The ransom sacrifice contradicts the "issue of universal sovereignty"

by yadda yadda 2 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Larsinger58

  So God would have lost control of his creation and they would have gone on to live lawlessly for the rest of eternity.

  At least, that's one way of looking at it. That was my line of thinking when I was a Witness, anyway.

  Interesting comment. But lots of people will die for a cause or a sense of duty, like those in the military who are willing to die for their country, etc. Plus Job proved that some have personal integrity beyond personal gain or God's favor. Some are willing to give up their own lives for a sense of Justice or God's cause, because they love their God that much. I'm one of those persons.

  But this is the whole meaning of the concept that in order to save your soul, you must let it go and give it up, in which case it will come back to you. But if you try to hold on to your soul, that is, this life and what it offers for temporary satisfaction, then you will lose it. So it boils down to loving God more than yourself. Someone who loves God more than themselves, are not concerned with personal perks God may give them. Those are extras.

  The prodigal son is another good example. Even though leaving God at first, upon discovering what was really important to him in his own heart, he returned to God with hat in hand. He didn't care about his former position as one of the heirs to the estate. He just wanted to be back in his father's favor, willing to be one of the hired hands. He was willing to do anything for that second chance. But turns out, upon his return, God placed him above his older brother and made him the Christ. Thus, "there is MORE JOY in heaven over a sinner who repents..." Those who sin and then find repentance and who experience God's forgiveness are more devoted generally. More focussed. Their sacrifice is more complete, like the sacrifice of Abel versus the sacrifice of Cain.

  The kingdom will be filled with these type of people, very "meek" persons. Those in the kingdom number 1,440,000. The 144,000 of Revelation are natural Jews making up 10% of the kingdom (Isa 6:13); the other 90% are gentiles as forordained by God from the beginning, that all men are to be equal, though salvation came through the Hebrews.

  BOTTOM LINE: Now Satan will nit-pic God's arrangement to death and complain about every detail and blame God for ultimately being responsible for everything. So what God did, to avoid having to address any of those issues, simply exercised his right as the creator to limit the life of all living creatures. Thus he reqired all of tem to die at least once, including his own precious only-begotten son, Jesus Christ, who was Michael the archangel. In that way, there is really no issues of sovereignty or anything else, only the right of a creator to create mortal lives. The only catch is, depending on what you do with that temporary life will determine if God will resurrect you to enjoy eternity. In the case of Satan, he is not invited back. But neither are the moral, political or even philosophical issues of any critical significance. That's because God requires all his children to undergo that death, thus treating them equally and impartially. ALL of them, whether good or evil. So what is there to complain about? Can Satan claim God has an obligation to resurrect him after he kicked up all that fuss? No.

  The philosophical question, though, is whether or not the degree of happiness is greater after having created a world and time where free moral agency was possible rather than just creating a universe of robots? Clearly, people are happier if they have a concept of having a sense of choice. So in that sense, it is worth it.
• 

  Terry

  Jesus said that if your enemy struck you on the cheek you should turn and offer him the other cheek.

  When Jehovah was struck on the cheek by mankind's rebellion...did He strike back?

  In Job, Jehovah's enemy Satan has not been disfellowshipped for rebellion. He's still hanging out with faithful angels free to corrupt and to cause

  misery on Job.

  Should we look for consistency in such narratives?

  Are they "true" beyond poetic truth?

  Aren't most of our doctrinal musings the equivalent of trying to figure out the posts on the Wibble thread?
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  "Basically, God had a choice. After Adam and Eve and Satan had sinned, he could have just killed them both on the spot and started over. But then Adam's potential children, which is us would have been successfully murdered by Satan. In order to save us, time had to be given for essentially the bulk of Adam's children to be born over 6000 years. In that way, they could be then saved. But that would also mean they would have to experience death and for some, a lot of suffering.

  So the loving arrangement was to save Adam's children and minimize damage done by Satan."

  That's an interesting idea, but it is black and white thinking. It is certainly not the only choices God could have made.

  For example, Christians tell us that after they sinned, Adam and Eve's genetic material became imperfect and so all their offspring inherited death and imperfection. The 'mould' became imperfect. If changes to DNA resulted from Adam and Eve's sinning that introduced death and suffering to their offspring, there is a casual link between sin and death, right? So why could Jehovah not take this principle a step further by establishing a natural law in DNA so that the more harm and suffering is inflicted on someone (eg, wilfully murdering a child), then the more damage occurs to the DNA, leading quickly to disease and death by the one inflicting the suffering on another person (eg, the child murderer's DNA begins to rapidly deteriorate and age and their life-span is dramatically cut short).

  That's just one example of how an Almighty God could have done things in a more balanced way to at least put some natural limits on the incredible toll of unmitigated evil and horror the world has suffered.

  If God was so bound by his own standards of universal and timeless justice, then why is there going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous? Unless the evildoer is caught and punished by the secular authorities there is no justice whatsoever, the evildoer still gets to live out his natural lifespan and will still get a resurrection and a second chance the same as his victims.

  Take Pol Pot for example. This man and his regime, who committed horrific atrocities against untold thousands of innocent Cambodians, including babies and children, still lived out his natural life and died an old man of natural causes. According to JW doctrine, Pol Pot will probably get resurrected and get just as much chance of everlasting life as anyone else resurrected in the thousand year reign. So there is ultimately no punishment for Pot Pot. However, if a JW argues that Pol Pot probably won't get resurrected because of his evil crimes, then that means he has been judged in this world by God. But if God is judging people in this world for their evils, then we have a great contradiction, because it means God is judging horrific evil committed now as worthy of Gehenna but he for some reason he is doing nothing to prevent it. If evil is bad enough to now, in this life, be universally judged by divine standards of justice, then why has God had to allow this evil to go totally unchecked for so long?

  Since Jehovah is himself bound by certain universally timeless and immutable moral laws and standards of justice, then atrocities and crimes against humanity are universally condemnable and never justifiable. This means that while perhaps Satan or any other angelic or human rebel may have had a basis for claiming mankinds moral right to independent rule, they had no basis for asserting that this independence must be so absolute and unchecked that horrific evil and suffering must be be permitted by God in order for that moral independence and free will to truly exist.

  And ultimately the fact that God is supposed to eventually fully intervene and will never again permit any more evil and suffering to occur just proves the point. At that point, humanity will no longer have free will.

  The old 'better to have death and suffering than be robots' theodicy is also easily refuted by the fact that we all have reasonable limits imposed on our freedom of choice. No one has perfect free will. In Society, reasonable limits are put on human actions that harm others, for the greater good and so that society can function properly. It is axiomatic that life and liberty are desirable but that certain restrictions on liberty must exist to preserve life and the pursuit of happiness. Nobody argues against this. Yet Christians ignore this when it comes to rationalising God's total hiddenness and non-intervention. God could easily have put some reasonable limits on how much suffering and evil can occur in the world while preserving free will and allowing humanity moral self-rule and independence.
• 

  Pterist

  **universal sovereignty"

  Is universal sovereignty the goal of creation ? That is a WBTS main concept or premise.

  The of goal of LIFE is reproduction of more life. Mankind was predestined from eternity to share divine "LIFE" ...IMMORTALITY

  When I was very young I use to say "I dd not ask to be born" ? Life and Death was put before our first parents Genesis 2:8-9, Life and Death was put before Israel, Deuteronomy 30:15, Life and Death is our choice today, John 3:6-16, John 10:10, 1 John 5:11-12 IMHO

  Shalom friend
• 

  AGuest

  There is no issue of JAH's universal sovereignty, dear YY2 (peace to you!) - never has been. That such IS an issue is false and a lie contrived by the WTBTS... because they don't know/understand what IS the "issue." JAH's sovereignty has never been challenged, by the Adversary or anyone else. Because He IS the Sovereign... and that is not something that can BE challenged... nor can it be an issue.

