How much was Christ's ransom sacrifice? Equal to Adam? (page 7)

WTWizard

To me, it is nothing more than a pay-one-price for all you can eat waste. The first person to die under that sacrifice took the full price. Anyone else that dies after that costs nothing more. Yet, Jehovah seems to insist on everyone paying that full price by wasting their whole lives on religion.

Plus, the whole Original Sin doctrine is a scam. No Original Sin, nothing to ransom us from. Hence, no need for any ransom sacrifice of any kind, pay one price or pay-per-person. Jesus died trying to get us free from Jehovah, not to redeem us from our "sins" (most of which are not really absolute sins).

lovelylil2

Robdar,

Thank you for your response. I agree that many Christians take the bible too literally. for example did Eve actually eat a piece of literal fruit from a tree of knowlege in a garden? Probably not. But this story of the fall of man is there to show that we are alienated from God. The fruit and tree and knowledge of good and evil all have greater meanings than the literal interpretation.

Another example of being too literal is the 6 creation day theory. That simply does not jive with evolution which we know to be a very sound theory. We know the earth much older than a few thousand years etc. I personally have no problems with believing in evolution and a God, to me evolution is simply the means that God used to bring the earth and everything in it into exisitance.

I find when we Christians take things too literal we look stupid and we alienate people of different views and religious beliefs.

I agree with many other points you made as well. I agree babies are innocent at birth but do to the "nature" of Man, we all eventually sin. Even the early jews understood this and performed animal sacrifices to make atonement for thier sins. If I am correct, they did this soon after a baby was born so they must have acknowledge that eventually that baby would sin because of his nature?

This "nature" is what we Christians call the "fallen nature" hence the term "fall of man". How the particulars of this fall, which is simply an alienation from God took place, no one can know for sure. for as you said the "story" of this fall in Genesis is symbolic and the details of it are not to be taken as literal. The important point of it, which we both as a Christian and Jew agree with is that man at this time is alienated from God.

I think as far as Jews and Christians the bible (old testament specifically) is a matter of cultural perspective on one hand and we translate it according to our own belief systems. But I do thank you for respsonding to me because I do like to get the Jewish view. If more Christians would take the time to understand the Jewish thought on matters they will come to a more broadened understanding of the OT. I would suggest they purchase a copy of the Tanakh and read it and learn why it is arranged the way it is and which books are literal and which are not. It will be trully eye opening and change the way they view their own Christian faith.

Anyway, thanks again. Sorry for hijacking the thread off topic a little. Please pm me your email addy and we can "talk" some more about this.

RR,

hmmm, I don't see where I used the word "trinity" in my post? But I agree not to discuss the trinity here in full detail because it is already being done on another thread. And frankly has been beat to death on this forum anyway.

I understood this topic to be about Jesus and whether his "life" was just equal to or greater than that of Adams, in relation to the ransom price paid.

Lilly

Deputy Dog

jonathan dough

Same with Christianity, though I don' think the Almighty created evil.

Isa 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Satanus

I agree w robdar, give the socalled ot back to the jews. Might as well give them the nt, as well. Heck, it was all written by jews, too. Make your own damn religion, write your own damned holy book!

S

lovelylil2

About Jeremiah 31. This is the longest OT verse quoted in our NT found in the book of Hebrews chapter 8.

Christian interpretation of this covenant to come (Jeremiah 31) is that it was referring to the new Covenant believers entered into with Christ. This covenant marked the beginning of something new for God's people. A new relationship with God, one based on his laws becoming inner principles for the believer, written on thier hearts, instead of written in outer laws. God's people would also now have sinful ignorance of God removed from them and have everlasting assurance of forgivenes of our sins. No more annual sacrifices would be needed as under the old convenant. For believers our High Priest Jesus Christ paid our ranson to redeem us forever. This sacrifice of jesus is what removed the veil between God and Men. Now we can approach God directly thru Christ.

The NT states that because of the New covenant the old Covenant would become absolete meaning it would soon disappear. See Hebrews 8:13. This is not the same as saying the old covenant was completey made null and void. Any promises God made specifically to the nation of Isreal either were fulfilled or will be fulfilled as God does not go back on his promises. See Isaiah 55:11.

For Christians Christ fulfilled the law but did not obolish the law. We are simply under a different arrangement. Again, God did not renege on any promises to Isreal. Lilly

Robdar

There have been some wonderful posts to this thread. Lilly, I sent you a pm with the info.

Shabbat shalom to all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsIWfgoFaP8

Love,

Robyn/Ariele

jonathan dough

Same with Christianity, though I don' think the Almighty created evil.

Isa 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
I know, that's a tough one. Maybe it turns on what "create evil" means. Maybe someone has a better understanding. I just don't read it so narrowly. I don't think God created the evil that stuffed the Jews into the ovens. I don't see Him responsible for it.

EverAStudent

To all who posted that Jesus' sacrifice pays entirely for Adam's one sin, and for nothing more, I need help--if you could provide a few clarifying answers to some questions:

if Jesus' sacrifice covered only Adam's one garden sin, how did Adam's other sins get "paid for"?
if Jesus' sacrifice covered only Adam's one garden sin, how do all my present sins get "paid for"?
if everyone's sins were entirely covered by Jesus' sacrifice for Adam's one garden sin, why does God not count us all as perfect and so give everyone an automatic place in eternity?
is JW / WTS salvation something different than getting one's sins "paid for" by Christ and being declared "righteous" by God?

Thanks for helping.

jonathan dough

Interesting links. I never thought of it that way, but it is a theory. I find the bottom quote from the Time article interesting.

Jesus the Pharisee has significant omissions: it does not touch on such salient matters as the Resurrection, the messiahship of Jesus, or the belief that his death atoned for the sins of all humanity. Lawrence Schiffman, a critic of the book who is a professor of Hebrew and Judaic studies at New York University, says that Falk "has bought a stereotype of the School of Shammai, who in reality were good Jews and good Pharisees." Schiffman believes that there will not be a scholarly acceptance of the book's thesis.

jonathan dough

Does anyone actually take this Aguest fellow serious?

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

Share this