by purrpurr 42 Replies latest jw friends
Memory fails me, but I believe Russell explained in this in a letter supplement in either the "Herald" or first "Watch Tower."
But though the JWs may not realize it, yes their theology is solidly based and founded on it.
Again, it isn't me you should be arguing with about this. I wasn't the one who invented this ignorant theology.
You are just arguing with me because you are proud. I thought you were atheist. Why would an atheist argue in favor of any type of theology or interpretation? If there is no God, then all the interpretations are wrong, including what you wrote.
And yes, I read it a while back, not recently however.
Barbour rightly ridiculed the ethics of vicarious sacrifice and it led to the split with Russell.
Russell paid lip-service to it but in reality it was all about Adam.
According to Russell Jesus died for one reason only and that was to redeem Adam. One perfect man for another. Rutherford eventually changed it to the value of Adam's perfect life rather than Adam who was redeemed.
None of this changes the facts that according to the NT Jesus death was about our sins being put on Jesus who was brutally punished in our place. This is the gospel that JWs don't understand.
He himself bore our sin in his own body upon the stake that we may be done with sins and live to righteousness…And by his stripes you were healed.” - 1Pet.2:22,24
You are just arguing with me because you are proud. - DJ
Straw man
I thought you were atheist. - DJ
I am. In fact I am an anti-theist.
Why would an atheist argue in favor of any type of theology or interpretation?
I'm not arguing "in favour" of anything. I have written a lot about JW theology. I am explaining the difference between JW version of the ransom and the christian gospel. One is legalistic nonsense and the other is ethically repugnant.
If there is no God, then all the interpretations are wrong, including what you wrote.
So? That doesn't stop me having an opinion about other's beliefs.
And yes, I read it a while back, not recently however.
Then you have a very bad memory.
Contrary to your assertions vicarious punishment is also the Jewish understanding of sacrifice...
Another important concept is the element of substitution. The idea is that the thing being offered is a substitute for the person making the offering, and the things that are done to the offering are things that should have been done to the person offering. The offering is in some sense "punished" in place of the offerer.
Yes, "healed." Ransoms don't heal people. They get paid to get those held captive free.
God didn't demand a ransom of any kind, becuase sin was holding humanity hostage. By healing people through what Christ sacrificed, people are offered a share in the divine life. That is the Gospel.
You are arguing with me to defend a view you reject. The you don't want to admit that the view you reject is wrong or that there is anything like divinization being a historical doctrine, because that will mean you rejected the wrong thing.
If you reject something that was never the belief in the first place, your current convictions might be wrong and need to be changed. And the thought of that moves you to keep arguing and debating.
If there is no God, then what you are defending is wrong anyway. Why are you defending something that is irrelevant? Is it not all nonsense anyway?
You just can't stand to be wrong, can you? - DJ
I'm not wrong but now you are now ignoring the evidence and indulging in ad hominem rants.
Bye.
Another important concept is the element of substitution. The idea is that the thing being offered is a substitute for the person making the offering, and the things that are done to the offering are things that should have been done to the person offering. The offering is in some sense "punished" in place of the offerer.
He himself bore our sin in his own body upon the stake that we may be done with sins and live to righteousness…And by his stripes you were healed.” - 1Pet.2:22,24
Psychologically speaking--in this scenario that didn't even happen IRL to a nonexistent son of a nonexistent god--Jesus' death experience would be much less damaging than it would have been to a normal human.
He knew the outcome was not only resurrection, but everlasting life ruling the universe. When I say "knew", I mean he really knew it--not in the sense most believers "know" Heaven is real. He really saw it with his own eyes.
He also knew at any moment he had the power to stop his own suffering.
