Does the Christian message fall apart without a literal interpretation of Genesis?

by nicolaou 175 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  tec

  Okay, I don't know how to respond except to go point by point with what you wrote, so bear with me please:

  Jesus said; Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matt 5:17

  Yes.

  This Law, according to Hebrews 10:1 was 'a shadow of the good things that are coming'.

  Yes. Being Christ, as you said next:

  That good thing being Jesus Christ, a sacrifice superior to that of animals which were unable to take away sins. (Heb 10:4).

  Note, however, that those animal sacrifices were for the sins that the people committed, themselves. They didn't constantly sacrifice an animal to atone for Adam's sin... rather their OWN sin.

  "Therefore just as death came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- for indeed sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is NOT like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many."

  I just highlighted the parts that show that all men sin, and so die because of their sin. I know that it says that many died through one man's trespass, but it also says that death spread to all men because all sinned. So why base a theology around one part of that quote, and ignore the other part? Why not consider that these words could easily be and have been misunderstood by the WTS, and instead, gain an understanding from what Christ himself said, and even from what other books and letters corroborated.

  That Christ atoned for our sins (those of us who do sin).

  Thanks be to God, who delivers us through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

  You are correct Tammy, there are lots of things Jesus did not make pronouncements upon but he himself said that he came to fulfil this Law.

  What law, Nic? What connection are you making here?

  The purpose of the law was to do what? Show people their sin, and instruct them how to keep from sinning? It did in part... Christ did in full. He showed the people how to live according to the law, cleared up misconceptions, and both taught and lived the law as it was meant to be taught and lived. He went further by showing forgiveness and mercy even to those who put him to death... of which 'love' was fulfillment of the law.

  Do we have a theology built around that fulfillment of the law? Probably we do, but we don't hear much about that from the WTS.

  I will repeat, because you didn't respond to what I said, and I am still curious what you think:

  "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

  Sins plural. Not redemption for Adam's sin. Forgiveness for many people and their sins.

  That is also the theme that other writers continue with... forgiveness of our sins. (those of us who do sin) The rest - this ransom sacrifice - is a theology based on a couple paragraphs of one person - Paul - and not supported by Christ, himself - and it could easily mean something other than what some men have interpreted it as to suit their doctrine.

  Tammy

  (Curtains, I appreciated what you said , and am glad you could understand)
• 

  nicolaou

  I want to thank you Tammy, I asked a question and you've tried harder than most to answer it fully and without reserve. You've also taught me a lesson - well, given me a reminder might be more accurate.

  You see, I decided ages ago not to get into scriptural debates with believers and yet I managed to get sucked into one here - shame on me. I don't mean this to sound rude but rational discussion is almost impossible when the participants do not agree on even the most basic premises of logic and reason.

  You inhabit a world I abandoned almost 10 years ago. A world full of invisible, spirit beings both malevolent and benign. A world where men have walked on water and raised the dead. I've given up on these childish fantasies but if you still draw comfort from them then good for you. Perhaps, from time to time, we can just politely wave at each other across the great divide that separates reality from fiction.

  Nic'
• 

  ProdigalSon

  What happens when a person cannot forgive themselves of "sin"?

  Can they turn around and forgive others?

  Basic Psychology 101.

  The Christ is within you. The Bible makes it plain as day. That is the ONE thing that Christ and Paul agreed on.

  John 17:20

  "I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word; 21 in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you, that they also may be in us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth. 22 Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. 23 I in them and you in me, in order that they may be perfected into one, that the world may have the knowledge that you sent me forth and that you loved them just as you loved me.

  "...my little children, with whom I am again in childbirth pains until Christ is formed in YOU." -Galatians 4:19.

  So if "Christ" is a man, a historical figure, and not an energy and a consciousness, the above would be a neat trick.
• 

  wobble

  I agree with your original post Nic, if one agrees that Adam caused the rift between God and man that Jesus came to Earth to fix, one is forced to take the account as literal, or the sin mentioned therein is also allegorical and not at all to be worried about.

  So I take it that Tammy , who does not view the account as literal, is only concerned with the sins she herself has committed, and she needs Jesus, a historically doubtful figure, to shift these sins upon, poor chap.

  It seems like a rather JW attitude, they do nothing about improving the present world because Big J will bring in the Noo System, and Christians do nothing about their own sin because Jesus has/will atone.

  That's all right then.
• 

  Curtains

  well the the way I see it and taking an atheistic stance (I do like using this handle ) Jesus is not depicted as an otherworldly individual in the gospel accounts. He is depicted as an individual who worked hard to alleviate spritiual and physical suffering. He put himself in the thick of human life and urged his followers to do so too. He is portrayed as enjoying nature (check parts of the sermon on the mount), good food, good wine (the miracle of turning water into fine wine) and fine clothing (the one piece garment that romans cast lots over). He took delight in people and expressed intense emotion when the need arose as when his friend Lazarus died and when he drove the money changers out of the temple.

  I think it would be more accurate to say that some of Paul's theology falls apart without a literal interpretation of Genesis but this does not apply to all of chrisitianity and certainly not to Jesus' teachings.
• 

  Terry

  Think about this HISTORICALLY.

  Under the Catholic Church ALL AUTHORITY rested on the institution of the church to interpret and teach.

  The bible was secondary to the tradition and majesty of the leadership. The bible was only one arrow in the quiver.

  What the Church decided was true automatically and authoratatively BECAME true. (What is bound on earth is bound in heaven.)

  The Protestant Revolution destroyed that authority and it HAD TO BE REPLACED. But--with what?

  The Protestants replaced the authority of Catholic institutions with a theory of the bible instead.

  The Protestant theory was that the BIBLE was the SOLE AUTHORITY.

