Who Killed Jesus?

by simwitness 19 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  PopeOfEruke

  What's the difference between Jesus Christ and an oil painting?

  You only need one nail to hold up a picture.

  Edited by - POPEOFERUKE on 18 June 2002 22:19:38
• 

  larc

  Have you heard the song, Rock Around The crucifix by Pontias Pilot and his Nail Driving Five? Just curious.
• 

  heathen

  On reading the account I find many interesting points.As we read in the old testament in genesis when God was talking to the serpent he said about the seed "He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel". This to me means that God is attributing the death of christ to satan the devil.However during the course of jesus ministry he was very adamant about the hebrews being the killer of prophets but again towards the end we get the idea that satan is the ruler of the world and is responsible for his death.
• 

  pseudoxristos

  Jesus was perfect and without sin, therefore he was not subject to death. Jehovah must have done it.
• 

  willy_think

  simwitness,
  nice article
  Adam's seed was not cursed, only Satan and the ground were cursed.

  despite what the WT might have to say the Jews did believe in a heaven reachable buy following the law. since heaven was open to all who lived the law correctly it can't really be said that it is all Adam's fault, but our inability to properly understand and live the law, that created the need for The Father to send his Son and for Jesus to send the Holy Spirit to the harts of man. looked at this way, it could be said that it was not so much in response to Adam's sin that Jesus died but in response to our need for salvation. I feal responsible for my own failure and I feal responsible for the one who died to save me from that failure.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Sim,

  You're mistaken, Christ's death is an expiation for OUR SIN, not just the Sin of Adam.
• 

  simwitness

  Yerusalyim,

  No, I get that, without question.

  However, if Adam had not sinned, would the sacrifice have been needed?

  I humbly accept the gift that the sacrifice means, but I am not "reponsible" for it's being given. I accept responsibiltiy to act accordingly with the reciept of that gift.

  Willy_think

  Only one issue, God created us, he should have been able to create within us the ability to properly understand and live within his law. (after all the first law was to avoid a single tree....pretty simple). I would counter that it is only man's interpetation of what the Creator intends that causes the need for "salvation". I do not feel responsible for his death, since it was a "bug in the code" that caused his death to be needed. However, I am very grateful for the fact that the Creator has provided a "patch".
• 

  willy_think

  Only one issue, God created us, he should have been able to create within us the ability to properly understand and live within his law. (after all the first law was to avoid a single tree....pretty simple).

  He did, Adam know not to eat and he didn't eat until an outside influence acted against him. At which point he said nothing, did nothing, protected nothing, resisted nothing, keeping nothing but willingly and knowingly surrendered his dominion to another. ( something Satan tried very hard to get Jesus to do)

  I would counter that it is only man's interpretation of what the Creator intends that causes the need for "salvation." I do not feel responsible for his death, since it was a "bug in the code" that caused his death to be needed. However, I am very grateful for the fact that the Creator has provided a "patch".

  You think it's an interpretational problem? So lust, greed, hate, laziness, etc. have nothing to do with it? if that was the case then no Jew was taken to heaven but the bible shows us Jews visiting Jesus from heaven, even in the OT we can read of a high priest who went to heaven bodily.
  freewill is something the WT would free us all from but i would hardly call it a "bug in the code"

  You think man is incapable of interpreting what the creator intends, but that you can pick out "bugs in the code"? No, you don't think that. Adam too tried to put the responsibility on another, maybe he should have tried "well you made me like this, if I had been the creator, things would have been different."
• 

  simwitness

  You think it's an interpretational problem? So lust, greed, hate, laziness, etc. have nothing to do with it?

  No, that is not what I said. In my mind, there is a huge difference between interpeting right/wrong and interpeting what the Creator wishes. Man has a very bad history of this second type of interpetation.

  There is no person living that can tell you what will happen after we "pass on". There is no one living that can say absolutely "this is what the creator intended". We can only assume (and hope) that we get it right.

  I believe that the Creator gave us all the ability we need to "properly understand and live within his law". I also believe that his law is incredilby simple, but simple does not give man power over other men.

  From a theological (Christian/Bible) standpoint, I agree that we are all responsible for Christ's death, in that we need it for our salvation, and that the Creator sent his son to save all of us.

  From a technical standpoint (cause - effect) I am simply saying that had Adam not sinned, then the Sacrifice would not have been needed. Unless you are saying that sin was inherint in all of us (from the very beginning) reguardless of Adam's act. (that would be the "bug" in the code). (This could be my old JW "training" still incased in my brain, hard to say... )

  Free will? Certainly. Freedom from responsiblity for my own actions? Absolutely not.

  In any event, what the article pointed out to me was more detail surrounding the "reality" at the time of Christ's death, and wasn't meant to start a theological debate about the meaning of it.
• 

  willy_think

  I'm not sure what you mean when you say wright/wrong is somehow other then what God wishes/does not wish, to me they are one.

  first i should say i don't believe the Adam and eve story is an account of historical events, rather i believe it to be a story teaching us of our first nature and our relationship to heaven and earth. in genesis we see Adam a man cloth in the holy spirit charged with keeping what the lord gave him, his temptation, his failure and consequences of his failure loss of the holy spirit, death the cursed earth, etc.,
  I believe we are meant to contrast that aspect of the story to the life of Jesus clothed in the holy spirit, he didn't lose one he was given to keep, he was tempted, he success, and the consequences of his victory, the return of the holy spirit, eternal life, the promise of a "new earth" (whatever that is).

  From a technical standpoint (cause - effect) I am simply saying that had Adam not sinned, then the Sacrifice would not have been needed. Unless you are saying that sin was inherent in all of us (from the very beginning) regardless of Adam's act. (that would be the "bug" in the code). (This could be my old JW "training" still incised in my brain, hard to say... )

  
  

  I think this might be were we differ, to my understanding, if Adam/Eve had not sinned then, sin would not have entered into the world at that time. However, I do not believe, that the sons and daughters of Adam would have been born in the substantially different form of people without free will, so I do not feal comfortable saying the sacrifice would not have been needed. I don't believe sin is inherent in any of us, I believe it to be other than and external to the nature of man, somthing that must be chosen and entered into.

  As to who killed Jesus, i asked the church lady. she said "could it be Satan!"

  i know it's hard to tell but that is my attempt at levity.

  Edited by - willy_think on 20 June 2002 13:33:20