Jesus The Perfect Reflection Of The Father?

by JW_Rogue 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • CalebInFloroda


    I recall my early studies during my reversion process about how the Messianic concept evolved in Judaism.

    When the Roman occupation occurred is when the personal Messiah concept developed. Due to the oppression from Rome, the Messiah was solidly linked with the Davidic dynasty when previously it was only infrequently connected therewith. The Messiah was at that point in time hoped to be a new king that would break the yoke of Rome and bring freedom to the state.

    Jewish hopes had always linked the Messianic Age to come with "redemption," which in Jewish theology is limited to relief from injustice, poverty, sickness and other ailments of the physical world. The Christians reinterpreted this, likely for convenience, when Jesus of Nazareth ended up dying. The "redemption" now tied with the Messiah by Christians was one from "sin" inherited from Adam, a concept foreign to Judaism. The other physical facets of "redemption" were thus transferred to a future Second Coming since it was not possible to totally invent the Messianic concept without using the literal and basic meaning of the "redemption" which is still central to the Jews.

    Today it is generally recognized that the coming Jewish Messiah who would be a monarch is not likely to be the case. Monarchies are institutions that have become obsolete, so what the Jews expect (while not necessarily rejecting the possible revival of the Davidic dynasty) has advanced beyond the ancient descriptions. Some Jews have moved beyond the concept of the Messiah even being a person, believing that the prophecies and hopes may have been using personifications and ancient concepts to describe something else, perhaps even something that humans can achieve together through humanitarian efforts.

    This does not mean that Christians are lost either. The basic ideas of what the Messiah concept entails has now been spread abroad through the ministry of Christians to the extent that should things turn out different from what Christians expect, they should still be able to accept whatever the fulfillment of the Messianic hopes eventually turn out to be.

  • JW_Rogue


    The Father is God. Jesus is the perfect reflection of God so when we read about Jesus and his love,mercy, forgiveness, etc we are seeing the Father in reflection. The angry vengeful god of the Old Testament is only who the Isrealites perceived to be God at the time. Yahweh, the God of the Israelites, was a conglomeration of tribal gods that the Moses gave to the people to represent the "true god". Jesus came to truly reveal the Father's personality which has nothing to do with the Old Testament. To borrow a common JW phrase, it's like Jesus brought "new light" about God. He was NEVER this jealous vengeful God; he was always a loving merciful Father. Not all events in the OT were truly Gods doings. For example, it was never God who commanded the Israelites to exterminate men women and children of entire nations.

    Then perhaps God is not as Jesus described either maybe that is just how Jesus perceived God to be. It would be reasonable then to re-imagine who God is now that thousands of years have passed, do you not agree?

    This all leads to a thought that I had the other day. When reading the WT they often use the phrase "make God real in your life" or something similar. They will also say that God should be viewed as a personal friend. Here is the thing if God is my personal friend then I should not have to work to "make him real". It would be obvious that he is real and influencing my life but that isn't the case. What is suggested instead is that you pray for matters in your life, then however those matters turn out, give credit to God and your prayers. So while I still like to think that there are higher powers than man at work in the universe I find it hard to believe that any personal God is watching over us.

  • JW_Rogue


    Then, Jerusalen was destroyed in 70 AD, and they invented that Jesus predicted it. But now, this destruction of the city was convenient to invent that his body disappeared when his disciples visited the tomb. Because all tombs were destroyed by the romans, no one could verify if that story was true or false. When this jewish sect was shunned by reorganized pharisees in the 80s and 90s, they invented that Jesus predicted that they would be expelled from the synagoges. Indeed, I believe that at every emerged problem, the Christian scribes decided to invent a prediction for this situation. ....In the beginning of the second century, some guys believed that the matter is evil, then some Christian scribes decided to invent the bodily resurrection, so as to ensure that he resurrected in flesh. Of course, the virginity of Mary and other stories were the product of gentile christians to make Jesus like the pagan gods.

    So you believe that the Gospels were written by more than one person and altered? Where did you get this info? I'd like to look into this.

  • opusdei1972

    Hi Rogue:

    I accept the same general conclusions of modern scholars on textual criticism (Bart Ehrman in US, Antonio PiƱero in Spain). Also, some catholic scholar priests like Raymond E. Brown, admit that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses of Jesus, and some narrations are not historical facts. I can show you some an example. The Gospel of Matthew could not be written by Matthew. Firstly, according to the church father Papias, who knew some disciples of the Apostles, reported that Matthew wrote the sayings of Jesus in hebrew language. However, it is clear that the Gospel that we know is in Greek, and it is not a translation from the hebrew language. Our Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, and in some quotes it uses the Septuagint, which was the greek version of the Old Testament. For instance, Matthew uses the septuagint version of Isaiah 7:14 so as to "prove" a prophecy on the viriginity of Mary. However, the Hebrew Bible does not contain the word "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14. This is an example of why our Gospel of Matthew was not originally written in Hebrew. Furthermore, it can be shown that our Gospel of Matthew has based its composition on the manuscript of the Gospel of Mark. And we know that Mark was not an eyewitness, but a gentile christian. I want to show an example of this fraud:
    Sometimes we see in Matthew, in the author's attempts to create a more elegant version than Mark, trips all over himself and produce a flawed version. A case to point is the story of John the Baptist's murder. Let us first look at Mark's version.

    Mark 6:17-29
    For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, whom he had married. For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to, because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him. Finally the opportune time came. On his birthday, Herod gave a banquet for his high officials and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. When the daughter of Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests. The king said to the girl, "Ask me anything you want, and I'll give it to you." And he promised her with an oath, "Whatever you ask I will give you, up to half my kingdom." She went out and said to her mother, "What shall I ask for?" "The head of John the Baptist," she answered. At once the girl hurried in to the king with the request: "I want you to give me right now the head of John the Baptist on a platter." The king was greatly distressed, but because of his oath and his dinner guests, he did not want to refuse her. So he immediately sent an executioner with orders to bring John's head. The man went, beheaded John in prison, and brought back his head on a platter. He presented it to the girl, and she gave it to her mother. On hearing this, John's disciples came and took his body and laid it in a tomb.

    Mark's account above tells of King Herod having John imprisoned because of his wife's demand. But he also respected John and liked listening to him. When Herodias' daughter demanded John's head, Herod's reaction of being "greatly distressed" makes sense, as he did not want to kill John, but in view of the situation had no choice. Now let us look at Matthew's version:

    Matthew 14:3-12
    Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, for John had been saying to him: "It is not lawful for you to have her." Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered him a prophet. On Herod's birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for them and pleased Herod so much that he promised her with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Prompted by her mother, she said, "Give me on a platter the head of John the Baptist." The king was distressed, but because of his oath and his dinner guests, he ordered her requests be granted and had John beheaded in prison. His head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, who carried it to her mother. John's disciples came and took his body and buried it.

    As before note that Matthew's account is an abbreviated version of Mark. But we can also see that Matthew has twisted the story such that it is slightly different from Mark's. In the Markan account, Herod was presented as someone who did not want to kill John; he respected the Baptist and liked listening to him. Matthew however said that Herod wanted to kill the Baptist from the beginning but "feared the people". Matthew than reverted to Mark's account and said that Herod was "greatly distressed" when he heard the girl's request. But this does not make sense in Matthew's account for we are told that Herod wanted to kill John from the beginning. It would have made an excellent excuse to have John killed. In short, Matthew by setting out to create an improved version from Mark ended with a blunder of inconsistency.
  • opusdei1972


    I appreciate your thoughts.

  • JW_Rogue
    Very interesting, never heard of any of this before. Is there a book that you recommend to get started?
  • opusdei1972

    I recommend you to read the books of Raymond Brown as "Birth of the Messiah" and also "Death of the Messiah". Brown was one of the first Catholic scholars in the United States to use the historical-critical method to study the Bible.

    On the other hand, some of the books of Bart Ehrman are the following:

    1)The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament.

    2)Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior

  • Viviane
    i have a lot more info on this. Hopefully I didn't confuse you more.

    You didn't, you just didn't describe any god I am familiar with. Who is this god and where can I read about it?

  • SecretSlaveClass
    opusdei197219 hours agoI want to say that I don't think that all was negative in the early christians. Despite its crazy theology and deluded apocalyptic message, early Christianity cared for the poor. It seems that this teaching came originally from Jesus. I think this was his best social contribution. This Christian community invented a social security for the poor, and this is why this religion had success in that time. So, although I no longer believe in Jesus as the Christ, I think that those who claim to be christians must follow this thinking in favor to the poor, if they want to follow the best positive thing of the early christians. So, in my view, the Watchtower religion is against this christian principle. The Watchtower theology only takes the worst of the early Christian theology.

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    Jesus is not a perfect reflection of the father. The father had a man killed for picking up sticks on the sabbath. The father stipulated that a person is to not even light a fire in his home on the sabbath! The father had very strict rules punishable by death.

    But Jesus performed cures on the sabbath. Jesus advocated breaking the rules to show compassion. Jesus was not a stickler for rules. He valued compassion, discretion and reasonableness above following rules. The father advocated breaking the necks of anyone who broke the rules.

    Jehovah's Witnesses are aptly named. They are not followers of christ. They are followers of Jehovah. Jesus broke the rules to show compassion by healing on the sabbath. Jehovah's Witnesses reject compassion to uphold the rules. They rather see a child die than compassionately allow him/her to receive a lifesaving blood transfusion.

Share this