Please explain the Watchtower's "Ransom" for me
Has the Watchtower ever given a straight answer to the question: who was the Ransom paid to? I think they've said it wasn't paid to the devil, but stopped short of saying it was paid to Jehovah.
If it was paid to Jehovah, didn't he pay his own ransom? How can that make sense? It's as bad as the mind-bending overlapping generation when you really think about it.
Makes me want to be Unitarian!
We still sin, get sick and die - truthseeker
Still playing Devil's Advocate...
The problem is that you are still thinking like a JW about physical and material rewards. The christian gospel was about forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with god in this life.
Has the Watchtower ever given a straight answer to the question: who was the Ransom paid to? - SBF
I think their answer to that is similar to classic theism. Ransom is just one of many metaphors used to describe the "work of Christ" on the cross. It is a mistake to push a metaphor too far. The key point is the price paid to release believers from sin. The NT doesn't answer the question of who it was paid to but if you had to answer it would probably be Divine justice.
They absolutely have said it was paid to the desert god. The phraseology is he “appeared in heaven to present the value of his ransom sacrifice”
of course its stupid, but all of christendom agrees on that particular piece of stupid.
The problem with saying the ransom is paid to "divine justice" is that it makes God subject to a law greater than himself. He is not fully sovereign or almighty. But maybe the Christian God is not almighty. The JW view of God is certainly weaker than traditional Christianity in a number of respects: he is not omnipresent, he does not foresee or foreordain everything, there is (I think) even some question in JW theology about whether Jehovah created time or acts inside it.
If there is a clear statement in the Watchtower that the ransom was paid to Jehovah I'd like to see it.
Sigh... they claim its his sense of divine justice. A perfect life was lost so only a perfect life could redeem it. Thats the stupid simple version.
the longer stupid version is that a perfect man strayed from the divine path. Satan used this to call gods creation and his right to rule into question. Jesus lead a life of perfect obedience to the desert god thus proving that the creation wasnt flawed and that god had the right way to live.
Also fuck you slim for making me repeat that bullshit. I now need a shower.
Slim, your being insufferably lazy about this... you write novels about why you think the org is in finical ruins, complete with annotated footnotes and bibliography's, but your too lazy to do a simple google search for a BASIC teaching of jw’s? You need it spoon fed? You will research dozens of church's on the web before you visit them and come back and write us reviews but you wont refresh your memory on a religion you belong too?
Sigh... ok slim, let me blow on it to cool it off for you too....
An entire article on jw org addressing the matter. A ss that addresses your specific question that i answered already but you still felt necessary to ask for a quote without looking yourself is here:
Wow! What a most interesting set of responses! Thank you. Broadly speaking, these do not paint Jehovah in a good light.
Your responses lead me to these thoughts:
1. The Watchtower's explanation, as shown by you, is predicated on the myth that there was a real Adam and that the Genesis Creation myths are literal records. (Search a Bible for the word "Adam" to see how few times it appears, when, and in what contexts.)
2. Do some people hold onto the idea that there was a literal Eden - Adam - Eve - Snake - creation 6000 years ago only because it gives sense to "Jesus died for me"? (If the Creation stories are just myths, then why did Jesus have to be killed and resurrected?)
3. What is it that enables a myth, a superstition, to exert such a hold on the human mind? How can irrationality be so effective?
4, Paul (in his genuine letters) does not focus his soteriology solely on Jesus' death but he also included the resurrection. Why should anyone accept Paul's opinion?
Allow me to respond as follows..
1 and 2 (similar questions lead to the same answer so i am combining them) I absolutely believe that the major reason the adam and eve account is held to as literal by christians as a whole is that without a fallen first man there is no ransom needed ergo no importance to jesus. Working backwards they must believe in a literal genesis account to have foundation for their faith.
3) good question. Be it christianity islam etc etc humans seem to have a need to explain the past and chart the future. We like happy lies. Religion tickles the human need for hope and gives easy to follow directions. Basic programing for our basic brains. Only my theory.
4) in cult foggy days i took everything paul wrote as unassailable truth, because i was told to... having reevaluated with a bit more rational mind i am unclear why any christian accepts anything that pompous asshat said. He contradicts jesus and himself often, he wraps himself in false piety at times at other times he braggs to such a degree that he makes me want to pull him from his grave and slap him. Again, only my opinion
4.) ABOUT PAUL:
Paul speaks about his mystical, transcendent experience in 2 Corinthians 12 where he is caught up to the third heavens etc.
While in a transcendent, trance-like altered state of consciousness people can experience hypergraphia - a compulsion to write extensively about spiritual realities.
This is comparable to channeling or automatic writing whereby while in a transcendent, trance-like altered state of consciousness, your subconscious goes into over drive and you begin to unleash images, visions, words, thoughts, words etc. from the deep levels, inner recesses of your subconscious/unconscious mind.
I believe this is where Paul's "creative exegesis" of the Old Testament (OT) came from to produce his writings in the New Testament (NT).
According to Genesis 3:17-19 only Adam and Eve were cursed. There is no mention by God of the extension of the curse to Adam and Eve's children and later descendants.
There is also no mention of "the Fall" and/or the extension of the curse to Adam's and Eve's offspring, in the remaining chapters of Genesis or the other 38 books (Protestant Bible) of the OT.
The idea of Adam and Eve passing on sin, imperfection, sickness and death to their offspring was not expounded upon in the OT. It was Paul who later claimed this in his "creative exegesis" of the OT (Romans 5:12, 17 - 19, 1 Corinthians 15: 21, 22 etc).