  It was not JAH's sovereignty that was challenged. It was not JAH who was/is being challenged. He is being TAUNTED, yes. By one is making a challenge. Yes. To US... NOT God. And that what the issue with Adham... and the reason for the necessity that my Lord give his life: the challenge made to US, not God. If one cannot hear Christ himself explain it to one, one can look to the account of Job:

  There, the Adversary claimed that Job, who God considered His servant, was only blameless, upright, "fearing" God, and turning way from bad because he LOVE God... did so NOT because he loved God... but because God had blessed him: land, wealth, many children, livestock, a good marriage, etc. BUT... if such were taken AWAY Job would literally curse God to His face? Why? Because a man will give all he has... including his chance at eternal life... to save his SKIN (the long garment of skin... or fleshly body... given Adham after he sinned and passed on to his offspring). He (the Adversary) said if were REMOVED... every man for whom it was would curse God... and die. NOT die in the flesh, but die in the sense of giving up LIFE. Meaning, give up life for his SPIRIT.

  The Adversary based his challenge on man's track record; specifically, that of Adham... who did just that: when found to have taken something he shouldn't have, rather than step up and GIVE his life... he did all that he could to protect it, including throwing his wife, Eve, under the bus ("the WOMAN you gave me, SHE gave me...") and blaming God Himself ("the woman YOU gave me..."). By his actions and words, Adham showed himself to be selfish, not concerned about anyone but himself... or any flesh but his own. Based on Adham, then, the Adversary made the same claim as to ALL humans, by means of his claim as to Job: remove the hedge, JAH and watch how quickly he will turn on you.

  Now, how could this challenge be answered? If the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAHVEH, had just said, "Screw you, Satan. I know Job's love for me is real and not based on his life situation, so go on with your lies about my servant," Job would have been spared... BUT he wouldn't have PROVEN the challenge made as to HIM. Many might believe that perhaps it shouldn't have been... or didn't need to be. But is that true? I will respond to that in a minute. In the meantime...

  So, what occurred was JAH said, "Okay. I know my man, Job. I know who and what he is... and that YOU'RE the liar, not him. HIS love for me is true, just as mine is for him. I am SO sure of that... that I am going to let you try and prove your point. Put him to the test. But you cannot kill him."

  And so, the ADVERSARY... and NOT JAH... put the screws to Job. Because he just KNEW that, given enough pressure, enough tribulation, trial... and tragedy... Job WOULD curse God... and give up his SPIRIT (which has the potential to live indefinitely). Praise JAH, though, Job proved the Adversary wrong... as to him (Job)!

  What does that have to do with Christ given HIS life as a ransom? Because that same challenge has been made as to ALL of us; ALL of mankind: that we are puny, weak, sniveling, selfish, self-centered worms... who WOULD give up all we have, including our spouses and children... in order to save our own skin. That we will give our SKIN what IT wants... even if that means giving up those we (claim to) love. And guess what? For many, if not most, of us... he's right: we will. We will put our own "selfish desire" over everything else. Not ALL of us... but the vast majority of us.

  And because we will... we in essence give up our (right to) eternal life. How? Because God is the Source of Life... and when we give us LIFE... we have nothing left but death. Which is ruled by Death. And so, in order to buy BACK that right FOR us... Christ paid the ransom exacted BY Death... for ANY who wish to take advantage OF that act. He, my Lord, came and suffered FOR us... but without sinning or cursing God, etc., so that when we CAN'T prove the Adversary wrong... we can... on the basis of HIS blood and sacrifice... be forgiven and put back in a state of having the possibility of eternal life. Not a RIGHT to that life... but receive the GIFT of that life. A gift because we gave the RIGHT up when we sinned... but by means of God's mercy, we can receive it as a gift.

  Now, why should this matter have been proven in Job's case? Because it was Job's right to answer it... if he CHOSE to. To have simply shushed the Adversary and sent him on his way would not have allowed JOB... to respond to the challenged made of HIM. Now would it have actually answered the challenge. I realize there are many, perhaps even here, who would say, "Well, why should I have to answer such a challenge? Why couldn't God just have answered FOR me?" Or why didn't He just destroy Satan??" Valid questions. The answers are not that difficult, though, truly:

  We all have to answer the challenge because it is WE who were challenged. True, the challenge was SPOKEN to JAH... but it was made as to US... not JAH. So, if you said to me, "Your son can't play basketball!" my saying, "Sure he can" won't PROVE that he can, will it? I would have to let him play. Now, true, my son might say, "I don't care about some challenge; I don't want to play basketball and prove anything"... and so NOT play... but he is answering the challenge. By default. And unless and until he DOES play... his challenger will not only taunt ME... but him as well.

