a few hypocritical goodies from said study edition, questions from readers, which starts on page 6. The article goes to great lenghts to point out that people in pre christian times were forgiven of their sins based on the sacrifice of the Christ, which had not yet taken place. Fair enough. The article explains that, in Jehovah's eyes, the ransom was as good as done so it could be applied even though it was not yet paid.... ok... so if a married couple becomes intamite on the night before their wedding should we still form a JC? the wedding is as good as done.. the vows almost taken.. but thats not the interesting part, not totally. The question this raises for me is why could the ransom to cover adams sin be applied retroactivly but not the covenant for heavenly life? The org has said time and again that John the baptizer will not be resurected to heavenly life because he died prior to the christ and that arrangment was only from Jesus death forward. ok.. so on the basis of Jesus death John can be resurected to earth but not heaven? The logic does not follow... in another interesting twist on this the branch has taught time and again that the evil doer that Jesus said "would be with me in paradise" would be on earth, not heaven... ok but he died AFTER Jesus. but still doesnt get into heaven. where is the logic, or am I making more out of this than is there? I would also point out that this by no means new. This teaching of the retroactive nature of the ransom has been around for decades.
The second goodie comes from the very same article, at very end of the QFR they make the statment, and I quote "As this account clearly shows, Jesus did not shun sinners. He did good to them. " Do I even have to elaborate on the hypocrasy here... needless to say I am going to carry this around and use it as justification for speaking with every DF'd person I possibly find