The catholic teaching of purgatory and indulgences fits in here as well. Does anyone know how that is supposed to work?
thanks,
Tor
Does the Ransom Sacrifice doctrine add up?
by nicolaou 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
frankiespeakin
When you think about it, the ransom teaches the principle of getting even, or a tit for tat. Back in the barbaric days that's how it was and still is today but perhaps not as bad. It's all a part of human insanity to get revenge, to even the score.
Jesus words about not getting even certainly are contradictory if he had to die to even the score, and satisfy his God's need to have an eye for an eye, soul for a soul.
The Ransom magnifys God's pettiness and unwillingness to forgive unless his conditions for forgiveness (which are excessive) are met.
-
LongHairGal
I had it explained to me this way:
Jesus gave up his right to bear children; so if he did have children he would have supposedly fathered a perfect race with no defect.
So, technically, in his loins was the potential for a whole race of people, yet unborn.
So, when he gave up his life it was supposedly a perfect exchange for the existing human race.
(or words to that effect). -
Leolaia
toreador....Well, one interesting thing is how hell fits into this. There is a notion, particularly popular among Calvinists and Baptists, that we are all destined for hell pratically from birth (because we are all born sinners, or at least have all inherited sin from Adam), and only by accepting Jesus as our Savior can we avert hell as our eternal destiny. But this is about as unbiblical as the Watchtower teaching. The notion of hell (or more specifically Gehenna) in the NT and in post-exilic Judaism was intimately bound up with the final judgment of humanity (Judgment Day) on account of one's deeds, and there is no concept of everyone being automatically destined to Gehenna but rather that humanity would be divided between those who follow God and his Law and those who do not, into separate destinies of blessing and punishment. Within Judaism and in Jewish-Christianity, one did not need Jesus or an expiatory sacrifice to save them from Gehenna ... it was how one lived one's life that would be the basis of judgment (this is the view in Matthew and Revelation). However, in post-Pauline Christianity which explicitly rejected any notion of justification by works, the notion of final judgment had to undergo revision to harmonize with Paul's justification by faith, and thus the emphasis shifted from Paul's salvation from death to salvation from hell, and from the reward of bodily resurrection to the reward of protection from going to hell. The indulgences you mentioned are part of the excesses of a justification by faith approach, in that as long as one repents and continues to believe in Jesus, one's deeds bear little weight on eternal destiny.
-
Satanus
Longhair
That's kinda nice. Instead of getting himself killed, he could have just refrained from having kids and stayed alive. He could still be walking the earth and sea today, doing his good deeds, converting the masses, fighting the money changers, fighting evil. When the time came, he could just rapture himself. I guess his believers would still have to die, though, eh?
S
-
Rod P
For an interesting discussion on "Bloody Human Sacrifice Mythology of Christian Atonement, see the Dialogue/Forum on this Article by David D. Danizien at:
How about an interesting article by Edgar Jones on Why Jesus Christ could not be both a Ransom and a Sacrifice at the same time. (The two concepts are contradictory) Goto:
Then there's "Violence in Christian Theology" (respecting the Atonement) by J. Denny Weaver:
http://www.crosscurrents.org/weaver0701.html
Is Blood a Requirement for Atonement? see:
http://www.messiahtruth.com/atone.html
Finally, for a very short and to the point article on BLOOD (the Christian Hang-up):
http://www.jdstone.org/cr/files/blood.html
Rod P.
Note: Edited for last website
-
BluesBrother
A while back I read a library book, written by a moslem (perhaps not the best of standpoints from which to criticize other unfathomable beliefs) . However it was the first discussion I had read from a non believers standpoint .
His argument was basically. If I have two sons, one good and one bad, what is the point of violently punishing the good one in response to the wrongs of the bad one. Does it form an act of justice? No.
As a young dub I struggled with this teaching, as I got older I learned it and repeated it , but it never really settled with me .
BTW, , AlanF's essay is a darn good read. I suggest everybody click the link on his post
-
Leolaia
AlanF....The site has exceeded its allocated data tranfer. Is your essay mirrored elsewhere?
-
the_classicist
The indulgences you mentioned are part of the excesses of a justification by faith approach, in that as long as one repents and continues to believe in Jesus, one's deeds bear little weight on eternal destiny.
I sort of disagree Leolaia. In the pre-medieval church, they assinged various penances to each sin. So, if you had sex, you had to fast for 100 days, or something like that.
I believe this developed into the medieval concept of indulgences, which is doing a work that's attched to a certain number of days of penance (as opposed to what Protestants believed, that the number of days were the time less you spent in purgatory). In medieval and post-medieval Catholic theology, purgatory was a sort of temporal hell, wherein one was purified by the fire (and by logical extension, suffering).
So in a sense, one's works saves one from damnation, a temporal one. Of course, the concept of indulgences totally negates the idea of the ascetic struggle and salvation being a process, rather than an event (like, if you committed a mortal sin and driving on the way to confession, you're killed; you would go right to hell).
-
itsallgoodnow
Interesting, Nicolau. I had wondered about point #2, too. No, I don't think any of it stands up.