How much was Christ's ransom sacrifice? Equal to Adam?

by jonathan dough 189 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  TheWonderofYou

  The early christians overwhelmed by the happings, the death and resurrection of jesus, looked for answers and they found answers in the scripture and in the tempel sacrifice of the jewish Day of Atonement Jom kippur. The symbols and pictures of the Day of Atonement (asasel, lamb slaugthered....) were connected with the death of Jesus and thus we mean it was a necessary sacrifice.

  Jesus was not sacrified or killed in the temple, like the animal. His blood did not rin over the altar in the temple. Thus his sacrifies can be compared with the jewish sacrifies but has a totally other meaning.

  The death of Jesus is superior,

  1. it is not a sacrificy from man to God, it is a gift from God to men.

  2. Not a human effort by jesus to fulfill any sacrifce-laws of a divine law but showing that all human sacrifices are helpless efforts and worthless.

  3. Jesus death means that salvation comes from God, not salvation from a man to god dying on the altar as sacrice

  4. Since Jesus all temple sacrifices are dispensible and needless because not really helpful, most important was forgiveness and mercy before doing any sacrifice in the temple. God said: I dont need your sacrificies, i want your devotion. A devotion like Jesus, that is what I want from you all and this will save you, not animal sacrifieces.

  5. The matter was that Jesus life has much more value on the scale than Adams perfect life. Because jesus was more than Adam, he was that guy who created the universe and adam.

  6. So Jesus value of life would weigh much much much more on a scale of justice than Adams sins, even the sins of all mankind together, it would never never never be corresponding ransom- but a second to none ransom, in the ransom picture of course, but it is only a picture!

  7. jesus was for the christians the true cosmic day of atonement.

  8. In jesus the idea of redemption and substitute got a new sense. As jesus the laymen he became the only true priest of the world.

  9. His death as criminal (not sacrifice), happened not inside the liturgic play in the jewish temple, where everbody had its role, no but he died outside the jewish safricie-rituals, inmidst of the world - in the public . This was a sign..... that his death had public meaning ... and he died in front of the true temple, before God himself. (Hebrew 9,11....)

  10. His blood and his life was not a objective donation, that could be measured and quantified, it was simple the consequence of and expression of the totality of his devotion and his service.
• 

  Vidiot

  jonathan dough - "How much was Christ's ransom sacrifice? Equal to Adam?"

  Wellll......

  ...since Adam is unlikely to have actually existed...

  .....I'm thinking, no.
• 

  TheWonderofYou

  The letter to the Hebrews shows that the act of divine love was the true atonement of the world. Thus ...no legally ransom nor corresponding ransom necessary. Nor for Adam nor for Adam+mankind. Necessary is love. Jesus death is not equal to Adam, but his love brings much more blessings than a legal understanding of scale like justice.
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  On the other hand, just for argument sake, does the sin of a human being require anything else but the repentance of the same human being? And does G-d visit the sins of parents upon their children? Do the Hebrew Scriptures agree with the New Testament declaration: “Under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Hebrews 9.22) Or does Scripture testify that G-d can and does forgive without shedding blood?

  Romans 5.12 teaches that "sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all." But the idea that the sin of Adam causes us to inherit sin that requires redemption is counter to the words found in Ezekiel 18:

  The word of the Lord came to me: What do you mean by quoting this proverb upon the soil of Israel, “Parents eat sour grapes and their children’s teeth are blunted”? As I live—declares the Lord God—this proverb shall no longer be current among you in Israel….The person who sins, only he shall die…

  The person who sins, he alone shall die. A child shall not share the burden of a parent’s guilt, nor shall a parent share the burden of a child’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous shall be accounted to him alone, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be accounted to him alone.—Ezekiel 18.1-20.

  Either the concept of Original Sin or inheriting sin from Adam (or Eve) is true or the words of Ezekiel are true, but not both. Either G-d visits the sins of parents upon their children, contradicting the words of Ezekiel, or the story of Adam and Eve have to be interpreted in the light of Ezekiel 18.

  And the idea that a human sacrifice is needed to forgive sins, that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” also goes against the words of Ezekiel:

  Moreover, if the wicked one repents of all the sins that he committed and keeps all My laws and does what is just and right, he shall live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions he committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness he has practiced, he shall live. Is it my desire that a wicked person shall die?—says the Lord God. It is rather that he shall turn back from his ways and live.—18.21-23.

