diving into the doctrine of atonement biblically.

What's the difference between satisfaction theory and penal substitution?

Amazing discussion . So much to learn .

I like the lighting...

0:51 atonement etymologically means at onement which is the state of harmony or oneness with god, so atonement in this etymological sense of the word is the state of reconciliation with god...

Right. A close read of the Yom Kippur sacrifice shows that the goat is not offered as a substitute for men and women - as the Ram was a substitute for Isaac - rather the goat was a substitute for the LORD, therefore a “substitute” (the NT says “type and shadow”) for Jesus Christ, who, like the animal, was sacrificed not in place of, but for the sake of, people.

It would be interesting to hear Bill's take on the technical ways Jesus beats the game of life (2 Tim 2:5). Based on this conversation, however, it appears he has not yet studied that. After studying that, it would be interesting to hear his take on how anyone could continue to form an opinion other than universalism.

Translate in Spanish please. A lot, but really a lot, of viewers will come to see your videos if they have Spanish captions.

i am always amazed that these guys arguments for god if you listen closely are full of guesses and interpretations and just when you think you have heard it all a new answer comes along like "its like a jewel a multi faceted theory combining all theories". its gone so far that now the best they can do is say everything is everything

WLC is awesome!

This is one of the best videos on this subject, I'm struggling with understanding the atonement and most resources just state 'Jesus died for our sins, that's it' without any real explanation.

Why is there such a premium on obedience? Why is blood a sin cleanser? Has blood ever cleaned anything in history?

He didn't have to die, but just because of who he was and what he said he was invoked an uprising that caused them to kill him but even if Jesus didn't say anything about who he was then would he still have been put to death he wouldn't be denying his spirit if he didn't say anything about who he was but only cause they asked who he was which ended with jesus response to end up being his demise so he had no choice either way it was going to come out about who he was

"Ambivalent" or "ambiguous?" (the word atonement and its meaning...)

Multifaceted Atonement for the win!

Here's a translation of what I believe (hope) Dr. William Lane Craig is saying: the blood of Christ does not represent His righteousness for us, rather it present us holy, which means there is a labor (a good work) that we must do after we confess and repent of our sins upon hearing His testimony (life, death, burial, resurrection, and two ascensions), as per Heb. 4:1-11 (KJV). In other words, because of His testimony, He expects all that names His name to keep His Law, the Ten Commandments, which is His name (Person and Character), that by His Cross is how He reconciles us to Himself...for those that believe and continue in Him.

interesting listening. ive often wondered, given God always asks us to forgive, why couldnt God just forgive Satan when he rebelled? Surely the devil musta been in a world of hurt. Why wasnt the option of unconditional love and forgiveness offered to him?

The 'good news' of the gospel is simply that, on the cross, Jesus died for us. How his death on the cross achieved that is not clearly spelt out. There are some clues (ransom, sacrifice, substitution etc) but we tend to take them too literally and end up focussing on the Process not the Person I offer one thread from the 'Deer Hunter' film which might help some people although others will no doubt tear their hair. Spoiler alert if you have not seen the film Twice in the film, two brothers play Russian roulette. The first time, early on, they are forced to and manage to shoot their way out. The second time, one brother voluntarily plays to give himself the chance to talk to his brother who was by now half-crazed by the war. The volunteering brother did not want to die, or for his brother to die, but he felt he had to play. He was ready to die for his brother but sadly the bullet came round for his brother. The crucifixion is really the volunteer brother trying to get through to us, but also knowing that this time the bullet would come to him. Indeed Jesus engineered his own death to be on Passover

A lot of existence is WORDS

Why does Dr Graig portray the "Christos Nikas" view of the atonement as an early Christian view? The Eastern Christian Orthodox Church still holds that view.

Imagine if we all treated each other like this sadistic God of no second chances. And always sentenced people to infinite punishment for finite offenses. Fortunately, it's only a twisted fable, which does not represent the actual "Source Consciousness."

