Child sacrifice and Jesus' sacrifice

by Whynot 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Half banana
    Half banana

    Perry, in context I was thinking of Adamic sin: the inborn, inherited imperfection-- cured some think, by the sacrificial death of the "second Adam".

    I don't know about you but I feel no need for anyone's death to help me get this 'sin' out of my system.

    Really, does anyone else feel the urge to be "redeemed from sin" here?

  • Perry
    Perry, in context I was thinking of Adamic sin: the inborn, inherited imperfection-- cured some think, by the sacrificial death of the "second Adam".

    I understand. But, really what difference does it make for the discussion at hand? It's still your sin, regardless of where you acquired it. Oh, we could have arguments over nature vs. nurture; rich vs. poor; believer vs. non-beliver etc. But, the reality is that unless you are a sociopath, you will do things that violate YOUR OWN personal standard, as well as standards set by the local, state and federal governments, not to even mention God's laws.

    So, are we to settle for a hit and miss sort of justice that allows the sneaky, discreet and otherwise untouchable among us to avoid judgment? What kind of justice is that? It is no kind of justice AT ALL I tell you and God will have none of it.

    Laws serve a very important purpose in the universe. In human sociology, according to God the primary purpose of the Law is to stop the mouth. The mouth is full of venomous biased poison that is full of self interest and self justification. Almost all of it bovine manure, before a standard plumed straight.

    Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

    The effect that the Law has on the mouth and the ensuing guilt before a righteous judge is STILL not the final purpose. The final purpose of the mute mouth and the guilty conscience is to prepare the soul for mercy, goodness, grace & love. These things simply cannot be received while the mouth is moving in expressions of self-justification and while the conscience is bogged down in excuses.

    For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. - Romans 11:32

  • Perry
    I don't know about you but I feel no need for anyone's death to help me get this 'sin' out of my system.

    I understand where you are coming from. But, keep in mind that running a business, a country or a human life based solely upon feelings is a recipe for utter disaster. Thankfully, much of reality that we experience is not determined by feelings. Our roadways are not governed feelings, our appointed judges do not judge based strictly on feelings. Feelings are a wonderful servant, but a cruel master.

    I once watched a young man very up close and personal who was guilty of a crime that carried a maximum penalty of 25 years get sentenced. Prior to sentencing, in the holding area reserved for prisoners, he was utterly defiant, pacing and muttering over and over, "They gonna have to GIVE me my time, I aint takin nuttin".

    His court-appointed attorney had negotiated a deal of only 7 years with the prosecutor. All he had to do was sign the paper-work. He was a young man with his whole life ahead of him. I kept watching him pace in the holding cell, muttering his defiance. His mouth was constantly moving.

    Finally, his name was called to go before the judge, and he left. In only a few minutes he returned to the holding area for the prisoners. He was withdrawn. His pacing had stopped. He made for the nearest wall/bench and plopped himself down with his knees up near his chin like a child. Someone asked him if if got the 25, he nodded yes, he didn't speak.

    The Law (and inevitable judgment) had finally stopped his mouth and his feelings from dominating him.

  • myelaine

    dear venus...

    I can see where you might be confused about Jesus' atonement on behalf of man. Yes, scripture says that one person can not atone for the sins of another. This is true. If I steal something from you and another person replaces it or pays you the value of the stolen property, you may be satisfied but the fact that I stole from you isn't atoned for. The other person hasn't/can't atone for my sin. It's still my sin. Now, if I replace what was stolen or the value of that item, I am trying to atone for my sin. You have the option of accepting my atonement and forgiving me or rejecting it. The ball would be in your court, so to speak, but I have made atonement for my own sin. (cf. Deut. 24:16)

