by goldensky 48 Replies latest jw friends
Goldensky,
When people ask me about the many "strange" things in the OT I remind them that many rituals were product of the times, BUT I also make it clear, like Paul said, "If the Old Covenant had workd, there would have been no need for Jesus and the New Covenant".
I also add my view that, if the OT writers had gotten it all right, there would have been no need for the NT.
I also add my view that, if the OT writers had gotten it all right, there would have been no need for the NT.
Surely this was posted in full Watchtower-ian Jest? (i.e. - if Russell had "gotten it all right", there would have been no need for Rutherford, Knorr, Franz, and the "new light" -)
So, maybe we should approach the expulsion from Eden/Death Sentence/Forbidden Fruit fable in the same way
I don't know if we "should" but we certainly can. I would even say that the very context of the story encourages us to do so. Because (1) it is just one of two very different (and mutually incompatible if taken literally) creation stories, the first of which culminates with the creation of mankind as it is, including gender difference, sex and procreation, without any hint of "sin" or "fall"; (2) it actually does not involve "sin" or the "devil" or any promise of "redemption" (all of this was read into the text later); (3) it is practically never referred to anywhere else in the OT (at least by the Jewish canon) as THE explanation for "sin" or "death". This is a late development in some strands of Judaism and early Christianity, culminating with Augustine's doctrine of "original sin".
If I may join in and have a thought ramble. - Goldensky I've lurked here for years and enjoyed the comments of many (yes, I'm still a witness, can you tell) , esp. blondie and leoleia but your post has promted me to come out of my shell, since your doubts are similar to mine.
Especially regarding Job, if he proved that humans do not serve God simply for what they can get out of it, then the point is proved! Surely we don't need a further 3 or 4000 years of human suffering to continue proving a proven point.
Also, the same with Jesus. If he paid the ransom, and his sacrifice wiped out the power of sin, why do we need another 2000 years of people still dying?
I've forgotten who said it on here, but it resolves down to 'do you really believe all the suffering in the world is justified because a naked lady got tricked into eating a piece of fruit by a talking snake?'
It seems to me that the only effort at "consensus" which works is that God is good, and whatever he wants at any given time is good because he wants it to be so. This doesn't work with most theologies.
The bible is not open to consensus.
Sapphy,
Welcome to the board and thank you for your thought provoking comment
I've forgotten who said it on here, but it resolves down to 'do you really believe all the suffering in the world is justified because a naked lady got tricked into eating a piece of fruit by a talking snake?'
And don't forget that snakes don't have vocal chords so how was the snake able to accomplish this feat?
Welcome aboard, Sapphy! I'm presuming from your post that, like me, the Witnesses haven't been able to answer all your questions.
I am truly surprised here with this thread. I am so glad there appears to be independant thought from posters and not the usual crap and political brainless rants.
As I have said to a former JW friend. "What would Jesus think (or do)". Would he set up everything based on a talking snake? And if all life came from just 2 people, then incest was rampant then. It's all hard to swallow. Just live a decent life, somewhat like Jesus did.
I wanted to ask about the discussion in this thread about animal abuse. Could someone elaborate on what was touched on at the beginning please? Thanks, Bill.
It hadn't yet been enforced when the prophecy at Genesis 3:15 was uttered, so Jehovah wasn't obliged to make any perfect creature die to balance the scales.
Also there is no "messianic prophecy" in Genesis 3:15. That reading, closely related to the Sethian gnostic interpretation which in some ways is more conservative, emerged in the late first century AD at the earliest (cf. the Odes of Solomon and Revelation) and the middle of the second century AD at the latest (where appears explicitly in Irenaeus). The "prophecy" interpretation also depends on the identification of the serpent with the character of "Satan", which is a rather late post-exilic development. The curse in Genesis 3:15 simply says there would always be conflict between serpents and people as long as they co-exist, a truism since snakes are among the most hated and feared animals.
As far as animal sacrifices...I never understood that. But it also makes me ill to see shows or read articles on how the meat on the shelf in supermarket gets there! There is so much cruelty in it's manufacturing.
kitten whiskers....This is relevant actually to the Society's doctrine on blood. The Society makes a big deal about the "abstain from blood" instruction in Acts 15 as forbidding (whole) blood transfusions, but the same verse instructs readers to "abstain from things strangled", evidently because such meat is not bled thoroughly. Yet if you examine the modern (American) meat industry, animals are very commonly not bled in accordance with traditional Jewish practices. Animals are commonly strangled, shot, electrocuted, and killed in other ways. Yet there is no concern over the issue of "abstain from things strangled", even though it is on parity with the "abstain from blood" in the scripture, and the latter is raised by the Society to the level of something that must be observed under pain of death. The Society could simply request JWs to eat only kosher meat, and that would respect the "law" to "abstain from things strangled," but such is not done.
