With what part? "Atonement" means "to cover over;" which is to say that our sins are covered over and won't be counted against us. It's interesting that this is one of the things that the KJV doesn't get right, in Romans 5:11. The Greek word there is katallagē, which means "reconciliation," not atonement. The idea of the atonement is in the NT, but the word is never used. The idea comes from the OT sacrificial system, in various ways, but includes the shedding of innocent blood to atone for sin. That points to Christ's work, which is rather the whole point of it all.I agree, but "atonement" is being made right with God. Any person atoned for will be made into the image of Christ.
Do you agree?
Of course any person atoned for, having believed the gospel and been justified, will be made into the image of Christ, but that isn't the point. The point is, what makes the atonement efficacious?
It depends on what you mean by him not putting "up with mankinds sin against him." If he had called down "more than twelve legions of angels" to put an end to what was being done to him, then he wouldn't have died and we would be dead in our sins. If that's what you mean, then we are agreed.Yes and again, if our Savior didn't put up with mankinds sin against Him.....you and I wouldn't be here.
Are we agreed?
If you mean simply that his putting "up with mankinds sin against him" is what gives us salvation, then, no, we are not agreed. That, again, just begs the question as to what makes the atonement efficacious.
No. That doesn't even address what is said, which is: "But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities."Yes and again the alternative to not wanting to be spit on is close the mouth of the spitter forever.
Will you agree so far?
The only meaning is that he was crucified and died "for our transgressions" and "for our iniquities." In other words, he took the punishment in our place. That is the consistent message of Scripture--foreshadowed in the OT sacrificial system right through to Revelation.
Where, exactly? "Chastisement" here means that he took on the sufferings to secure sinners' peace with God. The point is that Jesus's dying on the cross is what enable us to be reconciled to God.And again "the chastisement that brings us peace" is described in Hebrews chapters 5 and 12.
I don't understand what this has to do with the discussion.And please understand God as a Man didn't need to learn or have faith because He's The Great I Am.
It's much more than that. Iniquity is something "sinners have for God," it's something that is done against God. It is all sin. The verse is saying that God laid all our sins on Jesus on the cross. Again, this is all foreshadowed by the OT sacrificial system.Yes and again please be aware that the "iniquity His Father laid on Him is the iniquity sinners have for God.
It's not the anger God has for sinners.
It's the anger sinners have for God.
The utter hated of God is what some of the elite of society had and displayed it for our King.
You must have me confused with someone else as I am not a father.Now it makes sense to you and me as fathers who love our children. And you said you are a grandfather like me so we know how we would feel if someone attacked our family the way Jesus was.
How does this address what is said in that verse--"stricken for the transgression of my people"?Yes and again the OT prophets knew about their coming Kings' sufferings
inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 1Pet.1:11 ESV
Jesus praised His prophets and told His apostles they entered the prophets labor who came before them. We know about God from the Jewish authors so,
to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: Rom.2:10
This is logical as long as someone thinks God is real and loves me in spite of my sin.....right grandpa?