-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What did Jesus Sacrifice?
- Thread starter NWL
- Start date
djhwoodwerks
Well-Known Member
LOL! I guess everyone but "you" makes mistakes? You couldn't be mistaken, it's everyone else?
You misquote John. It doesn't say, "He became flesh", it says, "the Word became flesh".
Please provide one scripture that says, "Jesus was made flesh". "Jesus" didn't exist before He was born.
John 1:1 (ESV Strong's) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 (ESV Strong's) 14 And the Word became flesh.
Word - g3056. λόγος logos Logos is the "spoken Word" it has nothing to do with a spirit creature.
No, I make mistakes, even in my last reply to Brickjectivity I made a mistake. I've always had trouble understanding the bad debating tactic of "you always think you're right, therefore you must be wrong" as its completely circular, don't you think you're correct here in everything and I'm wrong, I could just as well flip it around and say to you "I guess everyone but "you" makes mistakes? You couldn't be mistaken, it's everyone else?". An Illogical mess.
You're correct, the Word became flesh, that flesh on earth was known as Jesus. I have no issue with referring to Jesus was the word, as Jesus is the same person as the word. I also have no issue with saying Jesus became flesh, to start claiming that people cant use the most common name of persons in general non dogmatic conversation would be foolish. When talking about the book of revelation you rarely hear people only using the term the "lamb of God" in all the reference that pertain to Jesus in the certain roles in the book to the different positions he hold, one merely say Jesus [Christ]. Likewise it would be petty to only refer to Paul as Saul in all the instance prior to him coming to Christ or Abraham to Abram prior to God changing his name, for the matter of ease we Just refer to people in the most common way so that we can put our point across to the person whom we're conversing with.
Here's the scripture that states Jesus became flesh for you, "Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human.." (Philippians 2:5, 6)
God form is a spirit form, "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24)
Moving on from your attempts to use a straw-man to deviate from our conversation:
If Jesus was raised in a body of flesh then what did he sacrifice if he took back the body he sacrificed? Was it just his blood?.
Was Jesus, or the word as you would have it, flesh whilst in heaven? See John 1:14 "So the Word became flesh"
Last edited:
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
You made the mistake of preaching to people that have heard all of this time and again for YEARS on this forum. You are not the first Jehovah's Witness to come here on a mission. You aren't going to sway anyone to your side of the argument. Besides, everyone here that is not a JW pretty much disregards the NWT and the Watch Tower, and views them as a joke. I am not attacking you per se, just pointing out a few facts.
It is fine to have your personal beliefs, but once you start trying to force them on others by telling them they are wrong, you have crossed the line. I have a Doctor of Theology and Divinity from seminary...and I can tell you right now that you are wrong on many accounts.
Last edited:
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Depending on the gospel writer, just how "into it" he really was is debatable.
That's probably because that's how the story is written. *shrugs*
Nothing, really.
It's like when Aslan does the same thing (admittedly I'm speaking of the Narnia movies, not the books): if you KNOW you'll be resurrected later, you know there is no long-term consequence, so you SHOULDN'T be resurrected, because you know there is no real sacrifice. Characters should only be restored if they sacrificed with no previous knowledge about the perks.
I realize that someone can be unrecognizable just with a haircut, but ... seriously?
Lots of people did miracles in the bible. So what?
edit: You know, this "fish" thing bugs me. If a fisherman wants to know where the school of fish is, nowadays he can fly a drone up into the air and from a HIGHER PERSPECTIVE, you will clearly see the fish, depending on water quality, of course. You WON'T see them from the boat, but as long as you are higher than the boat, you WILL see them. This is NOT a miracle.
Neither do I. God is God.
Paul is ... like a stopped watch, really. If his sacrifice was once for all time, there should BE no second coming at all.
He woke back up 3 days later. The characterization of Jesus needs further review, because the way he's portrayed makes it sound like he doesn't want to be around us much, like he's got something better to do with eternity.
Paul also likes to imply or even outright state he doesn't like the apostles and thinks they are crap. Not recognizing Jesus would further the point that they had no idea "who" he was.
