Please explain the Watchtower's "Ransom" for me
Actually I did not read too much into it - I had a good chuckle though
We need not worry about this doctrine which was found unscriptural as early as Luke's time. If Jesus really came to be murdered and thus “to take away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), he would have used his superhuman skills to explain this incomprehensible teaching (killing the innocent removes the sins of the sinners). The only passing comment Jesus made on this is found in Mathew 20:25-28 which was ascertained by Luke as later adoption, hence Luke deleted the controversial verse (“son of man came to give his life as a ransom for many”) from his account. (Luke 22:25-27)
Even after the so called ransom was paid, sin continues to rule the world, and mankind continues to be under the slavery of sin for over 2000 years.
The simplest way to understand this is the FUNDAMENTAL here. That is simply that Jehovah would accept the sinless unborn children of Jesus Christ at the time of his death in exchange for Adam's unborn children, who had inherited Adam's sin. So it is not really about Jesus being the ransom for all men, but his unborn children. But Christ did have to make the sacrifice by giving up his perfect human life. That's the basis of the ransom sacrifice. Just as sin came through Adam to his unborn children, life in exchange comes through the unborn children of Christ. Simple.
NOW THE SIDE ISSUES: Does that sacrifice cover ALL sin? No. Only Adamic sin. You still have to be deemed to be "righteous" to get eternal life. Christ's sacrifice gives all a chance for eternal life, but only the righteous are granted it.
DOES INCIDENTAL DEATH WIPE OUT SIN? The Bible says once you die you are acquitted of sin. That's true. But you have to stay dead! If you die and are resurrected and thus take your life back, you still are condemned. Thus in the case of Lazarus, Jesus' friend, whom he resurrected, he was acquitted of his sin as long as he stayed dead. Once he took his life back then he annulled that payment with his death. That's why the WT's idea that those resurrected during the second resurrection are acquitted of sin and they get a brand new chance is non-Biblical. Their own death does not acquit them of sin unless they stay dead. Once they come back, they still are under Adamic sin; thus they still need Christ's ransom sacrifice. Furthermore, the Bible strictly dates the second resurrection after Satan is killed in the lake of fire which is following the 1000-year reign of Christ. Thus there is absolutely no resurrections during the 1000-year reign of Christ.
I hope this explanation was sufficient. It works. Again, Christ's unborn children were exchanged for Adam's unborn children. He ransomed his unborn children for Adam's unborn children. That's it.
He ransomed his unborn children for Adam's unborn children
Jesus had no children. Metaphorically christians are brothers of Christ not children.
JWdeepthinker: how about the "children of the resurrection"? they are not children of Adam, inheriting and carrying those dented, faulty bread pan genes forward!
The whole ransom idea is based on the snake talking to the naked lady. Are you seriously believing that kid's level story impinging on humanity?
ps.The wt ransom is complicated, because they insert a class of people, the Armageddon survivors, into the equation. A group that never personally pays the ultimate price, death, therefore needs to slave 1000 years to earn life. For us, the dormant ransom effect, we now live under, extended another < 10058 years. yikes!