    When God led the children of israel out of egypt, His main concern WAS that He wanted them to be obedient to His word/commands so that they would be blessed. His main concern WASN'T that they do sacrifices. He wanted/wants an obedient heart He doesn't want external religious observance as a "replacement value". (cf. 7:22-23) King David said as much in Psalm 40:6_8.
    No, God never commanded that people sacrifice their children to Him. It never entered His mind that they should do that. That is, however, completely different than the animal sacrifices that were prescribed as a means of atonement a "replacement value"...a perfect animal from a repentant heart. Even then, a person had to seek out the person sinned against and try to make restitution before the "day of atonement". Why would a person have to participate in the "day of atonement" if they'd already atoned for their sin and been forgiven by the person they'd sinned against? Because the person had ALSO sinned against God in their disobedience. "Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins." The soul that sins shall die. (cf. Ezek. 18:20)

    Does our death ever cancel our sin debt? No. We are not perfect nor was our death a sacrifice. With few exceptions, we don't even want to die.

    How is Jesus' sacrifice different? He was perfect and He knew He was a King and a Priest. Being a Priest, He knew He was called to offer sacrifice(s). He read it in the Hebrew bible.

    Why doesn't Luke say exactly what Matthew did in Matt. 20:25-28? Who knows, but it's not an indication that Jesus didn't know He was a sacrifice. Luke 22:41-44. He knew He was israels redeemer, He read it in the hebrew bible (His disciples even read that the Messiah would redeem israel). Luke 24:20-21, 25-27.

    Did you know that there were all kinds of scribes in israel. The scribes spoken of in Jeremiah 8:8 weren't the scribes tasked with copying the word of God in an official capacity. An official document was housed in the temple. The document housed in the temple was created with meticulous care by faithful scribes who believed they were writing the word of God...Jeremiah was a prophet during the time that a torah scroll was found in the temple and given to Josiah. We can be pretty sure Jeremiah wasn't saying that that torah had been corrupted by scribes (Jeremiah 8:8) since it's contents caused national repentance. A corrupt torah would cause people to turn away from God. Jeremiah didn't say that every torah that existed at that time was written by "the false pen of the scribes" either. God spoke to His prophet Jeremiah and later repeated the words of a prophecy after it had been destroyed. God could have easily repeated the torah to Jeremiah uncorrupted IF it was a question of every torah that existed being corrupted by false scribes.

    love michelle

  • Half banana
    Half banana

    It is no way to make progress in our lives or our world by taking Jewish superstitions as literal truth.

    You may choose to have Adamic sin but I would rather use rationality with compassion as a way forward.

    Humans are animals with a highly developed brain capable of insights and misconceptions, that is why we need logic and scientific scrutiy to determine reality-- and fellow feeling for the needs of others to live together in harmony.

    In the historical past religion with blood sacrifices, beneficially held small groups in a kind of psychic equilibrium but today we live in an interconnected, nationally interdependent planet where religion divides not unites.

    Sir Tim Berners-Lee does not kill people, dogmatic religious belief has killed millions, it is time to forget superstitions like the one about Jesus' death.

  • Perry
    dogmatic religious belief has killed millions

    Half Bananna,

    Ever heard of Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin ? They claimed to be atheists, without God, and killed 100 Million OF THEIR OWN people. Of course people who believe in God like Hitler supposedly did can be deluded murderers as well. But, on the whole, I believe that acknowledging that God will judge us after we die can have a very sobering effect on people.

    This was the central message to the gentile world that the resurrected, very much alive Jesus commanded to be preached in Acts 10: 39-43

    This is the basis of Christianity: in fulfilment of hundreds of prophecies, a man cam back from the dead and said he'd judge everyone after they die.

    Today, the whole world counts time by this man and the resurrection is the best explanation of the facts.

  • Half banana
    Half banana

    However you look at it if you're religious, you are dependent on magic events and magic spirits.

  • Whynot

    When the Bible was written there was no concept of original sin. I'm trying to figure out when this idea emerged. So far I have found that St. Augustine wrote about this first.

