How much was Christ's ransom sacrifice? Equal to Adam?

by jonathan dough 189 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Doug Mason

  lovelylil2,

  Jeremiah was speaking of his own time to his own people. The context is the Babylonian Exile and the Jewish Exiles' wish to return. Through Jeremiah, God tells these people that it is his desire for them to return, but they must first seek him. The promises of a new covenant and a new heart are made for them, as they rebuild their relationship with him.

  A text without a context is a pretext.

  The covenant of Grace says we are not saved through anything we do, that is why there is neither Christian, Jew, Greek, Muslim, Hindu, Arab, or Calathumpian, for "all are one in God's sight". To say that my beliefs are better, is to assume that God is a respecter of my doctrinal purity, but that is a work. Salvation is based simply and only on a person's faith in him, regardless of their doctrinal insufficiency. Salvation is a gift available to any who call on him.

  Doug
• 

  Doug Mason

  Pistof,

  You ask: did 70,000 really die because David counted heads?

  To Jews, a name is more than a handle, it is the very essence of the person. So collecting and gathering names is to imprison the beings. As far as the number 70,000 is concerned, there is much evidence that demonstrates their use of numerical hyperbole.

  To comprehend the meaning of such stories, one needs to understand historiography, in that stories were written to influence events contemporary with the time of the writer, and that the events should not necessarily be considered to literally reflect accurate historical events. They should often be viewed in the same light as fables such as the various creation accounts, flood, tower of Babel, etc., etc. These were composed to influence the local politics (religious and otherwise) of the times they were written. When was the story of David and the census written? (A genuine question, not rhetorical, as I do not know.)

  Doug
• 

  Pistoff

  fables

  My point exactly; not without meaning, but not literal.

  P
• 

  Robdar

  Jesus was not a Pharisee. He was more aligned with the "People of the Land" ("am hares") of Jeremiah's time, speaking with the common folk, using their imagery. Jesus had more in common with Jeremiah in that they both spoke against the temple priests, they were more aligned with the agrarian populace.

  Doug, Jews place Jesus in the Pharisee movement. Evidence that I have read leads me to the same conclusions. But it doesn't really matter to me. I was merely making conversation.

  Pistoff, thank you. I am sending you a pm.
• 

  lovelylil2

  Doug,

  the covenant of grace was first offerred to the Jewish nation. Remember that Jesus did not go to the gentile people at all. (people of the nations). He went to the lost sheep of Israel first to tell them to repent and turn back to God, Only after christ's resurrection was the invitation to enter the covenant of grace offered to non Jews. See Matthew 28:19,20 and Acts Chapter 10.

  Please do not think I personally am saying that the covenant of Grace is better than the Mosaic Law covenant, I was repeating what the Apostle Paul was saying "God saw something better for us", meaning a new covenant based on faith in Christ by Grace and not by observance to laws or works. Again, I am only bringing out what the Christian scriptures teach. For the natural Jews at that time who did accept Christ and enter this covenant, the Mosaic law decreased and eventually became absolete because "for them", Christ fulfilled the law.

  I disagree on the interpretation of Jeremiah 11. I firmly believe that jeremiah was fortelling the New convenant arrangement made through faith in Christ. We believers in this covenant have had God's laws written upon our hearts by the power of the Holy Spirit. I think where you are in error is believeing that since Jeremiah was addressing the Jews that Gentiles would not be included in this "new covenant" that Jeremiah spoke about. But as already brought out, few Jews entered into it. And at the time of Jeremiah's writing he did not know yet that God would offer any invitation to people of the nations.

  The scriptures I already cited show that Paul said the Jewish nation was first invited to a new covenant with God, one that was better than the Mosaic covenant because it was not contingent on following every letter of law and that most declined this offer because of lack of faith and rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. Then non Jews were given the same invitation to come into a convenant with God thru Jesus and they responded abundantly. Thus Jeremiah was fulfilled and continues to be fulfilled today.

  As for most of the Natural Jews today, they continue to live under law. Peace, Lilly
• 

  jonathan dough

  Meanwhile, how about it? David and the census, did 70,000 really die because David counted heads?

  Does God still care if I kept my foreskin?

  I answered that.
• 

  jonathan dough

  jd,

  Re your posts 494 and 496. These passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah refer to their own times. And the passage in Deuteronomy needs to be read in the context of the time it was composed and edited - from Josiah through the Exile.

  Doug

  I don't follow. Can you paste the exact references you are referring to as I quoted other material there as well.
• 

  jonathan dough

  Me: point is that the idea that they were literal is a relatively recent concept, less than 50 years old.

  Typo, my bad; I meant 250. Modern fundamentalism comes from the Scofield bible, you can look it up.

  We weren't discussing the inception of modern fundamentalism but whether Christians interpreted Scripture literally prior to A.D 1760. First, I don't think anyone believes that every word in Scripture is to be taken literally, such as the Book of Revelation, even Deep-South fundamentalist. There is room for metaphor, various symbolic references, etc. Secondly, common sense dictates that in that earlier world, especially during the Dark Ages, certain aspects of Scripture were indeed taken literally. Jesus did walk on water. Do you have any sources to back up your assertion that "the idea that they were literal is a relatively recent concept, less than 50 years old"?

  http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#1
• 

  jonathan dough

  I have read it, but then I see it differently from you, because I have also read it compared to actual history of the times.

  Can you answer this for me? What actual history of the world are you referring to?
• 

  jonathan dough

  Pistoff:

  You never answered this either. You're an atheist? Or do you just hate God? That's a fair question.