JESUS IS THE LIVING WORD⚡

YHWH wants a people that can commune with Him forever. To have these people they need to be pure at heart. What is pure at heart? This means to NEVER have thoughts of greed, lust etc. It means to be totally committed to sacred relationships. It means to be COMPLETELY thankful for what one has and who they are, because YHWH has provided. The only Way to be pure of heart is to know that one is not pure at heart. Confess your sins and let Jesus take them upon Himself. See the pain and suffering your sin has caused on His person. Know your sin has broke His very soul. Your sin is an Eternal suffering for the Godhead. Yet YHWH can bare it and does this willingly. Believe this and YHWH will create in you a new heart. You will be born again into Life.

The ransom theory and Satan’s claim that he is humanity’s rightful owner because of our sins, is also found in C.S. Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia”.

Most likely a natural extension of the concept of animal blood rituals that existed in that area before.

I still am going to die. I still have to pay for my misdeeds I don't understand the atonement theories at all. No one can die for me, I always have to face the music for my sins.

very interesting, but actually there is a 3rd more literally meaning of Atonement, which is covering. to cover up something. there was a covering (atonement) on the ark of the covenant. christ provided covering over our sins

I'm suprised to see that you didn't talk about the area of coverage of the atonement of Christ. Christ expiate the sins for: 1. The whole world (universalits - armianians - semi-pelagians) 2. Or some people (calvinisim - reformed theology) This issue is one of the most discussed theological aspects in the atonement doctrine.

Substitutionary view on the attornment has no answer to the question of what and who will substitute then for Jesus’s wrath to sin and sinners and the unjust treatment of Him on the cross? If Jesus is the equal God as the Father, then why substitutional attornment has to be paid only to God Father and to come to His wrath for the sinner but not also to God Jesus also? And why Jesus was able simply to forgive the sinners and took their unjust evil acts on Him BUT God Father couldn’t do the same, yet He needs an additional substitutionary attornment before He could forgive the sin or sinners? And why it is only God the Father has to expel His just wrath on someone (even unguilty) before He can forgive the sinners, while Jesus actually forgave them without substitutionary attornment paid to Him as equal God? Moreover, if God the Father was actually expelling His wrath killing Jesus instead of sinners. Then why Jesus asked the Father from the cross to forgive those who were killing Him in order to satisfied God’s Father wrath on HIM? Something really wrong with logic thoughts here!!! The substitutional attornment of unguilty children was only given to the pagan idols and demons to satisfied their anger or sadism or desire for dirty valence, God Father would never do that to His Son Jesus! . Secondly, the idea of substitutionary attornment sims only eliminates debt and guilt of the sinners but it nothing to do with saving their souls from sin or sinful nature! Because even now there are a lot of sinners still stay away from God even all the debt was already paid for them on the cross! And the idea of full legal satisfaction paid of the Father did not change the mind and soul of the sinners. SO, even fully legal satisfaction is paid to the Debtor who is God Father this fact does not lead to their repentance and personal reconciliation with the Father of the sinners, and thus it is not saving the soul. The last came only through personal repentance that really based not on the understanding of the need of giving substitutionary attornment to God Father but on the fact that Jesus unjustly paid it for them! So, again, if Jesus could can pay someone debt and forgive them without requiring substitutionary attornment to Himself why God Father can’t do the same? So, the actual repentance and salvation of the sinners’ souls came just from an understanding of Jesus's love and willingness to scarifies for them to save them from the “angry” Father! And sinners fully understood that only Jesus truly love and can forgive them without requiring them to pay for their sins, while Father is still not the same loving person like Jesus. And the argument that God Father has to satisfy the “Higher Justice” can’t work because the “Higher Justice” (even it seems to exist above God) can’t be satisfied with the unjust act of killing unguilty for the guilty ones. The true satisfaction of the Justice can be only Justice made to guilty but not unguilty. So, this why our souls actually were saved only when we realized that it was done by the biggest act that unjustly made to Jesus by those whom He loved! And this is leading all of us to repentance before God the Father who also suffered by watching His Son being killed by the sinners. So, it is not God the Father who was satisfied His wrath by killing Jesus, it is us, sinners who always expelled our sinful anger and wrath on unguilty ones! And as the apogee of the story God showed us our sin by giving us His Son whom we have killed. Yet, after this, His death and suffering pierced our heart with guilt and lead us to true repentance that saved our soul from the further distraction of it. This is how God Son and God Father paid for our repentance that absolutely crucial for our salvation of our souls. And only after repentance God gave us His unconditional forgiveness accepting all of the suffering and wounds that we cause Him by all our sins. So, God Son and God Father are actually the true victims or our sins, rather than substitutional attornment of the One to the Other!

