MY FIRST DOUBT (page 5)

dissed

If we are going to question the 'Ransom Sacrifice', as the WTS teaches it. We might as well question the motive of the original propagators behind the theory, no?

If it is wrong, which I believe, who invented it and why?

My theory with about ten minutes into the thought process.

Are the Apostles, the body of Elders in Jerusalem, any different than the GB of today in trying to explain away a change of thought?

Their leader was killed, they scattered then reorganized. They are now in control of the church.

To the Jews, who they originally preached to, they had to remove the control of the Jewish order of things, for their authority to be firmly established.

So, they invented the Old Covenants end, by the now ultimate human sacrifice in Jesus. As sickening and ridiculous as that thought is, they gave it an intellectual explaination, and surprisingly people bought it, like 'Paul of Cleveland' showed.

The Law is over, we don't need it. You now need to look to us for direction. Its all about control and only they, can now explain it.

Its not much different than the failed prophecy of 1914 by the WTS. The Kingdom is invisible.(ridiculous and absurd; see all Farkels comments for proof.lol) We are its representatives on Earth, so you must follow us.

Jesus, their leader was murdered by the Jews and Romans, period. They just spinned the outcome to establish their control as the new leaders over others.

Yeah, my theory has some holes in it, but I'm just starting, I'm new at this apostate stuff.

dissed

Oh, and by the way. If you didn't accept their version of the Ransom doctrine, you would receive the worst kind of shunning from the organization. "Don't even greet such a one"

Can we say control?

Narkissos

paul from cl.,

Your presentation of the JW doctrine was unusually clear, that's probably why I felt like picking it apart. :)

But you got my drift I suppose: if that's the core of the Christian faith, why is it not simply taught in a similar way at least somewhere in the whole Bible? Why the need to construct an unscriptural doctrinal argument with unscriptural notions, even if you can fit a few verses here and there (preferably out of context)?

JWs would make exactly the same point about "orthodox" syntheses like the Trinity doctrine: no matter how many Bible texts Trinitarians can quote to back it up, the fact remains that the doctrine as such is not taught anywhere in the Bible. This is actually their strongest (negative) point. But ironically they don't see that this applies equally to most of their "positive" doctrines, including the "ransom sacrifice," "perfect Jesus" recovering what "perfect Adam" had lost, the "scales" of divine justice, and so on.

dissed,

I think you are trusting the WT too much on at least two assumptions: (1) that the notion of "ransom sacrifice" in some form was common to most if not all early Christians; (2) that doctrinal development in general emanated from the "apostles in Jerusalem". The whole Pauline corpus (especially Galatians) opposes this idea, although the book of Acts promotes it to an extent. But the christology of Acts is fairly different. In the discourses of Peter, for instance, Jesus' death is not described as a ransom (it is noteworthy that Luke drops the ransom logion, Mark 10:45) or an atoning sacrifice (let alone both!) but as the unjust condemnation of the "righteous one" who is vindicated by his resurrection and elevation to the right hand of God -- a completely different scenario.

goldensky

Behemot, you may not read this post, since this thread is already a few days old, but I've finally got around to reading the site you suggested and I'm totally IMPRESSED by it. Thank you so much! I felt "mental giddiness" (am I making myself understood?) as I read it. I'll definitely look for some quiet time to look into it much more deeply. I couldn't agree more on what this A.F. says. It's been very, very enlightening! Thank you very much.

JWoods

Just thought it might be time to bring this up to the top and have another look at it.

I still say it may be the most important thread to have surfaced here in many a moon.

James

Heaven

My first real 'Smack Me Upside The Head' Doubt came when I read the "Your Youth" book back in the 70s closely followed by an article in another book or magazine (I don't remember which... glad I don't!) that said I had to live my life in subjugation of my husband.

I guess they just hit me at a bad time... I was in my teens, my parents' marriage was rocky, I saw a lot of hypocrisy and I didn't agree with a lot of interpretation of scripture and then BAM! They hit me with having to live my entire life enslaved, forceably controlled and conquered by my husband?!! This did NOT fit in with any of my plans in life. I knew, even as a teenager, that this would kill me... that my spirit would die. They lost me right then and there.

I think a big part of why that hit me so hard was that up until then, most of what I had read and studied didn't really 'hit home' so to speak. I had a real hard time identifying and connecting with the Bible and the JW teachings. Since my father wasn't JW while I was growing up, our involvement wasn't as 'zealous' and intense as a lot of those here on the board. What we did study just didn't really bridge the gaps with me from ancient times to now. But this... telling me I had to be enslaved?!! That was real! My immediate and decisive reaction was "Not this girl... never, no way!"

I never became a Jehovah's Witness. And I never will.

VoidEater

why did Jesus have to die on our behalf?

I'm sure you'll get a range of responses on this note in particular; for my part:

I simply see no necessity that God confine himself to this "redemption equation". Even if Adam fell, even if Christ was the only other perfect man on Earth, why would God make up this strange balancing act that seems to me only a part of vindictive/vengence-seeking man?

My first doubt: How could a just and loving God demand Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac? Ok, on the one hand, clearly it's a story of Abraham being asked to give up something precious to him - but what of Isaac? Doesn't he have a "right" to his life?

Makes no sense...God's infinite power and justice certainly allows him to forgive without any pre-requisites.

Farkel

Ok. I'll give it a try.

Adam "lost" the right to eternal life for mankind.

Oh, wait! He didn't "lose" it because he didn't have it yet. He only would have had it if he hadn't have sinned. So, logically he couldn't "lose" what he didn't have to "lose."

At any rate, God killed Adam by making him die when God didn't have to kill Adam for making him die since Adam really didn't "lose" anything for the human race. What he lost was God's favor. That is NOT a good thing to lose.

So God punishes billions of people by not giving them eternal life because Adam "lost" that right even though he didn't have that "right"in the first place to lose. He didn't get a chance to eat of the "tree of LIFE" to GET that right! Get it?

So in order to fix what already is a "false cause fallacy" about losing the right to life Adam didn't have in the first place and then making people die, God comes up with a novel solution. The way to "fix" people losing the right to live is to kill someone. Better yet, to kill his own kid!

To put this in human terms so even a dummy like me can understand it, let's say my second-born kid did a really bad thing, like disobey me. So I decide the best way to resolve this problem is to kill my second-born kid and then later also kill my first-born kid who did nothing wrong, and then I say "that settles the score."

But the problem here is that does NOT settle the score. In the real world, when a person is taken hostage and a ransom is demanded and paid, the hostage is then immediately released. Fair deal. It's extortion, but at least both parties benefit. But Bible God is WORSE than just demanding extortion. He doesn't even keep his end of the deal.

Humans were taken hostage by Adam, billions suffered and died, and then the "ransom" was paid and humans are STILL screwed up 2,000 years and billions of more deaths later. No Adamic Paradise has been returned. No perfect life has been returned. No eradication of old age, death and misery has been returned. After 2,000 years there is NOTHING to show, and I mean NOTHING to show for that "ransom" that was "paid" 2,000 years ago. No! Now the best (and that is an iffy "best") that can be expected is another 1,000 years of testing and then a "final exam" which is supposed to be the worst "final exam" in the history of mankind. THEN the "ransom" is paid-in-full.

This, in short, is the Ransom Doctrine as believed by the worshipers of the only true and loving God, Jehovah, who today are known as "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses." Amen. Praise Jesus.

There. I feel better now. It's all bullshit.

Farkel

Since there are no rebuttals, I guess THAT settles your "First Doubt" once and for all.

Farkel

MY FIRST DOUBT

Share this