  We can even see that tendency... to taunt those who don't respond to challenges... among humans all the time, even here among posters: such folks rarely quit unless/until their challenge is "answered." Doesn't matter if one says, "Nope, don't wanna play your game." Such is automatically taken as "Aha, I was right! You can't play!" or similar. Even if one ignores, the challenger will return to taunt later. So, best to respond as soon as possible and put the matter to rest. Not just for those who might be watching and saying, "Hmmmm, yeah, what ABOUT that?" (other spirit beings, in the case of Job)... but to silence the challenger/taunter. Because, again, such individuals, like the Adversary, don't go away completely. Like the Adversary they might lay low for a bit... but they WILL return at "a more opportune time." Meaning, if and whenever the case presents itself. And unless one literally packs up and moves away... the "time" WILL present itself. In the case of Job... where could he have packed up and moved away TO... to avoid his challenger?

  As for destroying the Adversary, that is not a simple task. That one was created... forged... in such a way and out of such "material" that it will take a long, long... long... time to destroy him. Which is why he burns in the Lake of Fire "forever." Spirit beings are forms of energy far, far, greater than our fleshly bodies consist of. Which is why a flood was sent to confine the Nephilim: spirit beings must be destroyed by fire... and the fire it would have taken to destroy those would have virtually destroyed the planet. NOTHING would have been able to live on it... ever. It would have resulted in a dead planet... literally.

  And so plans were made... and are still underway... to do that: destroy Magog (wicked spirit beings), as well as the Adversary... by fire ("Do not fear him that can kill the body; be in fear of Him that can kill/destroy the body AND the soul/spirit!"). The amount of energy that it will take to do the first, however, the fire that will result in the destruction of such spirit beings... COULD destroy the planet... IF it had to do so in many places. IF, however, it is concentrated into one "place"... then only that "place" will be effected. And that is what is going to occur - that is why these are "gathered to the place... 'Harmageddon'." ONE place. This is what is meant when it says, "The heavens and earth that is NOW... is being stored up for FIRE." One place... and in a manner where none of the REST of [the earth] is harmed.

  Unlike these, however, the Adversary is thrown into the fire from which he was originally forged. Like how you can only cut a diamond WITH a diamond? The energy unit that HE is can only be destroyed by the SAME kind of energy... except massive amounts of it. He, then, cannot be destroyed in the same was a Magog. Again, his destruction takes even more energy... and much, much, longer to complete.

  And so it is for US... love of US... that these beings have not yet been destroyed: their destruction COULD result in our own. So, how do we avoid being destroyed when THEY are? By becoming an even greater energy unit than they are. And how do we do THAT? Only one way:

  By eating... from the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:22; John 6:50, 51)

  In doing this we become PART of that Tree. Branches IN it. Rather, we become branches in HIM, Christ, the Tree of Life, the True Vine, the Root of Jesse, Sprout! (John 14:6, 15:1-6) In doing so, we not only become part of the energy unit that HE is... but by means of being "in" the "tree" that he is... we have life... WITHIN OURSELVES (John 6:53). And not just ANY life... but the life that HE is... and thus the ENERGY that he is... and so an energy UNIT that is far, far... far... greater... and more resilient... than even that which the Adversary is. And that is how we, as such branches, are able to withstand this "fire"... and destroys Magog, those wicked spirit beings. Having been CUT OFF from eating from him... for many thousands of years... they will be weakened... and so unable to withstand the fire that ultimately destroys them.

  Now, I realize that some here will moan and groan, weep and gnash their teeth, even give in to face-palming. And that's okay - I don't need them to agree with, approve, or believe what I have shared with you. It is the truth... but it's not my task to convince anyone of that. My task is only to TELL the truth as to these things. To help you and perhaps others think more accurately on these things, I would offer that you might consider (1) from where in the tabernacle/temple did the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAHVEH, speak to Israel, and (2) why was the Ark (of the Covenant) covered... inside and out... with gold. Many believe it was so that it would be opulent and appear beautiful and awe-inspiring.

