The last time I engaged with jws I mentioned the concern I had with 'solutions' that require the death of billions of people. And compared it to the isis theology. They used the old god is doing the killing response. I asked if there really was a philosophical difference. They switched to talking about how jws we're different from isis because they we're allowed to have fun. Both ladies then reassured me they were going out to cocktails after preaching. My wife who was giving me a cold stare, called to me at that point.
peacefulpete
JoinedPosts by peacefulpete
-
16
Talked to JWs Today at a Cart Stand
by Sea Breeze inthey were positioned in a walk way and i had to go right pass them.
i tried to keep walking but my legs went straight to them like they had a mind of their own.. they pointed to john 17:3 on how to get saved.
1 peter 3:18. .
-
-
-
7
Internal server error
by peacefulpete ini've had this happen a number of times.
i know an archived thread regarding luke 22:exists as i was recently reading it, but now is no longer available.
it does not come up when using any combination of words that i know to be in the thread.
-
-
peacefulpete
Thanks
-
7
Internal server error
by peacefulpete ini've had this happen a number of times.
i know an archived thread regarding luke 22:exists as i was recently reading it, but now is no longer available.
it does not come up when using any combination of words that i know to be in the thread.
-
-
peacefulpete
I seem to be unable to send messages.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/175637/1/Food-for-thought-on-the-Ransom-Sacrifice
-
58
Did the ransom sacrifice even work?
by Sharpie inshower thought entered my mind the other day... jesus christ.
as per doctrine.
is still alive in heaven right now correct?
-
-
peacefulpete
Clearly you have not read the link I supplied nor carefully read my comments. I read the link you provided; it contains nothing that wasn't addressed in the information I shared. The sum of the argument is that critical scholars are wrong to analyze the textual history and content of the creedal passages and should rather just accept they somehow prove the unity of thought of the earliest Christians. In the case we have looked at, in 1 Cor 15, the creed content and composition are simultaneously what leads many to conclude that the insertion is at least partly early, perhaps even prePauline, but also represents a tradition not consistent with the Gospel tradition nor even Paul. IOW, What the creedal material reveals is not unity of thought but the opposite.
Further, Price's position that the creedal material is best seen as an interpolation from a generation later may be a minority view at this point, but it is not easily dismissed.
-
7
Internal server error
by peacefulpete ini've had this happen a number of times.
i know an archived thread regarding luke 22:exists as i was recently reading it, but now is no longer available.
it does not come up when using any combination of words that i know to be in the thread.
-
-
peacefulpete
I was able to locate the thread on Luke 22 through a lengthy process but the Cellist thread is still missing.
-
19
Studies of the NT
by Balsam inbart ehrman delivered this presidential address to the audience gathered at the southeastern commission for the study of religion in macon, georgia, on march 14, 1997. a fuller discussion of the textual variants mentioned below (luke 22:19-20) can be found in ehrman's book the orthodox corruption of scripture, pp.
interpreters of the nt are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore.
in many instances, we don't know what the authors of the nt actually wrote.
-
-
peacefulpete
This thread is relevant to recent discussions regarding the ransom theory.
-
7
Internal server error
by peacefulpete ini've had this happen a number of times.
i know an archived thread regarding luke 22:exists as i was recently reading it, but now is no longer available.
it does not come up when using any combination of words that i know to be in the thread.
-
-
peacefulpete
I've had this happen a number of times. I know an archived thread regarding Luke 22:exists as I was recently reading it, but now is no longer available. It does not come up when using any combination of words that I know to be in the thread. Similarly, a thread by Cellist (who no longer appears in the list of members for some reason) was linked in another thread. The result is "this page isn't working now". If I cut and past the thread title it says, Internal server error. Any explanation?
-
58
Did the ransom sacrifice even work?
by Sharpie inshower thought entered my mind the other day... jesus christ.
as per doctrine.
is still alive in heaven right now correct?
-
-
peacefulpete
As regards your appeal to Christain creed, your example illustrates the problem. First, as you are aware I'm sure, the creed is widely regarded as an interpolation that interrupts the discussion. Since we have reason to be at least skeptical of it's being Paul, and more importantly it doesn't define anything bearing on this topic, it doesn't form much of an argument regarding the theory of ransom.
