by unshackled 106 Replies latest watchtower bible
Lol, @ PSac.
I don't believe the Creation story (seven days) is literal either. But it was a simple telling of a complicated (for us) creation and evolution (part of creation).
But I think the answer to the op's question has been answered. Christ died for our sins.
Tammy
Still doesn't make sense. Jesus literally died on a stick for a made up story about a guy? Seems everyone finds a different way to try make sense of it. Some scriptures are quoted as backup, but other scriptures are not accurate?
Romans 5:12-21 does describe how Adam’s sin brought death to mankind, his sin was passed on to all generations. Cruel and ludicrous to make all mankind pay for just a story....and it never really happened. I'm not buying the sinner label over a myth, fairy tale, allegory, whatever.
I suppose it comes down to a believer will find ways to believe, even if it doesn't make sense to anyone else.
I'll say this for most ex-JW's: they're a bitter, jaded lot. That is, if the people on this forum are a good sample.
I don't think this DB is representative, at least I hope not. Many people come here in the process of leaving the organization, and they find refreshment in that they can openly embrace new ideas and challenge old beliefs. As time goes by, they start developing healthy, functional relationships/interests outside the organization, and slowly, they start posting here less and less.
A few unfortunate souls never seem to move on (long-time members with REALLY high post counts, but NOT including the infirmed) and I agree with you that they are often some of the most bitter, intolerant, narrow-minded persons I see on the internet.
If a visitor from another planet could observe the personalities in this forum he could be nothing but bemused.
Observation: You all think you're right, but you all can't be right. It's all but impossible. Lets just say the statistical probability is virtually zero. That is something you all can agree with (I think). However, you all can be wrong. This has a probability approaching 1.0.
The most logical conclusion one might make is all of your brains (our brains) are flawed and everything you (we) believe to be true is the ephemeral product of thousands upon thousands of filtering iterations involving what we have heard, what we have been taught, what we have seen, what we have read and what we have imagined in our own minds. The thing is, those filtering processes are ongoing simply because the mind cannot help itself but to seek to legitimise what it understands. A week, a month, a year from now you will think differently - in all probability how you will think will be fundamentally the same as you do now, but it is absolutely certain (in the absence of going into a coma for the duration) that what you hold to be true today will not be exactly the same as what you will hold to be true in the future. If your mind is closed to alternative perspectives, in particular contrarian perspectives, the direction of your thinking will not change but you will become progressively more convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong, even if only a little bit. The downside of closing your mind is retardation of intellectual growth. I hope I am not being ungracious by observing that there's some evidence of that in here.
Certainty is the mother of fools. (Patrick Jane)
I suppose it comes down to a believer will find ways to believe, even if it doesn't make sense to anyone else.
This is very true. People do this all the time in many different fields because they're starting with an agenda. You can't logically prove anything if you start out with a strong belief. Unless you can let go of all belief and start from scratch you're hooped and will always find a way to prove what you already believe.
Unshackled - you are forgetting that death came to all men, "BECAUSE ALL MEN SINNED", part of Romans. The whole Jesus died for Adam's sin NEVER made sense to me. I didn't see where it came from (because taking it from this passage in Romans, which can also be a simple comparative illustration, is going WAY beyond what is written) All Paul is doing is showing how sin entered the world and brought death, and then comparing that to how Christ came instead to give men life.
IMO, the only way a person can come to this conclusion and accept it as DOCTRINE is if someone else has taught it to them. Because you don't come to it during a simple reading of either that passage or the entire bible.
Saying Jesus died for Adam's sin - tit for tat- is like saying none of us is responsible for our own sins - Adam is - and this is teaching the exact opposite of taking responsibility and repenting, then being forgiven. Its just laying blame all over again, like Adam did with the snake and Eve.
Tammy
What would a Jewish Rabbi say about Adam? After all, the Torah is a Jewish book.
Good question, Moshe. I wonder myself indeed. I do know that according to one web site you linked, Jews believe that man was not created immortal. Therefore, Adam was going to die anyway unless he partook of the tree of life. He never got that chance because he partook of the tree of knowledge first and was put out of the garden.
This is an interesting discussion and I'm surprised LaoLeia hasn't chimed it with what the gnostics believed in accordance to the question of an allegorical garden of Eden. AK-Jeff raised this question before.
who's sin did Jesus die for?
Rocco's. He bit me this morning.
The OP is based on an understanding of the soteriology that is unique to the borg. It was Russell who taught the Jesus - Adam equivalence. He believed that Adam was redeemed by Jesus' death and would be resurrected. All of mankind was only condemned as a result of being unborn in Adam's "loins".
He also taught the traditional christian understanding which focuses on vicarious punishment. Barbour denied this part of the doctrine likening it to him killing a fly to atone for the wrongs of his son. This led to the breach between Russell and Barbour and the birth of the "Watchtower" mag.
Ironically the emphasis on vicarious punishment - see Isa 53 as AGuest said above - soon faded in the literature and although it is still officially JW doctrine no JW today would claim that Jesus died for their sin.
Rutherford made changes to the Adam- Jesus ransom doctrine and condemned Adam as not worthy of a resurrection and the idea was born that Jesus died to redeem the value of a perfect life. In my opinion it was at this point that the borg ceased to be another christian sect and became a non-christian cult.
When I made a study of the history of ransom doctrine and realised Jesus did not die for Adam's sins but for mine I left the borg and gave my life to Jesus. (actually I loaned it to him, 9 years later I took it back)
Here is a link to an article I wrote at the time that looks at the history of the doctrine and compares it to the christian gospel.
(why I now reject everything I wrote is another subject)
Still doesn't make sense. Jesus literally died on a stick for a made up story about a guy?
Adam means "man", as such whether or not it is the name of the first Human Male to "find God" or just a "tittle" of the first Human male to gain "spiritual enlightnment" or even just a metphore for the Jewish people or anytuing else you can conceive of, the point of Genesis is that Man had a previleaged place with God and forfitted it to be "like God", to be responsible for their own "truth", to be independant from God and God's grace.
That Fall is what Jesus gave himself for.
That fall that we inherited and that we still exercise to this day, is what keeps us from reaching God, so what did God do?
God came down to US, lived like us, taught US, preached to us DIRECTLY and not via prophets, channels, organizations, scribes or anything else, and he did that not because he had to but because he loved us enough to BE US so that WE CAN BE HIM.
In his bodily death ( and the pain that whent with it) we are reconciled to God vai the HS that is given to Us.
What Adam did in turning his back on God was reversed by God giving himself to Us.