  I have learned that that is not the case at all, however, and would encourage any doubters to look up gold... and its properties and potential with regard to radiation. In that light, folks might want to rethink (1) why Moses face was "glowing" when he returned down Mt. Sinai, so much so he had to wear a veil... (2) what he brought with him that was placed in the Ark (of the covenant)... (3) why the Ark had to be carried on poles... (4) because it couldn't be touched... and (5) just how Uzzah was actually "killed" when he touched it... after he reached out, reflexively, to keep it from falling...

  Folks think they know stuff... because they think science knows stuff. Science knows a lot of stuff, true... but it doesn't know everything. Yet.

  I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!

  A doulos of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Apognophos

  yadda yadda 2, all of your last post's points have counter-points in terms of Watchtower theology. As a break from doing other stuff, I decided to waste some time with a JW-style rebuttal below, for the consideration of whoever is interested. Note that these aren't really my beliefs anymore.

  So why could Jehovah not take this principle a step further by establishing a natural law in DNA so that the more harm and suffering is inflicted on someone (eg, wilfully murdering a child), then the more damage occurs to the DNA, leading quickly to disease and death by the one inflicting the suffering on another person (eg, the child murderer's DNA begins to rapidly deteriorate and age and their life-span is dramatically cut short).

  Because then people have an inherent reason not to sin. Yes, it would be good for the people who would otherwise be victims of bad people, but you don't have truly free will in moral matters if your life span is cut short by sinning more grievously. Only when the 'rain and sun fall equally on the good and bad' are humans able to act freely.

  If God was so bound by his own standards of universal and timeless justice, then why is there going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous? [...] According to JW doctrine, Pol Pot will probably get resurrected and get just as much chance of everlasting life as anyone else resurrected in the thousand year reign.

  "The wages sin pays is death." We all suffer the same punishment for the same crime; the punishment is an eternity of sleep. If Pol Pot didn't have a chance at knowing the truth, why shouldn't he be resurrected and given that chance? All sorts of people have come to all sorts of conclusions on how to lead their lives based on wrong information. And there are serial killers who were raised in abusive families. Only if they are resurrected in a perfect (corrected) condition, and educated about God, can they have a fair chance at being who they want to be.

  And ultimately the fact that God is supposed to eventually fully intervene and will never again permit any more evil and suffering to occur just proves the point. At that point, humanity will no longer have free will.

  By the end of the thousand years, and the final test by Satan, it will be totally clear who is on the side of righteousness and who isn't. Everyone will make a decision in that regard while in a perfect condition, meaning that their decision is just as absolute as Adam's and Eve's (thus why they are liable to the second death at this point). The ones who are left on Earth will never sin again simply because they choose not to. Jesus didn't sin while on earth, nor has he in heaven -- that's billions of years of sinlessness. Once the people who love righteousness are perfect, they don't need to be robots to not commit sin; they won't commit it simply because they don't want to!

  The old 'better to have death and suffering than be robots' theodicy is also easily refuted by the fact that we all have reasonable limits imposed on our freedom of choice. No one has perfect free will.

  It all depends on how you define "free will". Just as we do not possess physical free will (i.e., I cannot fly, despite wanting to), so we cannot act freely on any moral will that we have. But we can want to. Wasn't that what we were taught as Witnesses? It's not that we can avoid sinning, but we can try not to, and if we try hard enough, God will recognize that effort and pronounce us "righteous".
• 

  Pistoff

  The idea of a ransom sacrifice is a relic of the bronze age practice of child sacrifice.

  The idea of allowing a child to be tortured and killed is repugnant to us, and to God, so says the OT.

  But there it is:

  Abraham is asked to sacrifice Isaac, and doesn't bat an eye.

  God is pleased with the self sacrifice of Jesus, in fact, his justice requires it, so says Paul.

  Christianity is based on the abhorrent concept of sacrifice of the first born, to the blood.
• 

  AGuest

  If Pol Pot didn't have a chance at knowing the truth, why shouldn't he be resurrected and given that chance?

