by nicolaou 175 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Tec , deputy dog
If Adam and Eve are just symbols for all mankind then at what point in history did human sin FIRST come about?
Before that event was all humankind sinless? By definition it would have to have been.
So did all humans sin at the same time in one great mass sinning or just some? In which case where are the descendants of those who did not sin?
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.
I never said I thought the account was allegory. I only answered the question: that it didn't matter if it was allegory or literal; the Christian message does not fall apart. So it doesn't matter to me. I tend to think of it as literal, so as to understand the moral and later allegories easier. I am open to other views on it as well.
I shifted from saying OUR sins to MY sins, because some found that offensive and judgmental. But now that I've done so, so as not to judge, I'm instead only concerned with me, and I am JW in attitude?
Nic, I don't think you got sucked into a debate :) You asked a scriptural question, and I think I even stuck with scripture to answer it. My thoughts about scripture just differ from yours. I don't know how that made me irrational or illogical, but no problem. I can wave at you if you can wave at me.
Terry - I'd never thought about the Protestant reformation like that. I love to get different perspectives... it bumps us out of our set ways, and allows us to think outside what we have been taught to think. Thank you!
Trevor - Um... thank God for Terry? LOL ;)
Peace to you all,
Tammy
(Apostle?)Tammy So you doubt Paul's apostleship?
Not once does Christ say, in the bible, that he came to atone for Adam's sin. Not once does he even mention it.
Do you realize what you're saying? So Tammyology has as much authority as Paul's theology? If you can discredit Paul, who's to say Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Peter's apostleship isn't in question. How do YOU know what Jesus actually said, if apostleship means nothing? Peter believed in Paul's apostleship, and his writings to be scripture.
2Pe 3:14
Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
From where I stand Jesus and Paul are in perfect harmony. Have you ever considered that?
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.
It was much more than a "couple of paragraphs". Not to mention it wasn't just Paul. As I said before, Peter accepted it.
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.
I've never been a JW, I received this teaching directly from the bible which was around long before the WTS, not to mention the fact that Paul's teachings ARE perverted and "misunderstood by the WTS". So I have considered it. Why don't you consider Paul's teaching as scripture, just the same as the quotes of Jesus, by other apostles. You seem to forget that Christ himself did not write down his own words, so they only carry the authority of the apostles that recorded them.
That Christ atoned for our sins (those of us who do sin).
I'm glad you believe in limited atonement, but, you put a strange twist on it.
still wondering
If Adam and Eve are just symbols for all mankind then at what point in history did human sin FIRST come about?
Before that event was all humankind sinless? By definition it would have to have been.
So did all humans sin at the same time in one great mass sinning or just some? In which case where are the descendants of those who did not sin?
Let me be clear, I don't believe that to be true.
This isn't my position so I don't know if I could defend it properly, but, I suppose they could say that the fall is a symbol of the fallen state of All men.
oh dear...Tec, you know how much I love ya but I gotta say that these mental gymnastics are truly impressive
So you doubt Paul's apostleship?
No.
Do you realize what you're saying? So Tammyology has as much authority as Paul's theology? If you can discredit Paul, who's to say Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Peter's apostleship isn't in question. How do YOU know what Jesus actually said, if apostleship means nothing?
I don't discredit Paul or any of the others, and I don't claim any authority for myself. What I said is absolutely true. Not once, IN THE BIBLE, does Christ say that he came to atone for Adam's sin. He does however say that he came for the forgiveness of sins, of many people.
Peter believed in Paul's apostleship, and his writings to be scripture.
Yes, I exchanged ideas with Lovelylil on this last night. Not everything Paul wrote could have been scripture though even if you believe this, or he would not have had to make a distinction between something that came from him, and something that came from God. Regardless, men without understanding can twist what Paul was talking about, since some of what he wrote was difficult to understand, as Peter said. So I look to Christ for understanding, first and foremost.
From where I stand Jesus and Paul are in perfect harmony. Have you ever considered that?
Absolutely. But that is not to say that Pauls' teaching could not have been misunderstood and/or twisted, as I said above, and then that understanding carried over even to today. So again, that is why I look to Christ, and by looking to him first, I hope I might better understand what someone else was saying.
I've never been a JW, I received this teaching directly from the bible which was around long before the WTS, not to mention the fact that Paul's teachings ARE perverted and "misunderstood by the WTS". So I have considered it.
