so over the course of three days he had a trial which doesn't seem to have bothered him much.
he got whipped ok that would have been agony and then put on a torture stake/ cross/ whatever yes that would have been hell.
but he was on it for a day and the whole thing lasted for three days.
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.
so over the course of three days he had a trial which doesn't seem to have bothered him much.
he got whipped ok that would have been agony and then put on a torture stake/ cross/ whatever yes that would have been hell.
but he was on it for a day and the whole thing lasted for three days.
so over the course of three days he had a trial which doesn't seem to have bothered him much.
he got whipped ok that would have been agony and then put on a torture stake/ cross/ whatever yes that would have been hell.
but he was on it for a day and the whole thing lasted for three days.
Yes, I did. And it is the Watchtower view, not Judaism's or Christianity's.
For instance, the Jewish view is described here at http://www.jewfaq.org/m/qorbanot.htm and other places on the Internet and in written Jewish sources.
Being a Sephardic Jew myself I can testify that Jews did not see the sacrifices according to what you wrote, but the JWs did, and they influenced your reading. You just don't realize it yet.
So yes, it is the Watchtower view, even what you wrote.
so over the course of three days he had a trial which doesn't seem to have bothered him much.
he got whipped ok that would have been agony and then put on a torture stake/ cross/ whatever yes that would have been hell.
but he was on it for a day and the whole thing lasted for three days.
Again, even the idea that you present of the Old Testament is shared basically by the religious traditions that contributed to Watchtower-ism. It is the JW idea that I am saying is completely wrong.
They say God demanded sacrifices in the Temple to cover over sins, and they still have you convinced that this is so. Is it not written: "Do I eat the blood of bulls or drink the blood of he -goats?"--Psalm 50.13.
If the "wrath of a vengeful god" was satisfied by blood sacrifice, it was not the God of the Old or New Testament , as the JWs teach. Have you never read the Scriptire that says: "It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats take away sins." And again the Scriptures say: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire."--Hebrews 10.1-7.
If Scripture teaches that God does not eat the blood of sacrifices nor even desires these, then why the sacrifice of Christ? Again the Scriptures answer, that "you may come to share in the divine life." (2 Peter 1.4) If God offers a life that grants "divine life," what other source can it have but God?
The death of a perfect man cannot offer a share in God's life. Only that of God can do so. And God does not need his own life. He offers it for humanity for humans "to share in the divine life." That is the Good News, not what the Witnesses have sadly taught you.
Besides, why would you defend the Watchtower view? And what is better news than being offered a "share in the divine life"? If the Gospel the JWs preach is less than that, how is that the Good News? It is not. It is another, accursed gospel.
i heard this on "the story of god".
his blood trickle down through the rocks into adam giving.
him life.
It may seem that way, but the idea of Adam being buried there and everything else I explained is older than the New Testament, at least until you get to the part of Jesus being put to death at Skull Place.
The fact that it is post-Biblical even in Judaism shows that it is an independent view as well. Golgotha is a real location, and things just worked out that way as history unfolded (or allegedly did).
Remember, this stuff is discussed even in the Talmud and Church Fathers, often in passing. So it wasn't as if they were trying to make things fit the Bible as we know it today. The Church Fathers had yet to canonize the Christian Scriptures and the Jews did not even believe in Jesus as the Messiah, so no one (especially the Jews) was trying to agree with the Christian Scriptural record. Some parts of the Bible were not even written before this tradition began.
so over the course of three days he had a trial which doesn't seem to have bothered him much.
he got whipped ok that would have been agony and then put on a torture stake/ cross/ whatever yes that would have been hell.
but he was on it for a day and the whole thing lasted for three days.
All the Scriptures you quote are correct, but none of them, not one says that they are payment to God for sins, as if God is demanding shed blood or needs blood.
What the texts are talking about is that the shedding of blood, or offering of life (remember that blood represents life in the Bible) of Jesus is in order to heal people from the effects of sin.