  Why wouldn't Pol Pot, et al., have had a chance at knowing the truth, dear Apog (peace to you!)? The only people who did not have that chance were those who died during Noah's day (because the Nephilim were in the earth and rather than tell them about JAH... obscured that truth in the interest of pursuing procreating for their own purposes). For which my Lord went to them, in Sheol, and preached to them so that they COULD know him. He's not returning to Sheol, dear one. That bird has flown.

  All sorts of people have come to all sorts of conclusions on how to lead their lives based on wrong information.

  But whose choice is that? You're suggesting that Christ was wrong when he said the blind would lead the blind so that BOTH go into the pit. You're suggesting that those blind... who blindly followed the blind... will NOT go into the pit. How so?

  And there are serial killers who were raised in abusive families.

  Abuse is not an excuse to be abusive, dear one. Abusers who abuse because they were abused are seeking revenge. But on the wrong people. There is no justification for that. There is, however, mercy from God for those who do so... IF such one SEEKS it (Luke 23:39-43). And all have the right, ability... and obligation... TO seek it. If they DON'T... on what basis do you believe they will RECEIVE it?

  Only if they are resurrected in a perfect (corrected) condition, and educated about God, can they have a fair chance at being who they want to be.

  Ooh, see, no, this is an error... on at least two (if not more) grounds:

  First, only those who are part of the first resurrection are resurrected to perfection (Revelation 20:4): they are given "white robes"... spirit bodies that do not have corruption in them but are incorruptible. They receive these bodies right off the bat. Those who take part in the SECOND resurrection, however (Revelation 20:5, 12, 13), must first have their names read from the scrolls AND a determination made as to whether their names are written in the Lamb's Book (of Life). (Daniel 7:9-11; Revelation 20:15)

  Second, those who take part in the first resurrection already KNOW [about] God (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Romans 8:1, 9-11; Revelation 20:4, 6) and need no further education (1 John 2:26-28; John 5:39, 40; 7:37-39). Those who take part in the SECOND resurrection, however, either also knew... and so, constituting the "righteous"... are resurrected to life based on having their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life... or did NOT know... and so, constituting the "unrighteous" are resurrected to judgment... and because they have no covering for their sins... a second death - utter destruction in the Lake of Fire (Acts 24:15; Revelation 20:6, 12, 14, 15).

  Excepting those who died during Noah's day, therefore, one does not have the chance to come to know [about] God AFTER they've died, dear one (Acts 15:17; 17:26, 27). It is during the time of one's LIVING (in the flesh) that one seeks mercy... either by coming to know the MOST Holy One of Israel or at least treating others in a way that suggests they know God (by living the "law" of love - those who live by such law can have a multitude of their transgressions covered). Because once the Door is closed... it is closed (Luke 13:24-28).

  You do not have to take my word for these things, though, dear one: you... and anyone else who truly wants to know... can simply go to the One to whom knowledge, understanding, and truth have been given to GIVE to mankind (Proverbs 8:4-7; Matthew 23:8; John 13:13; 10:2-5, 7, 9, 14, 27; Matthew 17:5)... and ask of HIM as to it.

  I hope this helps.

  Again, peace to you!

  YOUR servant and a doulos of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Newly Enlightened

  The biggest thing, Jesus paid the ransom, DONE.

  IF there was an universal issue [God's RIGHT to rule] to be settled, there is nothing in the bible mentioning it. Satan wanted worship for himself, but he did not come out directly and challenge God's right to rule. Isa 14:14

  If there had been a question about God's 'right to rule', then Satan would have totally ignored God's mandate not to kill Job. Just like we can reason out, that Satan had tried to kill Jesus from the moment he was born, but was not allowed to, until God's appointed time.
• 

  Newly Enlightened

  Larsinger58- Regarding your comment about Jesus being Michael the Archangel, don't want to start an arguement, but just want to share something with you that I found. Jesus cannot be an angel. Heb 1:13 [LBT] "And did God ever say to an angel, as he does to his son, 'Sit here beside me in honor until I crush all your enemies beneath your feet"?