And all I'm saying is that the Christian message does not fall apart if Adam/Eve is allegory rather than literal. Because regardless of how it got started, sin is here in the world. I sin. Others sin. Christ came to die for our sins. (those of us who do sin) He didn't just come to die for Adam's sin. Sin is still 'in' us in the here and now.
Why don't you consider Paul's teaching as scripture, just the same as the quotes of Jesus, by other apostles. You seem to forget that Christ himself did not write down his own words, so they only carry the authority of the apostles that recorded them.
Because they are not what Christ considered scripture. Nor any of the other gospels/letters for that matter, so I actually hold them all in the same regard, but I will take what Christ is written to have said, as carrying more weight than anything else that is written... and I will look to the Spirit to help guide me into understanding the truth. I do understand that the gospels were not written at the time Christ spoke of scripture, but He said that the Spirit would teach, and lead us into all truth. He never said the bible or scriptures would.
I do not dismiss any of the gospels/letters though. I consider each of them to be a witness to Christ. I just don't consider the bible to be inerrant, and perhaps that is where the differences lay.
But Christ is the truth. So anything I test (as in test the spirits) would be against Him, and what He says and does.
Do you think that Paul thought his letters were scripture, in the same sense as the law and the prophets? What about Luke? Even Luke says he was putting an accounting together for Theopholus, just as many had thought to do the same. Does that make it scripture, or does that make it a witness account after having investigated all matters? If scripture comes from God (inspired of/God breathed) then why would he have had to investigate matters fully?
I don't know if my ideas are strange, and I don't have anything to compare them with, because I don't know what different denominations teach... I don't even know what some of the terms people use mean - limited atonement, for example. I just say what I mean, without attaching a title to it. I also don't consider myself inerrant (what arrogance that would take), so I know I can make mistakes, and have done so, and will do so in the future. But I am not going to believe something just because someone else says that "this" is what was meant. Too many teachings and understandings throughout the last two thousand years have been very, very wrong... even to the point of going against Christ.
I am trying to learn from Christ, Himself, in Spirit, because HE is the Truth.
Tammy
oh dear...Tec, you know how much I love ya but I gotta say that these mental gymnastics are truly impressive
That's okay, Poopsie. I love ya too. I don't understand what I'm doing that is considered mental gymnastics, but...? I just don't see things as all black or all white. That's the way I feel that you guys are looking at it. Just as confounding to me as I am to all of you ;)
Tammy
Still Wondering:
DD gave my answer, showing that he does understand the position, even if he does not believe it:
This isn't my position so I don't know if I could defend it properly, but, I suppose they could say that the fall is a symbol of the fallen state of All men.
To be clear, again ... I am not saying that Adam and Eve are literal, or allegory. Only that they could be either, and it would still be true that Christ needed to come to atone for the sins of men.
Tammy
I am not saying that Adam and Eve are literal, or allegory. Only that they could be either
Do you really mean that? Really?! If you're prepared to accept that the human race aren't descended from this special act of creation then what relationship does humanity have with God? If Adam & Eve weren't really our ancestors then how did we get here? Did god give the evolutionary process a nudge to get started? Is sin an evolutionary trait passed down in our DNA?
C'mon Tammy, please . . . .
Do you really mean that? Really?!
No. I've just been playing with y'all these last five pages :) Look taking the story as literal or allegory might change some of the theology in Christianity as we know it, but it doesn't take anything away from the message of Christ.
If you're prepared to accept that the human race aren't descended from this special act of creation then what relationship does humanity have with God? If Adam & Eve weren't really our ancestors then how did we get here?
Creator to the created. His spirit breathed into us to give us life... life meaning knowing him, rather than just having a physical existence like any other animal.
Did god give the evolutionary process a nudge to get started?
What makes anyone think that God would not know exactly where the 'evolutionary process' would lead, and what would come of it, when he created life? That he did not know exactly how the root, the starting point of creation, would expand?
Is sin an evolutionary trait passed down in our DNA?
I've explained what I believe sin is. Wrongdoing. Moral and criminal. It comes from within us. From our choices. I might say from our heart... but that is not exactly a scientific explanation. It is more of a spiritual/philosophical one.
Where do you think it came from (wrongdoing, that is; the sometimes purposeful/sometimes ignorant harm we cause to others)?
Tammy
