by Whynot 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Jeremiah 7:31 says, "They have built the high places of Toʹpheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinʹnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, something that I had not commanded and that had never even come into my heart.’"
According to this scripture it's unthinkable for Jehovah to be pleased with child sacrifices. But yet he sent his son to be killed as a sacrifice for all?
How is this not a contradiction?
Sorry Whynot if I seem to be pedantic but "children" are not mentioned in the scripture you quote and Jesus when he was sacrificed was 30 years old and not a child.
However having said that Jehovah`s Witnesses don`t seem to have any qualms about sacrificing adults and children to Jehovah with their doctrine/policy of no blood transfusions to save a life.
Any reputable Bible scholar knows that the blood ban is a diet restriction of not eating/consuming blood in this way.
And a blood transfusion is not eating blood ,if a person was only given blood and no food he/she would die of starvation .
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn`t King David `s men excused from this law when they fell to eating meat that wasn`t bled according to the law because they were starving ?
In other words their life was in danger so it was O.K. to disobey that law.
And isnt that why Jesus on occasion broke the sabbath law to save a life ? even if it was a sheep ?
How many lives have needlessly been lost in sacrifice , both children and adults because Jehovah`s Witnesses /Governing Body adopted this policy only since the 1940`s .
Jesus had no idea that he came to die for the sins of the world (Mathew 9:13) and made this clear through an illustration so that no one can get a different meaning. (Mathew 21:37)
The spurious reference to his death as a sacrifice for sin-atonement found in Mathew 20:25-28 is deleted from Luke's careful wordings:
And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves. "(Luke 22:25-27)
Never mind Jesus...what about Isaac? It certainly did " come up into his heart" since he brought the subject up to Abraham.
Wow, it is weird to realize this in this way... kind of spooky to see how brainwashed we were.
venus,
I looked up the scriptures you site and I don't see where you are coming from. . My bible reads in many places where Jesus predicted his own death.
But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. - Jesus
From the very beginning, Jesus was introduced as the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". Everybody knew what function the passover lamb provided. The message was clear. And, still is. Paul's writings are replete with this teaching of substitution "for us", not Adam..
Combatting heresy from almost the beginning, the author of the Letter to Diognetus written around 130 AD makes these declarations after affirming man's inability to justify himself :
But [God] was patient, he bore with us, and out of pity for us took our sins upon himself. He gave up his own Son as a ransom for us, [NOT ADAM] the holy one for the lawless, the innocent one for the wicked, the righteous one for the unrighteous, the imperishable one for the perishable, the immortal one for the mortal. (9.2).
Undoubtedly, the author views the work of Christ on the cross as an exchange, a ransom, a swapping, of the righteous for the unrighteous, that we might be saved. And he says plainly that Christ “took our sins upon himself.” He stood in our place and bore God’s wrath for us individually, BECAUSE THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH. But, the GIFT God gives is everlasting life.
God’s response to our sin, though deserving of death, is not to bring judgment but to show mercy. Now that God has CLEARLY shown what his response to OUR sin is; it is now our turn to show what our response to him is.
In their efforts to deceive (either knowingly or unwittingly) this is why is was so critical for the WT to keep harping on their teaching that Jesus died and ransomed Adam because it hid the fact that Jesus substituted his death for ours .... his righteousness for our unrighteousness..... and his inheritance for our inheritance.
For the receiver, Jesus offers a PERSONAL RANSOM. Not a corporate one like the WT teaches.
This is why so many Christians that we met at the doors zeored in on the subject of whether or not Jesus was our PERSONAL SAVIOR. The reason is because that is the ONLY kind of savior he his. To reject that is to reject him.
Hi Perry,
1) Please compare Mathew 20:25-28 and its parallel account found in Luke (Luke 22-25-27) which Luke himself says he wrote after carefully examining all the available sources 1:3
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 2and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mathew 20:25-28)
“The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves. "(Luke 22:25-27)
2) John the Baptists is reported to have said: ““Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29) John the Baptist would not say this because he is aware of what Jeremiah wrote in 7:22, 31; 8:8 and what Moses wrote in Deuteronomy 24:16; What Ezekiel wrote in 18:20 ….etc. all of which say ‘one person cannot atone for the sins of another person.’
Moreover, ideas are put into the mouth of John the Baptists by the same writer who wrote inherently contradictory verse found in John 3:13 which Jesus never made. For example, John the Baptists says he is not Elijah in John 1:21 which is flat rejection of what Jesus said in Mathew 11:14
3) Anyhow Jesus was sure that he was sent not die for the sins of the world: “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a wine press in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.
“The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.” (Mathew 21:33-37)
There never can be a harmonious agreement of all teachings within the Bible. It was drawn from eclectic sources, out of different cultures and over a long period of time. It has been refined continuously to achieve a correspondence but fails.
The only glue is the false belief that since it is held to be sacred, it must agree-- but it plainly doesn't. Logic is suppressed when the religious mind comes into play.
The concept of a 'ransom' offering is telling, Perry.
The idea that Jesus offered his life as a 'sacrifice', that blood must be poured out, that he 'poured himself out' on the altar, are all evidences of christianity's old world origins.
Blood sacrifice is a throwback to the ancients, the concept that god is angry, that he must be appeased with sacrifice, be it animal, grain or a human.
The idea of a sacrifice by Jesus is only valid if god is in the background demanding blood and death.
IMO, Jesus tried to reimagine a more humane god, one who manifested through social justice, but it was not to be.
Paul and others writing in his name fastened the underpinnings of the new religion to concepts from the old.
What if christianity just focused on the face that Jesus imagined a more just society, and forget the christological nonsense?
Is that not enough?
I agree with Pistoff
Teaching of ransom is a problematic one.
1)If this teaching originated from God, then it would mean God reached rock-bottom without a solution to a simple problem, and son who gave his life becomes greater than the Father automatically as no part is played by the Father.
2)It would also mean God of justice could not come up with a just solution because humans are saved at the cost an innocent life—a teaching you cannot teach to your children.
3)It is incomprehensible that sin is fought with another sin (murder of an innocent person)
4)Above all, it is unnecessary because solution was already in existence “eye for an eye, tooth for tooth” which simply means ‘one has to reap what he sows’ (Galatians 6:7; Hosea 8:7)