    The idea of a ransom sacrifice is certainly difficult to swallow. Jesus death forgives sins yet the Bible also says our death forgives our sins. So, which is it? Judaism had no concept of sin.

    After studying the Jewish culture about sin and looking into the NT objectively and the many theories of Jesus atonement and their history, I have found that the one that makes sense to is the Moral Exemplary theory.

    Phillip Quinn explained it this way:

    My suggestion is that what Abelard has to contribute to our thinking about the atonement is the idea that divine love, made manifest throughout the life of Christ but especially in his suffering and dying, has the power to transform human sinners, if they cooperate, in ways that fit them for everlasting life in intimate union with God. ... On [this] view, the love of God for us exhibited in the life of Christ is a good example to imitate, but it is not merely an example. Above and beyond its exemplary value, there is in it a surplus of mysterious causal efficacy that no merely human love possesses. And the operation of divine love in that supernatural mode is a causally necessary condition of there being implanted or kindled in us the kind of responsive love of God that, as Abelard supposes, enables us to do all things out of love and so to conquer the motives that would otherwise keep us enslaved to sin.

  • Perry

    The way to look at is, NOT that the death itself forgives sin, only God can do that. He is the final authority, whose law was broken.

    Why Not says:

    Jesus death forgives sins yet the Bible also says our death forgives our sins. So, which is it?

    Myeleine says it best above:

    Does our death ever cancel our sin debt? No. We are not perfect nor was our death a sacrifice.

    Our death cannot be a sacrifice since we are going to die anyway. It would be like giving you a car as a gift after a mechanic has just told me that the engine block is cracked and it will completely die within 1000 miles. It is no value to the giver and is actually an offence to the receiver.

    The WT promoted the heresy of a person being able to atone for oneself through a twisting of a scripture in Romans Chapter 6


    Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
    7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
    8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
    9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

    When a person accepts God's offer of pardon he is freed from the domination of sin in this life because he has a new spirit. Jesus spoke of this condition as being "born again".

    But, the WT bible states that a person who has died is acquitted of sin. Not only is this a spiritual death, and as such does not apply the way the WT uses it as self-atonement, it is not an acquittal at all... but a freedom from sin. At first the impetus to sin is totally removed from the spirit when it is renewed at the moment a person trusts Jesus alone (without or apart from religion); Later, at the resurrection, the body is glorified and has no impetus to sin.

    But no where does the NT claim that a person can atone for their own sin..."else Christ died for nothing.".

    If a person does not accept Jesus sacrifice death as a substitute for their own by faith, they will have no justification for life at Judgement Day after they die.

    What we do with Jesus in this life determines where we will spend eternity since the soul will be conscious for eternity. The eternal soul (mind) is a tremendous gift God has given us. But, it has the potential to be our greatest nightmare since it cannot be shut down at will.

  • myelaine

    dear Whynot...

    You said, "When the Bible was written there was no concept of original sin. I'm trying to figure out when this idea emerged. So far I have found that St. Augustine wrote about this first."...

    "To begin, we must find out what the Bible says about our being born in sin. David, the man after God’s own heart, wrote in Psalm 51:5, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” The apostle Paul wrote that we all gratify “the cravings of our sinful nature” (Ephesians 2:3). That means there is something naturally inside us that pushes us toward sin.

    So, the Bible certainly does teach that we are born in sin. Did God just arbitrarily decide people were going to be born sinful? The answer is found in connection with the first man, Adam. When Adam was created (without sin) by God and placed in the garden of Eden, he was also given a simple law (Genesis 2:16–17). Adam disobeyed God’s law, and God pronounced him guilty and sentenced him to death. It was Adam’s choice to disobey that made him guilty before God. He was the father of the human race, and his traits were passed on to his children. Romans 5:12 says that sin entered the world through Adam, and death came through sin, because all sinned. As descendants of Adam, we received the sin nature passed down from our fathers. That makes us born in sin, with a natural inclination to do wrong."

    Romans 5:19

    love michelle

Share this