Here is a great question:
If what you are saying is true (about atonement and Jesus’ blood covering us all) and is what is being taught by Jesus (or the disciples) – how come the gospels never lay the story out the way churches teach it? How come the theology is always a patchwork of teachings (from various letters and books) that make an interpretive deliverable that benefits the church doctrine/belief?
Reason I bring this up is because there are a variety of Christian beliefs, codified by church belief statements and dogma, that support the very grounding and integrity of that church. I find most of them developed belief systems that are supported by patchwork theological beliefs from various places in letters and books, and in some cases, are not verifiably true of the total 27 texts of the NT or 66 texts of the whole bible. In essence, an interpretation is serving as truth.
- Virgin birth – misinterpretation of Hebrew from Isaiah 7:14 to Greek – about ‘young woman‘ and ‘virgin‘. Only found in 2 of 4 gospels, not in Acts, nor in the letters (Paul skips over this crucial idea all the time for some reason). In fact, the evidence is so scant for this belief yet it makes for good narrative so the uses in Matthew and Luke (likely both additions from a myth) that it’s inclusion makes all the sense in the world – makes Jesus ‘sensational‘.
- Trinity – not found in the gospels (except for the one mention in John 8) and not a belief Jesus even followed (according to Mark’s gospel and his Jewish tradition). This is a patchwork of passages from a variety of places and sewn together to make it seem like a key and easy belief to follow – maybe mentioned a handful of times making up maybe .005% of total passages in the NT. How this became a key element of faith is beyond – oh right – church voting made it legit (‘rolls eyes to back of his skull‘).
- Atonement – the idea that Jesus shed his blood to pay for the sins of all humanity – found in the letter of Hebrews (which may not have been written by Paul and has a huge Gentile slant to it). This idea seems to be read backwards from that letter (date uncertain – some think 60’s – some think 100’s+) into the gospel texts, letters, and Tanakh. It’s a scapegoat theory that leads to the idea you can be forgiven for everything you’ve ever done – past, present, future – just by accepting this blood sacrifice to ‘wash your sins away‘ (or like Carrie – be bathed in blood). In fact, it lets the sinner off the hook and runs counter to much of what Jesus taught concerning ‘accountability‘ for one’s actions.
Juss saying – if any of this is true – how come no one in the disciples or Paul don’t just ‘lay it out there’ for all to see clearly.