Does Matthew promote atonement through the quote about the Eucharist which says, "...for this is my blood, the blood of the (covenant) (testament), to be poured out (in behalf of) (for) many for the forgiveness (remission, KJV) of sins (Mat 26:28)?"

Mark and Luke use different quotes, while John does not describe the Eucharistic ritual. Mark says, "This is my blood, the blood of the (covenant) (testament), to be poured out (on behalf of) (for) the many (Mark 14:24)."

Luke says, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you (Luke 22:20)."

The truth is in the objective realities. No one can defy objective realities and not destroy themselves in sin. Sooner or later, all sin results in hell. The only alternative is to create life in line with objective reality. Christ taught this truth by teaching objective reality and aligning morality upon it. But these facts would be true whether Christ taught them or not, and they should be observable apart from Christ's teaching, at least after being brought to anyone's attention.

So we must put the question to the test of objective reality. The most obvious fact about Christ's crucifixion is that it showed that humans would murder God for doing good deeds and teaching morality. This is the concept of martyrdom. Martyrs feel that they accomplish something by producing truth about sin, which will gradually lead to truth prevailing against evil.

This interpretation, based on martyrdom, explains the Mark and Luke quotes. Christ shed blood for the people, much as martyrs do. But it does not explain the Matthew quote, which says Christ's blood was poured out for the forgiveness or remission of sins. A martyr does not have anything to do with forgiveness or remission of sins.

So what is the relationship between blood and remission of sins? The atonement concept, as promoted by Paul and his followers, says that God was pleased by murder and forgave people their sins. This assumption is absurd and clearly would not have been what Christ was saying.

First, why is atonement absurd? One reason is because it assumes God was a pervert who wanted blood. The whole concept of sacrifice began with the demons who required blood sacrifice as a test of allegiance. God's religion started at this point, as Abraham assumed God wanted him to sacrifice Isaac as a test of allegiance. Then the Jewish religion evolved gradually toward moral concepts. Along the way, the concept of sacrifice was changed; so the blood was shed, not to show allegiance to perverts, but to have sins removed.

But why would shedding blood allow sins to be removed? Only because the Jews had not yet learned how to properly worship God, and they were gradually being weaned away from the ritual of the demons. God stated that he did not want such sacrifices (Isaiah 1:11-20)(Jer 7:22)(Hosea 6:6)(Psalms 40:7, 50:8-15)(Mat 9:13, 12:7)(Mark 12:33). It was just a slow process of convincing the Jews that the purpose of his religion was to create morality, not to control people through a perverse ritual.

Therefore, there needs to be a different explanation for the quote in Matthew, which says Christ's blood was shed for remission of sins. To get at the objective reality, examples in life need to be evaluated. Consider how parents relate to their children. If the child does something wrong, does the parent say to shed some blood, and he will be forgiven? Of course not. If the child incurs a debt which he cannot pay, does the parent say he will pay it for him? Perhaps. This is the logic of atonement which is used by Paul's followers. But notice the problem. Someone has to receive the payment.

In the religion of the demons, the payment which the demons receive is the corruption of humans and their allegiance through sin. This arrangement does not transfer into God's religion. There is nothing moral persons receive from sin. They don't have a blood lust.

Even though sin is sometimes referred to as a debt, it isn't like normal debts, because no one receives anything, even if someone pays something. There is a price for sin, and a person is said to pay for sin; but their is no receiver.

This is the way language often works. Words are never perfect. They often have multiple meanings. Only the context can determine what words mean.

This means that the atonement concept cannot be transposed onto God, because he does not receive anything from sin. It should not be surprising that a religion designed by demons is not going to fit into the way things work in the moral world.

Yet the followers of Paul have the audacity to imply, if not directly claim, that God gets something out of the shedding of innocent blood. If the martyrdom concept is applied, you could say God benefits from martyrdom. But guess what? The Jewish ritual of sacrifice had nothing to do with martyrdom. The animals were not martyred, and the worship of demons was not martyrdom.

Paul's followers sort of mix the concepts. They indicate that Christ did such a wonderful thing in offering his body (about like a martyr) that it pleased God, and he forgave sins as a result. The problem here is that martyrdom does not promote morality. It whips up the blood lust of the murderers. In skirting around this result, the problem gets located in God's mind, and Christ supposedly fixed it. But God isn't supposed to have any problem in his mind. Christ said he and the father are one, and Christ didn't have any problem in his mind.

Even if God were assumed to be justified and moral in not forgiving sinners, he would have to be corrupt to want Christ martyred. Even though it is virtue for martyrs to give up their lives, it is not a virtue to want it to happen to them. Real martyrs do not want to be martyred; they just refuse to sin, and therefore their worth increases. A few early martyrs did want to be martyred, but they were exploiters who added nothing of worth to existence. The act of martyring innocent persons is so perverse that promoting it is sinful.

Christ did nothing to promote his crucifixion. He said he did not want it to happen, but he had no choice about it. He said he could have prevented it, but he needed to show the truth about sin. This differs from willful martyrdom in many ways. First, he did nothing to promote it. Secondly, he taught moral philosophy for three years clarifying the truth. Then, he was God and could rise from the dead demonstrating much moral and theological truth. Humans could do none of this, and their promotion of martyrdom did not increase truth or demonstrate constructivity.

Another absurdity of the Pauline claim that Christ induced God to forgive sins is that it contradicts the fact that it is Christ who does the judging. There is no difference between God and Christ. So why would Christ be trying to convince himself of something? He wouldn't.

What then is meant by shedding blood for the remission of sins? Traditional Catholicism had this question answered very clearly. Catholics left Christ's body on their cross and put it visibly on the front wall above the altar, so it was the most visible part of their ritual. People would see that it was sin that caused Christ's crucifixion and all other human misery, and it promoted their repentance. Christ's blood led to the remission of sins by promoting repentance. It had nothing to do with changing something in God's mind.