Remember, all these things are to ransom us from the effects of sin, not from God. God was not holding us in exchange for ransom, sin was. It is written: "God bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature."--2 Peter 1.4.
The Gospel is that people are saved from a mortal nature to share in a divine, incorruptible immortal nature.
Again, I am only stating that the Watchtower view of God demanding blood to release us from sin is not the same message Chrsitianity has taught since the beginning. The Gospel is about sharing in God's very eternal life, not about settling an argument between God and the Devil.
so over the course of three days he had a trial which doesn't seem to have bothered him much.
he got whipped ok that would have been agony and then put on a torture stake/ cross/ whatever yes that would have been hell.
but he was on it for a day and the whole thing lasted for three days.
By the way, the theological exegesis I am speaking about has a name: divinization. There is no equivalent to in Watchtower-ism, so as a faithful JW I was unaware of it.
The teaching is very ancient, namely that the atonement of Christ makes it possible for humanity to share in and be raised to the divine nature, sharing the very life of God by means of the sacrifice of Christ. There is even a Wikipedia article about it.
Since JWs don't believe Jesus is God, they offer the "God demands blood to satisfy his own thirst for justice" story. What Christianity has taught since its beginnings are different than what those blind guides known as the Governing Body ignorantly peddle.
so over the course of three days he had a trial which doesn't seem to have bothered him much.
he got whipped ok that would have been agony and then put on a torture stake/ cross/ whatever yes that would have been hell.
but he was on it for a day and the whole thing lasted for three days.
You misread me. I stated not before the NT was "written," but before it existed, meaning before its canonization.
What has become known as the Liturgy pre-dates the canonization and perhaps even some of the later compositions of the New Testament. The oldest extant forms are from the Liturgy of St. James, considered the first bishop of Jerusalem, and these predate even the earliest formulations of the Trinity doctrine.
The various liturgical texts used antiphonal formulas, some of which appear in Pauline epistles (which is where Paul may have taken them from). They, along with other ancient non NT texts, contain some of the data I was referring to.
so over the course of three days he had a trial which doesn't seem to have bothered him much.
he got whipped ok that would have been agony and then put on a torture stake/ cross/ whatever yes that would have been hell.
but he was on it for a day and the whole thing lasted for three days.
A well-written article, but my comments are based on the Gospel as explained in the Church Fathers, the pre-New Testament liturgical texts of Orthodoxy, theology and commentary of Catholics, Protestants, and that prayer of Pope John Paul II.
I here go on record that I am not advocating the views, claim that I believe in them at all or in part, nor reject any, nor that they are better or worse than Cofty's.
I am merely pointing out how ignorant I was of the exegesis Christianity was preaching for 2000 years when I was a JW, and how bankrupt their particular take on the story is.
i heard this on "the story of god".
his blood trickle down through the rocks into adam giving.
him life.
While not official doctrine or theology by any means, the location of Golgotha got its name from a series of Jewish traditions.
First and foremost, as Scripture states, the name of the area means "Place of the Skull." This is due to the Jewish tradition that the skull of Adam, having been in the possession of Melchizadek (who is identified with Shem, son of Noah), was laid to rest there after the flood.
The area was the later location of where Abraham attempted to offer up Issac, and where the Temple was eventually built. The sacrifices of the Temple were considered by many Jews as a perpetuating of the sacrifice God provided Abraham in exchange for his son, and it ended up being the place, right outside the upper west wall of Jerusalem where the Romans executed criminals.
This is why in many ancient artist renditions of the Crucifixion you see a skull and crossbones at the bottom of the cross. This represents Adam's bones, and it is illustrative of the teaching on the redemption of humanity which Christians believe occurred on Good Friday.
However, though some Christians may misunderstand the details, their mistakes do not represent any actual doctrine or teaching in either Judaism or Christianity. It represents a historical legend, nothing more, and can be found in both Talmudic writings and those of the Church Fathers.