Please ask Dr. Craig to explain what "etymological" means.

I've tried to understand this for years, but I just can't get my head around the notion that Jesus died for our sins. Why? Why would such a thing be necessary? In my world, what matters more than anything is that we take full responsibility for ourselves and any wrongdoing we may have committed. We can't just palm it all off onto someone else and pretend it's been dealt with. Fully embracing self responsibility does lead to a kind of secular salvation, in my experience. It is the mark of a fully mature adult human. There's a profoundly spiritual side to it, as well. I don't see how the intervention of a divine intermediary helps promote such an outcome, in any way. I'd even go as far as to argue that it does the precise opposite; that is, it keeps people in a state of juvenile immaturity and spiritual dependence. Having said all that, I'm still working on it and may yet have to admit I was wrong. God willing, we'll see!

Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21-22. Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37. 1 Samuel 3:14 God said “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.” That's Limited atonement.

Atonement is what finally sets us straight with god by him sending Himself, to sacrifice Himself, to Himself, to save us from Himself, if we will apologize for being made as he made us, and obey some laws we get to cherry pick from his book, excluding the ones we deem too crazy.

You have given no scripture references to support your argument-

Only 137 likes!? What the heck?

How can Chrsitians claim this was a sacrifice. A sacrifice is a LOSS. God never lost jesus. He temporarily "died". To call it a sacrifice is a lie! Besides, why is not believing an unforgivable sin? Why must god pretend to sacrifice his son. Just forgive us. No sacrifice needed. They are your rules.

The ransom is paid to God, not Satan

Me having to look up the word ambivalent, just so I can understand the word atonement. Lol

My understanding is the power of the cross lies in revelation-it reveals the truth about God, about Christ, about sin, the devil, ourselves, everything. The truth sets us free. The idea of a jewel, a multi-faceted representation is nice, but not that a payment had to be extracted so that God could forgive us, which is completely misunderstanding the fundamental problem, which is that sin is deadly, not something which would otherwise be innocuous if only God wasn’t so against it.

I think WLC is probably correct (he ofc knows 100x's more than me). Looks like Christus Victor & Penal Substitution do not contradict one another whatsoever.

I'm glad William Lane Craig has a syncretic view of the atonement. I also think (almost) every theory of the atonement can be applied to it. I think the penal substitution theory is the most comprehensive and biblically-based theory.

Atonement is at the root of God’s grace towards humanity. Without it we do not have God’s approval

I am not sure that I understand. The new testament says Jesus was executed by the roman governor. Then raised from the dead. Where does Jesus say, he will offer himself ?

Personal claims do not a God or messiah make. "Jesus saw his death as an expiatory sacrifice..." Really? What about Ezek. 18:21, which made his atonement claims null and void some 700 years before he, Jesus, ever came one the scene? I would ask Dr. Craig, why was it that Jesus, the all knowing God, never identified himself to anyone, not even his disciples? And why did he not appoint a scribe to accurately record his life's story? And why did he not, on day one, sit down with Jewish authorities and Jewish biblical scholars, identify and introduce himself in the name of good order and decency? And then show them where and how he was the fulfillment of specified scriptures? Finally, as no one knew, who he was, how was it that Jesus felt justified in condemning and damning them to hell if they didn't believe in him? The didn't know him.

The theory of penal substitutional atonement is basically saying that Jesus needed to be punished for something that was not his fault in anyway to appease God. It is basically denying God's justice and God's mercy. The Moral Influence theory is basically saying that all Jesus did was teach us a lesson. But if that was all he did, then that lesson could have been taught by someone else in some other way, or we could have figured it out on our own with sufficient time and care. So the moral influence theory isn't affirming the necessity of Christ's death and resurrection. Its denying the necessity of his death and resurrection. For me, the Christus Victor model is the most appealing, because its the most manly and heroic. I like to think that when Jesus went to hell he knocked Satan out with one punch.

Today is the day of atonement.