Sacrificial animals STAY dead.
I don't commit idolatry and don't think Paul is as special as he thought he was.
You've quoted mostly from Paul and occasionally John. There's more to the bible than those two authors, and there are definitely conflicting ideas throughout.
But he committed sins, though.
Note that Jesus dies and yet Enoch and Elijah DON'T. Why is Jesus the more impressive one?
I'm pretty sure people have mentioned "nothing".
1. Dishonors his parents
2. Actually, since bratty kids could be stoned to death under the law, the fact he made it to adulthood showed just how aloof his parents were.
3. He says if you call people a fool you will go to hell. He calls people fools.
4. He works on the Sabbath. Yes, I know he was being compassionate and/or practical, but a sin's a sin.
5. He vandalizes other people's stuff.
6. He assaults people with a frickin' bullwhip.
7. Satan tempts Jesus to poof up food. Jesus refuses during that instance, but poofs up wine and later food.
8. Satan tempts Jesus to throw himself off a cliff. He refuses, but later begs God to be saved from execution by the Romans and that's after he runs away from angry mobs who want him dead, a trait his apostles and Paul picked up from Dear Leader. In other words, he DID believe he should be saved from death, as the temptation was to call upon help to spare him death from falling off a cliff.
9. Satan tempts Jesus with worldly power. He gets it, doesn't he?
10. He is bigoted towards gentiles. No Jewish beneficiary of his miracles have to guilt trip him to get him to do something, but the gentile woman and the centurion have to. Weird, huh? You'd think a divine Messiah would 'know his sheep' or whatever. Guess not.
11. VERY nitpicky, but many of his parables, when you really think about them, lack a lot of moral clarity.
Not the people who didn't, and even the righteous die. And don't say there aren't righteous people, because if you can let go of your fav authors for, like, ONE SECOND, you will find plenty throughout the bible, making the claimants that there are none LIARS.
Do ... they ... wake ... back ... up ... after ... three ... days?
I don't trust those authors' ability to tell me what's in the rest of the bible.
Free is free. Adding fine print later is mean. I can give stuff to people without demanding legalese from them, can't God?
Threatening people?
A person who makes the claim that they are correct and another incorrect simply based on credentials is foolish and has already lost before even starting. I wounder do you know my credentials, if mine were more advanced than yours would that make me any more correct in your opinion?
(1 Corinthians 1:27) "..but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame.."
(Matthew 11:25) "..At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children.."
Firstly I do no force any belief and anyone, if you haven't noticed already I reason using scripture, not a single time will you see me claiming something without scripture to back it up. Notice your double standards, you say "but once you start trying to force them on others by telling them they are wrong, you have crossed the line" then you say "I have a Doctor of Theology and Divinity from seminary...and I can tell you right now that you are wrong on many accounts". You firstly reprove me by saying that telling people they are wrong is crossing the line, then you turn around and do exactly the same thing.
This isn't the only forum I'm on, I've been doing this for many many years, I can tell you now that people do listen. I haven't been on this forum long and I already know of a few people who feel directly the opposite of what you expressed concerning the NWT and our teachings.
On what account am I wrong on?
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Fine.
Using non-biblical sources, prove to us your point of view. I say non-biblical because the Gospels are all hearsay. They were written by anonymous, 3rd party authors decades after Jesus' death, and they go out of their way (especially the Book of Matthew) to make Jesus fit the messiah mold prophecies from the OT. So prove to me (and others) that what you are "preaching" is true and accurate.
I grew up as a Southern Baptist and identified as such for 30 years. I went into seminary as one. I came out a deist with a Th.D. I know the Bible backwards and forwards, and have even studied it in Hebrew and Greek (req. for seminary).
Besides, none of the NWT "authors" were fluent with Hebrew or Greek. They took the KJV and rewrote it to make their translation of the Bible say what they wanted it to say, in an effort to support their beliefs. Then they threw in "the authors were divinely inspired" hoping that no one would challenge them. Well, academia did challenge them. There is a reason that websites like www.biblegateway.com do not include the NWT in their database.
