A RESPONSE TO MICHAEL SHANBOUR=S AA GOSPEL ACCOUNT OF OUR FATHER AND THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF JESUS@ BY DALE E

A RESPONSE TO MICHAEL SHANBOUR’S “A GOSPEL ACCOUNT OF OUR FATHER AND THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF JESUS”

(Part VIII)

MR. SHANBOURS CONCLUSION

In his concluding remarks, Shanbour appeals to the opinions of men by way of the Interpreter’s Bible which refers to the atonement doctrine as “hideous heresy” and “the blasphemy of blasphemies.” His source even cites Second Corinthians 5:19 in support of its premise, demonstrating (so the authors think) that even Paul does away with atonement (why didn’t Mr. Shanbour think of this before?). Unfortunately, Shanbour has once again overstepped his own bounds, and I shall do him the favor of not responding to the floodgate he has so foolishly opened. This document has gotten long enough already.

As a last-minute entry onto his list of atonement-antagonistic words from Jesus, Mr. Shanbour cites Luke 23:34, wherein Jesus exclaimed while on the cross, “‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.’” Shanbour does not view this as coming from one who was appeasing the wrath of a deity who pre-ordained this moment in order to lift the curse that said deity had previously placed on mankind. And he is entitled to take this unwarranted interpretation if he so chooses; however, these words do not refute the atonement doctrine, which is what he is attempting to demonstrate. This passage merely indicates Jesus’ supreme love for all people, even his enemies (Matt. 5:43-48), which in turn is a reflection of God’s love for all people, despite their evil doings. Granted, to go beyond what the text plainly states in either direction is to read what is not there. However, as I am about to demonstrate, the use of one verse as an argument from silence will not excise the atonement doctrine from the canonical words of Jesus.

As a last hurrah, Mr. Shanbour reminds the reader of Matthew 12:7 (“mercy, not sacrifice”), which stands as the capstone of his defense, underneath which are couched the themes of “forgive to be forgiven,” God’s “unconditional mercy,” and “Jesus the only teacher” theology. Again, I defer to previous responses in the interest of brevity.

And after all the baseless, self-defeating interpretations have been put forth, Mr. Shanbour finally and with overt intention exposes the source of his true motivation behind the writing of his treatise by quoting from a section in Paper 188 of The UB. These six paragraphs come from Section 4 entitled “Meaning of the Death on the Cross,” in which the alleged celestial authors attempt to explain away atonement while at the same time castigate those whom Shanbour calls “atonists” as primitive folk. Curious how Shanbour’s source parallels his conclusions very nicely:

“The whole idea of ransom and atonement is incompatible with the concept of God as it was taught and exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. . . . Jesus taught that service to one’s fellows is the highest concept of the brotherhood of spirit believers. . . . Even if God were the stern and legal monarch of a universe in which justice ruled supreme, he certainly would not be satisfied with the childish scheme of substituting an innocent sufferer for a guilty offender. The great thing about the death of Jesus . . . is not the fact of his death but rather the superb manner and the matchless spirit in which he met death.”[1]

And we see where Shanbour gets his propensity to cast emotive aspersions towards the “atonists” in order to bolster his own position, for these alleged higher beings make use of the same amateurish tactic. If it works for angels, it’s good enough for Mr. Shanbour, I suppose. But I must again remind him that he had previously silenced all other voices when he delegated Jesus as being the exclusive spokesperson for God, which would naturally include the alleged writings of celestial creatures beneath him (Matt. 28:18). I will in kind defer from responding any further on the subject passage, for it is not within the scope of this defense to comment on the contents of The UB per se. However, I reserve the right to comment briefly on Shanbour’s use thereof in my closing arguments.

I will leave it to the reader for the time being to consider whether Mr. Shanbour has presented a convincing argument in support of his hypothesis and its two corollaries, which are repeated below:

Hypothesis: The doctrine of atonement arose out of the old Jewish tradition of sacrifice and was attached to the death of Christ through the letters of Paul and to a lesser extent other New Testament authors.

Corollary 1: The doctrine of atonement was not a pre-ordained plan of God.

Corollary 2: The doctrine of atonement was not supported by the biblical words of Jesus as reflected in the canonical Gospels.