CASE IN POINT: PROPHETICALLY SPEAKING: Was Yeshuah/Jesus a expiatory sacrifice "atonement" OR was he the escape goat exchange for evil for reconciliation token to Israel through the murder of an innocent man? Show a me a single messianic prophecy in the Old Testament that the Messiah will be offered as a human sacrifice for the salvation of Israel and gentiles for the forgiveness of their sins. murder and self sacrifice are two different things in context and without context. Can you also show a single verse in the New Testament when the Messiah offered himself as a sacrifice? . I mean.. a single verse that that says that the messiah turned himself in instead of being arrested and being sentenced to death?. If he was arrested and charged..why are you assuming that his arrest and charge was a sacrifice??? non sense. If your best friend was murdered by a mob . You will call that human sacrifice???? are you OK?? does that make sense to you???? If it's not found in the Old Testament as a Messianic Prophecy then it 's a false doctrine. PERIOD>. I don't care how it is sliced and diced as a doctrine. Ask yourself......Did the first century believers who were Jews have the New Testament in order to be saved or their sins to be forgiven?? Absolutely not! the New Testament was not in existence yet. Ezekiel 18:32 “For I take no pleasure in anyone's death.” This is the declaration of the Lord GOD. “So repent and live!" why would Adonai Elohim (God ) will be delighted with the death of "Jesus" ?? or Did God only allow his Son to be murdered? Just like he allow all this prophets to murdered as well?? Did not God love his prophets?? The death of "Jesus" was not the single time that God was sad . All his prophets were murdered by his own people. They only relied 100% in the Old Testament prophecies to be verified and confirmed in the Hebrew Scriptures in order to identify the Messiah if he was really the messiah prophesied by the prophets. The Messiah told his followers that if they believe his message and obey the Gospel predicted in the Old Testament that their sins will be forgiven and redeemed. Mark 1:15 ; Mark 14:49 ; Acts 3:19 Luke 24:44 "He told them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you ​- ​that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” You can find all the quotes in the New Testament attesting the prophecies from all the Old Testament. So if religious claims are not aligned "word for word" with the Old Testament prophecies then ,most definitely are false doctrines. check the link below to understand the Jewish meaning of salvation for forgiveness of their sins. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hZNdbNOSp53Wmnk.html

WLC: “Jesus saw his death as an expiatory sacrifice to God akin to the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament” that makes no sense, I was taught that animal sacrifice foreshadowed the real true sacrifice. Still the question remain: how is it that painful death cleanses sin or quelches God’s anger?

But did God not create us as sinful beings? So why are we indebted to Him for something that, ultimately, He is responsible for?

The existence of so many Atonement theories is because none of them make sense and they probably aren't correct. (I mean if one of the several is right the others are wrong and probably none of them are right.) See St Isaac the Syrian. To summarize St Isaac, Jesus did not die on the Cross to propitiate an angry Deity. If God's sole purpose was the remission of sins he absolutely could have done so by other means. Instead the Cross is the perfect and compelling revelation of God's love. Sinners couldn't believe in the possibility of their reconciliation with God without a revelation embodied in the terrible suffering and bloody death of God himself. "The Lord surrendered His own Son to death on the Cross for his fervent love of creation. This was not because he could not have redeemed us in another way, but so that His surpassing love manifested thereby, be a teacher onto us. And by the death of his only-begotten son He made himself near to us. Yeah, if he had anything more precious, He would have given it to us, so that by it our race might be His own." Volume 1 "The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian," p. 492. We should hear this astonishing Gospel every Sunday, instead of this nonsense about changing the mind of an angry or creditor God. This is the Gospel. We need to hear the proclamation of God's absolute and astonishing love and mercy and to believe it in the face of all the evidence of this fallen world.

Honestly At-one-ment or Atonement is the quest for ONENESS with Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact in St. John chapter 17, Jesus in His prayer for the disciples and all those who would come HIM...by their word, THAT THEY BE ONE EVEN AS WE ARE ONE. So whatever term you attach it must ALWAYS come back to ONENESS with Jesus Christ. Otherwise THERE CAN BE NO FELLOWSHIP.

The Baptist shook his head, rolled his eyes, and said, "No. Water works much better than Jesus' blood." Paul agreed (1Cor., 15.29).