As a matter of fact, in recent years the WT told JWs to stay off the internet, especially chat forums because too many people were learning the truth and leaving.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
This is complete nonsense.
God, as the omnipotent creator of the universe, could simply say "ALL SIN IS FORGIVEN" and it would be so. There is no need for a blood sacrifice that stems from older pagan rituals. The concept you are preaching is a human invention that predates Christianity by thousands of years.
Jesus was executed by order of Pilate, in an effort to make an example out of him. Plain and simple. Christians turned him into a martyr years later.
For someone who's been been to seminary you seem to lack basic knowledge in the regards to God justice. God has perfect justice, he could simply say "all sin is forgiven" but that, by his standards, isn't perfect justice.
God’s perfect justice requires like for like, a ‘soul for a soul’, this is shown throughout the OT.
(Exodus 21:23-25) "..But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, blow for blow.."
Adam, who was once a perfect and sinless man, was the person who passed on his sinful nature to mankind and unbalanced the scales, the only redemption price that would re-balance the scales would be something equivalent to what was lost. Therefore Jesus came down in a perfect human body and remained faithful till death, being sinless. Jesus paid the ransom price with being the equivalent to what was lost, this is how Gods justice works, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life.
Prior to Jesus the Law, which had “a shadow of the good things to come,” provided for animal sacrifices as a covering for sin. This, however, was only a symbolic or token covering, since such animals were inferior to man, hence, it was “not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away,” as the apostle points out. (Hebrews 10:1-2) When Jesus came he replaced animal sacrifices and became the permanent ransom being part of "the good things to come".
So again, yes God could have just stated "all sin is forgiven" but that's not how he operates and not how perfect justice works according to the OT.
The burden of proof is on you my friend. You cannot claim that the Gospels are made and then expect for me to try prove to you the opposite when you haven't even explained the reason for such a claim in the first place.
In my studies I have learnt trust the Gospels for four reasons, at presentm and I list them plainly, they are, internal consistency, literary style, manuscript evidence and archaeological evidence. All four of these upon separate review are consistent and in union with each other.
These are the typical things that are said about the NWT on the internet, what I've found it that when the NWT is put under test that its actually pretty accurate, no bible is without it flaws however. When comparing the NWT to most other bibles, in my opinion, is far accurate than most. Take the use of the name (translation) of God, YHWH, what bible today in mainstream circulation can compare to the proper use of the tetragrammaton in scripture to that of the NWT? Next to none! On this basis alone the OT translation of the Greek scriptures by the society could technically be called more accurate than most whilst not even comparing the NWT other difference.
For you to say the NWT is a bad translation means you've 'obviously' looked into it, what specific passages of the text do you not agree with?
Surely with someone with your intellect would know not to believe everything you read on the internet, there are many people who dislike witnesses, I don't know a religious christian group more hated on the internet, because of this hatred, there are many false claims and propaganda that simply are not true.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
It doesn't have to accord with your personal reason, which could be /wrong.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
LOL...
How do you know that God is male? Because the Bible says so? It was written by male chauvinists in an extremely chauvinistic time period, in a part of the world that looks down upon women. Go figure.
If you want to use the OT, first learn what Judaism has to say about it. The OT is their history and language. It also says that children can't be held accountable for the sins of their parents (Ezekiel 18:20) so the whole concept of Jesus dying for our sins is pure BS.
Original sin is BS as well. See the above biblical reference.
Much of Genesis is meant to be metaphorical or allegorical. It is not literal. Google Maps does not show an angel holding a flaming sword barring the way to Eden.
Considering much of that world was coming out of paganism and blood sacrifices, it is to be expected for the sacrifice concept to be included in a man made religion/holy book.
So you know how God operates, do you? Here I was thinking that God was omnipotent and omniscient, as well as transcendent. Yet people like you want to bound God inside of human understanding and place restrictions on God in order to support their particular flavor of beliefs.