  Consequently, Protestants began insisting the bible was INERRANT to replace the inerrancy of the Church.

  Martin Luther burdened non-Catholics with a very heavy load: EACH INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIAN could INTERPRET for HIMSELF!

  SOLA SCRIPTURA this was called; THE BIBLE ALONE.

  This is how a cult of bible worship formed around Protestantism. It is purely ARTIFICIAL and nonsensical.

  It doesn't hold water.

  Any honest investigation can demonstrate thousands of errors and corruptions in text.

  This falsifies the Protestant theory of authority resting in inerrant scripture.

  Done. Finished. False.

  Personal Interpretation is what has FRACTURED CHRISTIANITY like a mirror dropped on hard ground

  and shattered it into hundreds and hundreds of DENOMINATIONS all at odds.

  Pathetic and unnecessary.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Alright, I am not going to wade through all these answers to see if this has been covered, but removing the literal interpretation of Genesis means that God did not make Man in His image quite so much.

  As I understand the Bible, animals do not sin in that they have not reached some level of accountability. They don't have rules put upon them that, if violated, would constitute sin. Sin is not just making mistakes or hurting others. Otherwise, animals that kill animals or certainly that kill the offspring of another of the same kind (to aid their own offspring's success) would be considered to be "sinning." Sinning is falling short of God's standards.

  Either Man was created perfect with free will and chose to "sin" or else Man was created like the animals and not so perfect and God put an unfair standard upon his creation that they could not possibly live up to.

  Without a literal Genesis, men killed and sacrificed animals to cover the shortcoming that is not their fault. Jesus sacrificed himself to make up for God's goof in a flawed creation.
• 

  Terry

  You cannot successfuly point to Jesus as AFFIRMING the Old Testament or the reality of Adam.

  You just cannot.

  Jesus was a public speaker. He was a teacher who constantly resorted to ILLUSTRATIONS.

  If Jesus was speaking at your local auditorium he might well use Captain Ahab and Moby Dick as an illustration

  to prove a point about obsession and pursuit of a goal that would end up destroying you.

  Jesus, by so doing, could then be accused of VERIFYING THE REALITY AND PERSONHOOD of a historical Captain Ahab

  and the acutality of a large White Whale. However---this would be utter nonsense! Missing the point! Missing the point!!

  Ask yourself this question: "How often did Jesus reference Moses or the Law only to step right up and CONTRADICT the authority and

  binding nature of it with INSTRUCTIONS COMPELTELY OPPOSITE?"

  The answer is Jesus USED MENTION OF THE COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD BELIEF among Jews of the moral nature and reality of their Law

  as a POINT OF DEPARTURE. Jesus did not AFFIRM the reality of the TRUTH of it!

  Stop and think about that.

  Jesus was teaching the opposite.

  He used the general population's acceptance of Old Testament stories about a Law given by their tribal God TO TEACH SOMETHING CONTRADICTING IT.

  Think about that.
• 

  Terry

  Either Man was created perfect with free will and chose to "sin" or else Man was created like the animals and not so perfect and God put an unfair standard upon his creation that they could not possibly live up to.

  Not so black and white, please.

  Humans.....people.....try to understand themselves and their social structure through story mentality.

  Society needs an architecture of shape and meaning to unify and maintain while allowing personal diversity.

  THE JEWS had their stories of a semi-historical nature to teach them a national lesson.

  Judaism was an artificial construct containing a central MYTH. They were willing to bind themselves to LAW for a reason.

  Jews went through a lot of trouble conforming to all those ridiculous sacrifices and rules and observances for A REASON.

  What was the reason? What bound them to the Law in the first place?

  THEY HAD BEEN TOLD THEY WERE SPECIAL, CHOSEN AND SUPERIOR to everybody else on earth!!

  They could easily buy in to that---it made them feel very special, indeed!

  The price they had to pay for joining that national DELUSION OF GRANDEUR (which they still cling to even today!!) was conformity

  to the Authority of the Law. That silly, OCD law and the cutting of animal throat's and blood spattering!!

  The Law was a lot of craziness and bit of good stuff. In for a penny/in for a pound.

  THE IDEA OF PERSON SIN was at the center of the RITUAL.

  GUILT---personal guilt and national guilt---was the fulcrum of LAW.

  The story of Adam and Eve gave a CAUSAL logic (ridiculous but effective) to belief in SIN.

  Think of sin as bad behavior and guilt can easily be waved away as MY PREFERENCE vs YOUR PREFERENCE.

  Think of sin as BINDING INHERITANCE from birth---like having H.I.V. and needing constant medication---and you BIND the sufferer to the RITUAL of PURIFICATION for fear of the eventual death by A.I.D.s

  The Old Testament Law myth was a two for one sale.

  1.You bind yourself to the Law and the Rituals and you get to be THE CHOSEN PEOPLE

  2.You bind yourself to the observance of the Law and Rituals and you get medicine so that you live without getting A.I.D.s (metaphorically.)

  The Christian Message piggy-backed off the acceptance of the Old Testament belief in mythical condition of SIN.

  The success of the Christian message was becoming FREE of taking the medication (ritual) but still achieving the same result!

  One pill cured all (belief in Jesus).

  Forgiveness or Grace was an inoculation.

  The Jews as "chosen people" was replaced by a new reward: BECOME KINGS AND PRIESTS IN HEAVEN.

  It was a better deal. Trade up.
• 

  trevor

  Terry - You cannot successfuly point to Jesus as AFFIRMING the Old Testament or the reality of Adam.

  That was a most enlightening post. Having read your take on Jesus and his ministry, I can better understand what Tammy is trying to say.

  I will give this matter some thought in the hope that I can learn something new.