I wrote a book that presents a new model and middle ground perspective between the Penal view and Christus Victor. I call it Perfectus Liberatio. In short the wrath of God is not directed AT Christ, but operates THROUGH Christ. God’s wrath is his moral perfection being revealed against all that is contrary to moral perfection. Christ is the sinless Lamb. Thus God can transfer all sin upon his sinless Lamb and condemn it as being in the wrong-in the sinless perfection of the Son. For sin was unable to accuse, condemn or to lay a charge against the Son for any wrongdoing. Like trying to stick the barbs of Velcro onto a smooth mirror, sin cannot attach itself to the Son- for the Son offers no “hooks” for sin to grab hold of. Therefore because sin cannot justify its presence in the Son, the Father’s wrath is able to condemn sin as being “in the wrong” IN THE SINLESS perfection of the Son. Like pouring a vile of deadly bacteria into a bucket of pure bleach, the bacteria does NOT infect the bleach. Rather the bleach destroys the bacteria. In the cross the sinfulness of sin is undone by the sin-less nature of the Son. The wrath of God is the basis by which sin is condemned THROUGH the Son. But the Son is NOT being condemned (Rom. 8:3). There is more to say. Feel free to buy my short, 100 page book that begins with a parable story to prepare you for the later commentary on the atonement. Go to Amazon and type either my name or “The Fall and Redemption of Shadowmere.” Peace

First off, the PSA view of atonement is problematic given eternal conscious torment. (P1) The punishment for our sins is death, which entails separation from God and eternal conscious torment. (P2) Jesus did not suffer separation from God, nor was he eternally tormented. (C) Therefore, Jesus did not take the punishment for sins. One must either reject P1, that the punishment for sins is eternal conscious torment, or affirm that Christ did not take the *precise punishment* that was due to us, in which case it is not PSA. Please don't bother equivocating between PSA as a doctrine and substitution conceptually - they are not the same thing. Or one can affirm that Christ *was* separated from God, and descend into Heresy, breaking the Trinity and Hypostatic Union (as Craig does). Take your pick. Thankfully Conditional Immortality comes to the rescue and removes the necessity for all of this mental gymnastics. Also, regarding "Ransom Theory," Scripture explicitly describes the sacrifice of Christ as a ransom (Mark 10:45, 1 Tim 2:6, Hebrews 9:15). This ransom was certainly paid to *someone.* If not Satan, then the only other possible entity to whom the debt is owed is God himself, which is just as problematic as Craig's criticism regarding Satan being the object of Christ's sacrifice. This makes the atheist parody accurate: God sacrificed himself to himself to save us all from himself. Given that Scripture also explicitly teaches that the world a) belongs to Satan (Ephesians 2:2) and that b) sinners are captive to him and described as prisoners (Luke 4:18, 2 Timothy 2:26), I'm inclined to believe that the Ransom was rather paid to Satan in spite of my modern, Western sensibilities, which Craig seems to have not been able to shake.

People have death problem. The resurrection of Yeshua is the remedy, but to have a resurrection there must be a death.

Sorry bit I wouldn't trust this guy's theology to a Sunday School class. Ignore Genesis for the real Word of God and torture the scriptures to depict something they clearly don't at your peril. Twisted!

I Like Mr. Craig’s works BUT I prefer to believe in the earlier fathers. They were closer to the facts, they spoke the same language and some of them were the apostles’ disciple. How after 2000 years someone can come to a conclusion better than them on this meter? That was a common sense teaching in the earlier church.

Bernadette Roberts - KZfaq

This is true i had a visitation into the Holiest of Holy and GLORY told me we all died under the law of Moses and GLORY died so that we could get another chance at life. I posted it on my channel about a year ago

DId, Dr. Craig really just call him Oregon? Woah!

Atonement is reconciliation not salvation, as a true believer is baptised into the church with access to grace. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity'.

I don't know... it seems to me that if someone else is bearing the punishment for the crime then the crime has not been truly forgiven.... and I can't help but notice that the Jesus of the Scripture tells us to turn the other cheek, not kick the dog instead!

"Essential" or "central?" (the doctrine of atonement...)

I find it troubling that Craig’s KZfaq channel, ReasonableFaith always has comments turned off. He claims to be an apologist and yet he can’t really allow for any pushback on his ideas.

But why would satan only want one human being (jesus) for the rest of humanity. And wym he didn't know that jesus was the son of God??

At-ONE-ment is a Be-YOU-to-full thing.

I've heard of mental gymnastics but never mental contortionists. Thank you!!