Last edited:
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
The authors of the Gospels are not known. They are anonymous. Nor were they eyewitnesses. This is well documented and a majority of academia agrees on the matter. As a matter of fact, many Bibles include a preface that talk about the next chapter, and there you will find where the Bible even states anonymous or unknown authors.
So, we will toss aside hearsay evidence and I leave it to you to come up with something tangible. Of course you can't, so it is a catch 22. Your entire argument hinges on hearsay.
Internal consistency? You need to go back and actually read the Gospels, not repeat what the WT teaches you to say:
1. The 4 Gospels disagree on who all went to Jesus' tomb on the 3rd day.
2. There is a difference in Jesus' genealogy between Matthew and Luke.
3. Only 2 of the 4 books mention the virgin birth (which in itself is BS).
4. Matthew states that Herod had male babies killed but history shows otherwise.
5. They disagree on the Last Supper date.
6. They disagree on Judas' death.
7. 30 pieces of silver is BS as silver coins had not been used in 300 years.
8. The purchase of the Field of Blood is inconsistent.
9. Was it Jesus or Paul that instituted the Last Supper?
10. Jesus was crucified between two robbers? Romans did not crucify robbers. That punishment was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.
The list goes on...
What archaeological evidence? I minored in history with my Th.D. so by all means elaborate. Since other JWs have used almost the exact same speech, I am just going to assume that is some BS that you all are taught to say in order to sound official.
Because it is true. The authors of the NWT were not fluent with Hebrew or Greek and merely rewrote what was already in English.
Edit: here is a wiki clipping on the subject...
"The New World Translation was produced by the New World Bible Translation Committee, formed in 1947. This committee is said to have comprised unnamed members of multinational background. The committee requested that the Watch Tower Society not publish the names of its members, stating that they did not want to "advertise themselves but let all the glory go to the Author of the Scriptures, God," adding that the translation, "should direct the reader... to... Jehovah God".
In other words, "we don't want the names of our 'translators' known because none of them actually know Hebrew or Greek, and we don't want the rest of the world criticizing our translation."
Well, the secret got out and these people were named as the authors: Nathan H. Knorr, Fredrick W. Franz, Albert D. Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel. The only one in that group that had any college education at that time was Franz, who only did 2 years.
Franz was even asked in a Scottish court if he could translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew. He replied that he could NOT.
They took the KJV, which the JW had used up until that point, and rewrote it to suit their needs. Why do you think so many non-JW theologians criticize the NWT?
You are a JW...of course you are going to think that way. Can you say bias? If my favorite color is blue, I am not going to agree with you when you say red is better.
The NASB is widely regarded as the most accurate, formal equivalent translation into English by theological scholars. The NWT is classified as a HIGHLY paraphrased, inaccurate translation.
Maybe this will help...
The NWT is not even included because most of theological academia completely disregard it for the above mentioned reasons. If it were to fall on the chart, it would be between the TV and TM.
Last edited:
I think you lost track of what my post was saying. It was saying 'but for Christianity to continue its relevance in the modern educated world, it has to accord with reason as opposed to saying 'I'm taking the scripture of what it states'.
You are right in that it doesn't have to accord with the reason of the modern educated world, but if it doesn't Christianity will continue to see a declining loss of relevance in the modern world. That is what I was saying.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Suppose that is true, that does not indicate anything besides a religious adherence, /or lack thereof,, of many people who would obviously not be of the faith anyway. There isn't an indication that the fictional 'new ideas', are going to be true. So, the idea is sort of...irrelevant.
For relevance, the new ideas presented, would have to be true, or make sense in a religious context. Haven't noticed that. You could really say the same thing of any religion, so, i'm not even sure why you would make the statement
Do you understand the concept that for an idea to be largely accepted in an educated time, it needs to accord with reason?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
There are far more theists, than atheists. And many Christians. Apparently your idea of ''reason'' differs from many. So, we can infer, that you disagree, it has nothing to do with reason, from your own argument.
Might want to try another argument?
Might want to just drop this discussion.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
The thread topic is about what Jesus sacrificed, and the religious relevance and implications thusly. I'm not even sure what you're arguing.