But since you brought it up, notice that the creed contradicts the Gospel/Acts tradition and Galatians on a number of points. It is for this reason many scholars, even highly critical ones date (at least the first 2 verses of) the creed to a period before the Gospels and introduced into Paul fairly early.
R.Price has made reasonable arguments that the entirety was introduced post-Acts and was a result of a merging of rival Petrine and Jamesian sects' creeds.
Consider carefully reading this somewhat long article: Apocryphal Apparitions by Robert M. Price (mindvendor.com)
Something else I find glaring about the Creed is repeated appeal to "according to the scriptures". What scriptures? if the Gospels are implied, we have come to end of the discussion, it is clearly a late interpolation. If they refer to the Tanakh OT, then more difficult questions arise. Most assume the "scriptures" meant the Jonah story or possibly Hosea 6:2. This itself supports the position that the Christ story in all aspects were drawn from OT and seen through eyes of faith and eisegesis. This was subsequently allegedlyy confirmed through apparitions and visions of James the Just (not yet brother of Jesus) and Cephus. (not yet the rock of proto-catholic tradition). The 12 reference creates another set of issues I don't have time to discuss here.
So what we might reasonably conclude is that elements of the creed date to a period before the Gospel traditions. Likely the creed as it reads today is a patchwork of these early elements with later addenda referencing 500 and Paul.
-
58
Did the ransom sacrifice even work?
by Sharpie inshower thought entered my mind the other day... jesus christ.
as per doctrine.
is still alive in heaven right now correct?
-
-
peacefulpete
Seabreeze. ..None of your comment explains the wide diversity of views very early in Xtian history. It seems clear to me that the story took hold in the imagination before theologians formulated it through metaphor.
The NT (and later theology) use a number of images in their interpretive schemes; taken literally they are, often, mutually exclusive. For instance, a ransom (paid to the master of a slave or captive to obtain his freedom, or, rather, make him a slave of or a captive to the redeemer) has nothing to do with a sacrifice (offered to a deity, either to make it favorable, as in propitiation, or to erase a certain "sin," as in expiation). The conflation of those two images (one from a commercial setting, the other from a sacral setting) in the WT catchphrase "ransom sacrifice" is literally nonsensical: if taken allegorically a ransom would have to be paid to the devil, or to personified "sin," whereas a sacrifice would be offered to "God". There is no problem in using mutually exclusive images as long as they are taken metaphorically: we simply have an indefinite number of metaphors pointing from different angles to "something" which remains essentially undefined. In one word: a mystery.
Redemption, Reductions.
-
58
Did the ransom sacrifice even work?
by Sharpie inshower thought entered my mind the other day... jesus christ.
as per doctrine.
is still alive in heaven right now correct?
-
-
peacefulpete
It's one of the threads that if pulled on hard reveals a lot about early Xtian origins and doctrine. Surprising to many is that some of the earliest forms of Christianity held no salvific importance to the death of the Christ. The various forms of what's called docetic Xtianity, dating from the 1rst century, even held the death to have been an illusion or purely mystical. Their Christ was a teacher and agent of the divine that opened eyes to truths. Clearly, they did not have a ransom doctrine. Even among those who sought to counter these views could not agree on why Christ had to die.
Very early layers seem to include the idea that the physical death of the Christ was almost irrelevant other than capping off the story of the incarnation. The incarnation of God into human form was seen as the saving redeeming act. It elevated human potential to becoming like Christ. He opened the way as it were. To others the death was interpreted as sacrificial in an expiatory fashion yet required beneficiaries act Christlike even to suffer and die to be elevated to Christ's nature. No concept of a monetary ransom from someone. Some seem to have used the term translated "ransom" to mean redeemed. Like the OT passages this implied the standing with God was remedied not that a tit for tat exchange took place. In short, the storyline that Christ descended and was killed, begged for theologians to interpret the how's and whys. Numerous textual alterations are evident today that reveal an active effort to refute one or more of these theological views. Docetism was 'disproven' by repeated references to blood and flesh. If the blood and flesh were essential aspects of the death, then that required more theological theory. I'm tired now, but if anyone wants to break into this I can.