Q about Jesus' sacrifice

by oncebitten 49 Replies latest jw friends

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Yes, As I understood it, one of the core tenants of WT theology has been that Jesus died for Adam's sin. This gave Christians the opportunity to have their sins forgiven conditioned upon works and piety. The numerous passages in the NT that describe forgiveness are applied to the 144k alone as having been credited with purity (forgiveness) while yet in a sinful/human body. However even this forgiveness is though of as a moving condition, that is, sins up to that moment are forgiven, but future forgiveness is predicate upon continued 'faithfulness'. They do not have a concept of once-and-done 'justification.'

    Since that is reserved for the 144k, the WT teaches that, as a technical matter, the Other Sheep are not credited with forgiveness till the end of the 1000 year reign if they prove worthy and reach perfection.

    Many statements in the literature will say, forgiveness is 'possible' and lead a casual reader to believe they teach present forgiveness for Other Sheep.

    As regards the Romans 6 passage. It is lifted from context by the WT to suggest that death erased a sinful record. This effectively negates the whole doctrine of Christ ransom. In context the author is, through an admittedly convoluted means, saying baptism into Christ's death meant becoming a slave of Christ, but also dead to sin. In this way by baptism, which is equated to death, frees from sin. In contrast those who are slaves of 'Sin' get only death as a 'wage' and are only freed from its mastery by dying.

    As has been said the whole concept of the resurrection as a instrument of justice, requires some sort of post-death-judgment. This is clearly stated in John and Rev.

  • Diogenesister
    Diogenesister

    May I ask Christians on the board, I once asked a Jew if there's any record of the temple curtain being 'ripped in two' during an eclipse around the time of Jesus crucifixion....he said no.

    Surely there should be a record of such a shocking event?

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    It was clearly covered up by wicked apostates.

  • TonusOH
    TonusOH

    oncebitten: There is a vast difference between the two.

    I don't see it. The JW explanation is that JWs can ask forgiveness from Jehovah by using Jesus as an intermediary. He offers his blood to pay that price. Thus, his sacrifice covers the sins of humanity. Adam's actions locked the door to salvation, and Jesus's actions unlocked it. If the objection is that his sacrifice is not automatic (that is, that one must repent before it can be appliced), I don't see an issue. It's the opportunity that matters.

    Don't get me wrong, I think the whole concept is overwrought. Nothing stops god from simply forgiving us without requiring that blood be spilled. But I don't see a difference between "Jesus dying for Adam's sin" and "Jesus dying for our sins," because the mechanics lead to the same end result. If anything, the JW version is a poorly-worded explanation that was probably borne out of their need to be contrary about even minor details. The Rutherford Effect, if you will.

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    WT nonsense revealed.

    If Jesus died for Adam's sin then apparently his death was not effective since JWs believe Adam will not be resurrected.

  • Touchofgrey
    Touchofgrey

    The idea of justification seems to be a concept developed by Paul, as there are no original copies of his letters, earliest about the 3rd century.

    How can you be sure that the true meaning has not been altered or lost in translation ?

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    There is no original copy of any New Testament document.

  • Touchofgrey
    Touchofgrey

    There is no original copy of any New Testament document.

    I'm aware of that ,so my question is as Christians how can you with any certainty believe that anything anyone said or did in the bible actually happened?

    That thing's may have been deliberately embellished or been lost in translation or included to fit the beliefs of the individuals making the copies?

    For me facts are more important than faith since l stopped being a jw.

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    To my knowledge, as with the Old Testament manuscripts, there are no significant variations in the many ancient copies of New Testament documents.

    Bart Ehrman writes: We have more manuscripts for the New Testament than for any other book from the ancient world—many, many more manuscripts than we have for the writings of Homer, Plato, Cicero, or any other important author. We have something like 5,700 manuscripts of the New Testament—from small fragments of tiny parts of a single book to complete copies of the entire New Testament – in the Greek language in which they were originally written, along with manuscripts in many other ancient languages (for example, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic). That is good news indeed—the more manuscripts you have, the more likely it is that you can figure out what the authors originally said.

  • Touchofgrey
    Touchofgrey

    And yet bart Ehrman doesn't believe that jesus was anything more than just a man because of his extensive studies of these fragments and it led him to stop believing that the bible is the word of god and he stopped being a fundamental Christian.

    Many of his lectures are available on YouTube would highly recommend you watch them.

    Professor James tabor another biblical scholar also has very interesting videos on YouTube about the new testament.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit