URANTIA WIKI

Atonement doctrine

ArticleRead the source

From Urantia Wiki, the encyclopedia of The Urantia Book

Also: doctrine of atonement, doctrines of redemption.

all atonement doctrine is an erroneous teaching 20:6.6-7 148:4.7-10 188:4-5

Jesus did not bestow himself to reconcile an angry God 2:5.2 4:5.6 98:7.1 188:4.7

God certainly would never be satisfied with the childish scheme of substituting an innocent sufferer for a guilty offender 188:4.11

Father had nothing to do with Jesus’ torture 183:1.1-2 186:5.2

Father’s justice not influenced by acts of his creatures 2:3.1

Father’s love not dependent on bestowals of Avonal and Michael Sons 20:5.2 186:5.5-9

The heavenly Father is never torn by conflicting attitudes towards his universe children; God is never a victim of attitudinal antagonisms. 2:4.3

never necessary to influence Father to be merciful 2:4.2 6:3.4

All this concept of atonement and sacrificial salvation is rooted and grounded in selfishness. The believer’s chief concern should not be the selfish desire for personal salvation but rather the unselfish urge to love and, therefore, serve one’s fellows 188:4.9

The erroneous supposition that the righteousness of God was irreconcilable with the selfless love of the heavenly Father, presupposed absence of unity in the nature of Deity and led directly to the elaboration of the atonement doctrine, which is a philosophic assault upon both the unity and the free-willness of God. 2:6.5-6

In the more advanced epochs of planetary evolution the seraphim are instrumental in supplanting the atonement idea by the concept of divine attunement as a philosophy of mortal survival. 39:5.6

In the Urantia Book

History

  • the origin of sacrifices as part of worship was the ceremonies of veneration of tribe's animal of Andonics. This idea was elaborated by Moses in the Hebrew ritual 63:6.4
  • When primitive man felt that his communion with God had been interrupted, he resorted to sacrifice of some kind in an effort to make atonement, to restore friendly relationship. 103:4.2
  • The evolution of religious observances progressed from placation, avoidance, exorcism, coercion, conciliation, and propitiation to sacrifice, atonement, and redemption. 90:0.1
  • According to Paul, Christ became the last and all-sufficient human sacrifice; the divine Judge is now fully and forever satisfied. 89:9.3-4
  • These teachings originated in a praiseworthy effort to make the gospel of the kingdom more acceptable to disbelieving Jews. 149:2.3
  • these ideas of atonement introduced by Paul have a Mithraic origin 121:7.10
  • Paul’s theory of original sin, the doctrines of hereditary guilt and innate evil and redemption therefrom, was partially Mithraic in origin, having little in common with Hebrew theology, Philo’s philosophy, or Jesus’ teachings. Some phases of Paul’s teachings regarding original sin and the atonement were original with himself. 121:6.5
  • In this Paul fail to keep pace with Philo. Philo taught deliverance from the doctrine of forgiveness only by the shedding of blood. 121:6.5
  • the life of Jesus, and his death and resurrection, became a new gospel of the ransom paid to purchase man from the clutch of the devil, from the condemnation of an offended God 194:2.8
  • there was an effort to connect the gospel teaching directly onto the Jewish theology, the teaching that Jesus was the sacrificed Son who would satisfy the Father’s stern justice and appease the divine wrath. 149:2.3 (188:5.9,11)

Affront to God

  • atonement doctrine is incompatible with teachings of Jesus 188:4.8
  • The barbarous idea of appeasing an angry God, of propitiating an offended Lord, of winning the favor of Deity through sacrifices and penance and even by the shedding of blood, represents a religion wholly puerile and primitive, a philosophy unworthy of an enlightened age of science and truth. Such beliefs are utterly repulsive to the celestial beings and the divine rulers who serve and reign in the universes. It is an affront to God to believe, hold, or teach that innocent blood must be shed in order to win his favor or to divert the fictitious divine wrath. 4:5.4-6 6:3.4

Bible parallels

Passages that the paragraphs cited above parallel, quote or reinterpret, from Duane Faw’s Paramony cross-references. Hover a reference to read it.

See also

BloodCrossCrucifixionPropitiationRansom doctrineRedemptionSacrifice
Categories: Concepts and teachings · Paper 186