Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Only God Can Die Part Five

Trinity Deception Part 68

When Christians speak of "the atoning blood" or "the cleansing blood" of Jesus Christ it's not
what you might think, if you are familiar with scripture and with the day of atonement (the ritual
upon which their doctrine is based).

The Christian religion has created a new term that, like other terms such as "trinity" and
"hypostasis" and "transubstantiation" are not found in scripture and are purely human
convention. This new term is "substitutional atonement."

This type of atonement is exactly what the phrase suggests. It's substitution of the guilty party
by an innocent party. It's "innocent blood" shed to satisfy the anger of God on behalf of the
offending party.

In other words, this sort of ritual is one that when someone has "offended" a god, one merely
finds an innocent victim, kill that person on an altar dedicated to that god, and now, the god is
"appeased" of his or her anger against the offender (by the shedding of innocent blood).

This is by far one of the most grotesque and gruesome practices of pagan religions that the
world has ever witnessed. Little babies were sacrificed, young girls who were virgins, young men
who were virgins, captured prisoners from other tribes, basically any person who must be
"innocent" of the offense that is angering the god.

Rest assured, this is the type of human sacrifice to which Christians refer when they say that
Jesus was "a sacrifice for their sins" and "paid the penalty" and "died for their sins" and was a
"substitutinary atonement." They are saying that God, the almighty God, who commanded the
people of Israel to wipe out entire tribes of people who practiced this sort of substitutionary
atonement to appease their gods, was an hypocrite and actually demanded this sort of
"innocent blood" be shed to appease his own anger.

Christians state openly that God is actually "appeased" by the shedding of innocent blood on an
altar. That if you offend God and disobey him, all you have to do is find an innocent victim and
kill them in your place and God will be satisfied. This is the God of Christianity, but it's not the
God of the Bible.

Of course, Christians deny they are preaching "human sacrifice" because, they say, Jesus was
also 100 percent GOD. What is most stunning about this is they don't see any problem with
sacrificing a GOD on an altar to pay for their sins! Sacrificing a human, well that's bad, they say,
but Jesus wasn't just human, he was God. As if sacrificing a God is okay.
Common sense dictates that if sacrificing a human is evil, then sacrificing a GOD would be evil!

Any shedding of "innocent blood" to appease your God (even the blood of an innocent
God/man) should be appalling to the righteous!

Atheists pick up on this right away. Youtube is saturated with atheist channels who continually
point out how, even though the Bible states that the "shedding of innocent blood" is evil and
wicked; Yet, Christians teach that their benevolent and righteous God demanded that we "shed
innocent blood" before he would forgive mankind their offenses.

Yet, the shedding of blood in scripture, under the First Covenant, was not "substitutionary
atonement." This is a lie, made up by Christendom.

There were animals sacrificed in ancient Israel, under the Mosaic Covenant, but these sacrifices
were not for "substitutional atonement." The animals were not "dying" in the place of those
who made the sacrifices. Blood was shed for atonement in the Levitical law, not as a
"substitute" for the blood of the priest who made the sacrifice on behalf of the people, but
rather the blood was shed as a gesture of contrition on the part of Israel, so that the "flesh could
be cleansed" of past sins.

For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an


heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the
flesh:

Hebrews 9: 13

For you see, he that committed sin under the old law was "unclean" and was "stained" with the
mark of that offense.

Christians claim that blood had to be shed for "forgiveness" of sins under the Mosaic law, but
this is not true for, one had to already have repented of the sin and have received forgiveness for
the sin BEFORE one could receive "atonement" except under the "sin offering."

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in


his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins
that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Romans 3: 25

Notice, even Christ's atonement that he made as our High Priest covers only "sins that are past."
The claim of Christianity that this atonement extends to "present and future sins" is not based in
truth of scripture but rather is an all out lie. There is "no provision" for "future sins" neither in
the old covenant, nor here in the new covenant.

But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for
the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
Romans 13: 14

When discussing believers, the Apostles stated that they were "sinners of the past" and not of
the "future."

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and


sins;
Ephesians 2: 1

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this


world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit
that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Ephesians 2: 2

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in


the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of
the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as
others.
Ephesians 2: 3

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he
loved us,
Ephesians 2: 4

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together


with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Ephesians 2:5

Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one


thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and
reaching forth unto those things which are before,
Philippians 3: 13

I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God
in Christ Jesus.
Philippians 3: 14

In the above verses we learn that we are now "dead" to sin and that sin is a thing "of the past"
for the believer. There is no provision for continuing in sin in the new covenant and there
certainly was no provision for future sins in the old covenant, otherwise the atonement would
not have had to have been repeated year after year, each person would only have needed to
have one atonement.

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not
the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices
which they offered year by year continually make the comers
thereunto perfect.
Hebrews 10: 1

Under the law of atonement one must have repented of one's sins and turned from them and
have received forgiveness before one could come before God in upright standing to receive the
atonement.

Christians erroneously teach that the atonement is what provides the forgiveness and in fact,
there's no need for repentance under Christianity, for the atoning blood of Christ is taught to
extend to "future sins."

Christians teach that forgiveness is what "cleanses" you from "unrighteousness." It is with this
error that they depart whole and completely from the true gospel into fable.

Forgiveness does not "cleanse" you from unrighteousness (even though you continue in that
unrighteousness).

This is where the blood is preached as a "magic potion" that imputes the sinner with
righteousness, even though they continue to walk in unrighteousness.

As we saw in Part Four of this series, they point to Abraham's faith and how his "belief" was
"imputed to him as righteousness" and state this is why belief in Christ makes you "righteous in
God's eyes." When they do this, they forget that Abraham had no Christ in which to believe
(other than the promise of a future Christ). So, if Abraham was imputed with righteousness
without the blood of Christ, why do Christians say that we must have the blood of Christ for
"imputation of righteousness?"

The truth is, nowhere in scripture does it say that the blood of Christ brings "imputation of
righteousness." They quote where Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him as
righteousness and fail to see that this proves that Christ's blood is not necessary to obtain
imputation of righteousness, for Abraham received said imputation long before Christ shed his
blood. Their own doctrine (that belief in God, like faithful Abraham results in imputation of
righteousness) refutes their own gospel (that one must have the blood of Christ for imputation
of righteousness).

They attempt to present imputation of righteousness as being "by the blood of Christ"
exclusively, and make that the only purpose of the blood while presenting clear scripture
evidence to the CONTRARY! (Abraham received imputation without the blood of Christ).

It's simply astounding!

How blinded are the eyes of the Christian?

How deaf are his ears?

So, how does the blood of Christ "cleanse you from all unrighteousness?"

We will cover that in part 6 of this series.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,


and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 1: 9