Does this actually convince anyone that understands what he's saying? Because to me it sounds like philosophical mumbo jumbo that makes vague surface level sense for Christians to trust that smart people figured it out.

God so loved the world and gave his son,where is the appeasement there? appeasement and reconciliation comes from the party at fault,the great flood could have appeased God

“Christ paid the penalty for the sins of humanity, thereby enabling God to offer us a free pardon…” If that is the case, the fact that God needed to be enabled directly contradicts His omnipotence.

The thumbnail highlights the error at the start. God did not have to die. He did it because he wanted to be with is in our suffering. Not because another member of the Trinity became unstable. Divine Love must be emptied out. That's what the rationalist cannot comprehend.

Yes lamb of god who took away the sins of the earth from abrahams sacrifice of his son to the moses laws and sacrifices in the tabernacle blood to god a perfect blood sacrifice could only come from the man god jesus

If Jesus died for our sins, what happened to all of the sinners before Jesus came along? Did everyone just end up going to hell? The Bible says no one can take the punishment for someone else’s sin. How did Jesus die to save sinners with this being said? Deuteronomy 24:16 Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin. Jesus Did Not Die on the Cross For Our Sins The idea Jesus “paid the price” isn’t found in the Bible. ” Dying for our sins is not the same thing as dying to pay the penalty for our sins. If an innocent person dies because of another person’s wrongdoing, the person who did wrong is still guilty. Whenever the Bible talks about penalties, it always attaches them to the one who committed the offense. We are still held responsible for the sins we commit. At the end, each of us will have to pay for our deeds and there is no way around that. We are responsible for the totality of our actions. How were people saved before Jesus died for our sins? ... What was the way of salvation before Jesus died for our sins? If murdererIng is wrong then Salvation through murder is also absolutely wrong. Jesus own death con·tra·dic·ts - Deu. 24:16, 2 Chron. 25:4; Deuteronomy 5:17 and Ezekiel 18:1-20. Christ died for No Man! Men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

Big problem, according to the myth, JC died and then came back to life. That's not a sacrifice, in this case it's a bad weekend. God's justice, not really justice when we are all judged as sinners just because our fathers and their fathers etc. are supposedly sinners. That's like saying we are all sinners because we are human. There is nothing that passes sin on from parent to child. To be a sinner you must commit sin, which is only a concept in the bible. God decided that we wronged him because Adam and Eve wronged him. We are all judged guilty before we were born. That is not justice. Even if we were, god could forgive us instead of giving an infinite penalty for a finite crime, which was only a crime because god said it was. Does not sound like justice to me, more like a temper tantrum of what is supposed to be a perfect being. Satan had a claim to us, how? Because he tricked Adam and Eve into eating the fruit. Utter non-sense.

Of course Jewish people don't believe in original sin. I don't think Jesus mentions it either. It appears to be an after death rationalization by his followers to explain why Jesus died.

The doctrine of atonement is extremely problematic. According to the hypostatic union Christ is both God and human. A mere death of a man on the cross would serve no purpose as no death of any human would serve as expiation for the sins of all humankind. This is the reason why it is mandatory for God the Son to die on the cross as only the death of God himself would suffice to free all humans from the original sin. And this is where sand castle crashes down. Assuming that God the Son died on the cross implies that God changed at least one of his attributes - by mutating from a living being to a dead being. In an effort to justify the doctrine of atonement, theologians have postulated the unthinkable which is to assert the mutability of the nature of God.

There is a simple fact that proves resurrection is at best temporary. Nobody alive today is older than 125 years, despite the many resurrections. Jesus gave his disciples the power to raise the dead according to Matthew chapter 10. So if a disciple died, any one of the others would raise him, so they would all be still alive !

Why did he have to die? He didn’t have to. That was easy. Next question?

If Jesus bore a punishment for sin, God did not forgive anything. Yet, scripture tells we are forgiven. So that’s a problem for PSA.

It seems to me that part of what it means to say that sinners deserve death is that they ought to die. But if sinners ought to die, and if sinners aren’t deserving of Christ’s sacrifice, then doesn’t it logically follow that sinners ought not attain eternal life though acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice? How is it not a contradiction to maintain that sinners ought to die, and that they ought *_not_* die (through substitutionary atonement) at the same time?