  Note that G-d does not require a blood sacrifice of even an animal to forgive sins. A wicked person can merely have a change of heart and turn around their lives to keep in line with G-d’s laws and do what is just and right. By merely doing this does G-d promise “none of the transgressions he committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness he has practiced, he shall live.”

  The idea that the Jewish Messiah would have to die and that faith in his shed blood was necessary for forgiveness sounds like the same complaint the Israelites made against these words of Ezekiel. These stubborn ancient Israelites didn’t agree with G-d’s way of forgiving people and showing mercy:

  Yet you say, “The way of the Lord is unfair.” Listen, O House of Israel: Is My way unfair? It is your ways that are unfair! …if a wicked person turns back from the wickedness that he practiced and does what is just and right, such a person shall save his life. Because he took heed and turned back from all the transgressions that he committed, he shall live; he shall not die.—18.25-28.

  Is the idea of a ransom sacrifice provided by Jesus compatible with the G-d of Israel and the prophets?
• 

  TheWonderofYou

  @calebinfloroda

  I remember that the term "ransom" had the meaning to ransom someone of something,
  it was obviously use by first christians that jesus ransomed people of slavery of the sin or effects of the sin, but not explicit and only an adamic heritated sin. (should be discussed if already the early judaism knew a heritade sin or when the thought appeared)
• 

  TheWonderofYou

  @calebinfloroda

  another point is that the jewish had the tradition of a suffering messiah:

  - a man of sorrow (gods people or the one messiah?) the suffering servant of god

  - the suffering messiah and the victorious messiah

  - the son of man

  and obviously in the time of Jesus it was thought, or perhaps like in quumran, or like john baptist that a single man, messiah, would suffer, perhaps it was a normal allday-thought in the synagoges of that time? And Jesus believed in it that he was the one, at the lord supper he said: My blood for many, was that a later insertion into the bible text, or was it part of the liturgy of 1st century?

  th
• 

  John Aquila

  Either the concept of Original Sin or inheriting sin from Adam (or Eve) is true or the words of Ezekiel are true, but not both. Either G-d visits the sins of parents upon their children, contradicting the words of Ezekiel, or the story of Adam and Eve have to be interpreted in the light of Ezekiel 18.

  
  

  Good point Caleb!

  Something is just not right with the idea of some man having to die a horrendous death for billions and billions of men, women and children to be forgiven. If that was really the case then Jesus could just have died in his sleep and the ransom would have been paid.
  
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  @TheWonderofYou

  If Jews really had a tradition of a suffering Messiah, why was Peter so adamant with Jesus that this would NOT be the fate of the Messiah? Matthew 16.21-23 states:

  "Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.’ But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.’"

  Compare Mark 9.31-32 that tells how Christ’s disciples didn’t understand him mentioning how the Messiah had to suffer and die. If what you say is true, why were the disciples so unaware of this Jewish tradition? Were they bad Jews who didn’t know their religion? Were they intellectually or mentally challenged? How do you explain the meaning of texts like Mark 16.10-11 or John 20.9 if the Jews really had a tradition of a suffering Messiah? I would really like to know how the apostles of all people missed it. Why would the apostle Paul have to try to convince the Jews that the Messiah had to suffer and die if, like you claim, they already believed in such a thing?—Acts 17.2-3.

  If this was the tradition as you state, why did the two Jews on the way to Emmaus not know about it?—Luke 24.17-20, 25-26.

  Why do the Gospels say that these Jewish disciples of Jesus did not know of this so-called tradition until Jesus “opened their mind” to it. If they were already expecting it, why would the Gospels say differently?—Luke 24.45-46.
• 

  CalebInFloroda

  @John Aquila

  Thanks, John.

  By the way, in regards to what others are saying in support of the ransom of Jesus, I am not after you to try to turn you from your beliefs. But I am interested in your replies. I ask these things with all due respect. I just think pros and cons on any subject is the way to go because not all who leave the JWs who read this board get a chance to hear all sides of the "Jesus" issue.

  If memory serve me right wasn't Jesus pretty much beaten to a pulp by the Romans before being crucified? How can Jesus be a sacrifice in such a condition in light of Deuteronomy 17.1:

  You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep that has any defect of a serious kind, for that is abhorrent to the Lord your God.
• 

  John Aquila

  If memory serve me right wasn't Jesus pretty much beaten to a pulp by the Romans before being crucified? How can Jesus be a sacrifice in such a condition in light of Deuteronomy 17.1:

  You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep that has any defect of a serious kind, for that is abhorrent to the Lord your God.

  
  

  OMG Caleb, You just keep coming. If the governing body ever saw you, they would run, run, run.