Jesus most important sermon..

[Elijah John]

For debate:

1) Where in this most important sermon of Jesus, does he ever mention the supposed importance of believing in his impending sacrifice on the cross to "pay for" our sins in order to be saved?

2) If, as Paul suggests, believing in Jesus death on the cross as "payment for sins" is so important for one's salvation, why didn't Jesus teach this "most important doctrine," in his most important sermon?

[Elijah John]

For JW, Checkpoint and any who believe in blood atonement.

If Jesus did indeed teach blood atonement, two questions.

1) Is this an essential doctrine?

2) If so, why didn't he teach it in his most important sermon, and or emphasize it over and over again?

Seems one or two references by Jesus does not an essential doctrine make.

Compare that with Paul's repeated references to this doctrine.

Why did Jesus leave it up to Paul to interpret Jesus?

[Checkpoint]

For JW, Checkpoint and any who believe in blood atonement.

If Jesus did indeed teach blood atonement, two questions.

1) Is this an essential doctrine?

2) If so, why didn't he teach it in his most important sermon, and or emphasize it over and over again?

Seems one or two references by Jesus does not an essential doctrine make.

Compare that with Paul's repeated references to this doctrine.

Why did Jesus leave it up to Paul to interpret Jesus?

If, why,seems.

So much doubt, better to accept God's thoughts and ways, surely.

The verses I quoted cannot be dismissed or minimised.

Here is the Ellicott Commentary on the ransom statement of Jesus.

To give his life a ransom for many.

The word rightly rendered ransom, is primarily a price made for deliverance, and in this sense it is found in the Greek version of the Old Testament for the ransom which is accepted instead of a mans life in Exodus 21:30, for the price of redemption accepted as an equivalent for an unexpired term of service in Leviticus 25:50, for riches as the ransom of a mans life in Proverbs 13:8.

No shade of doubt accordingly rests on the meaning of the word. Those who heard could attach no other meaning to it than that He who spake them was about to offer up His life that others might be delivered. Seldom, perhaps, has a truth of such profound import been spoken, as it were, so incidentally. It is as if the words had been drawn from Him by the contrast between the disputes of the disciples and the work which had occupied His own thoughts as He walked on in silent solitude in advance of them.

It is the first distinct utterance, we may note, of the plan and method of His work. He had spoken before of saving the lost (Matthew 18:11): now He declares that the work of salvation was to be also one of redemption. It could only be accomplished by the payment of a price, and that price was His own life.

The language of the Epistles as to the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, our being bought with a price (Romans 3:24; 1Corinthians 6:20), redeemed by His precious blood (1Peter 1:19), the language of all Christendom in speaking of the Christ as our Redeemer, are the natural developments of that one pregnant word. The extent of the redemptive work, for many, is here indefinite rather than universal, but the ransom for all of 1Timothy 2:6 shows in what sense it was received by those whom the Spirit of God was guiding into all truth.

Even the preposition in, for many has a more distinct import than is given in the English version. It was, strictly speaking, a ransom instead of, in the place of, ( not ) many. Without stating a theory of the atonement, it implied that our Lords death was, in some way, representative and vicarious; and the same thought is expressed by St. Pauls choice of the compound substantive , when, using a different preposition, he speaks of it as a ransom for (, i.e., on behalf of) all men (1Timothy 2:6).

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 11 by Elijah John]

It is not a question of "if" Jesus did teach this. The Jesus as presented in scripture DID teach of the atoning value of his blood sacrifice, this is a fact. One has therefore a choice to make, either dismiss this as and "interpolation", a corruption in scripture and proceed to built ones personal theology based on this decision or accept this as true even if it may be to ones personal disliking.

One can only find the body of truth as presented in scripture by accepting and keeping each individual fact once it is established to be so and seeking to fit the pieces together that we KNOW are part of the picture. When you have built a corner in a puzzle you don't say "if" that is a corner where does *this* piece go? you say, okay, we have a corner, where does this other piece go in relation to what I know to be true? In other words, ONLY by accepting that Christ did teach this and being willing to keep that fact as true no matter what, can one ever hope to get the whole picture, not only of the teachings of Christ but of the whole bible.

Some teachings are central, this happens to be one of them; it is if you like, a corner (Ephesians 2:19).

[Elijah John]

Some teachings are central, this happens to be one of them; it is if you like, a corner (Ephesians 2:19).

If blood atonement is as essential as you say, they why didn't Jesus repeat and emphasize it, over and over again?

Not asking about Paul, I'm asking about Jesus.

Paul may have theorized and emphasized blood atonement, Jesus did not.

Jesus preached God and his mercy. Paul preached Jesus. I don't think Paul preached the name of God. King David did, the Prophets did, Jesus did. Paul is no prophet, but merely a pastor, preacher and theologian.

It seems odd to me that someone who appreciates and understands the importance of the name of God would (not you in particular necessarily, but Jehovah's Witnesses in general) give much creedence to the theological speculation of someone who considers the name of Jesus more important then the name of Jehovah. (as Paul seems to).

And someone who considers Roman Catholicism a false religion (as JWs do) to embrace the letters of Paul even over the teachings of Jesus. Remember it was Church councils under the jurisdiction of the Pope who compiled the canon of scripture as we know it today, and included the letters of Paul, and made Paul's teachings of blood atonement central to their own doctrine. (ie, the Eucharist)

Paul, someone who twisted and appropriated YHVH's prophecy through Isaiah about YHVH's name, and applied it to Jesus instead. Consider:

Isaiah 45.22-24, (ASV)

22 "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else. 23 By myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 24 Only in Jehovah, it is said of me, is righteousness and strength; ..."

Notice YHVH through Isaiah DIDN'T say, "every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Only in Jehovah and Jesus...

Notice Jehovah said "only", and I understand that you do not believe Jesus is Jehovah.

Instead of Jehovah, Paul has every knee bending to Jesus and every tongue confessing Jesus, not Jehovah. Compare:

Philippians 2.10-11 (ASV)

9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; 10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and [a]things under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Above every name, even above the name of God Himself, Jehovah? What was Paul thinking??? (not a rhetorical question)

So again, I ask you. Whose teaching should be considered more important, Jesus who preached the name of the Father, or Paul, who preached the name of Jesus?

Why did Jesus leave the supposed centrality of teaching blood atonement to Paul, if indeed Jesus taught it at all?

Why wouldn't that have been so important to his contemporary disciples that he didn't repeat it, emphasize it, and expound on it, the way Paul did?

If that doctrine was something that Jesus actually taught, why only say it once or twice in passing if it were so important for his disciples to understand that salvation was to be obtained by being "washed in the blood" and believing that Jesus was going to die to "pay for" their sins?

Instead, Jesus taught "God be merciful to me a sinner", "forgive as we forgive", "blessed are the merciful (not "blessed are the blood-washed") for they shall receive mercy", the parable of the Prodigal Son and "I desire mercy, NOT sacrifice".

[JehovahsWitness]

Some teachings are central, this happens to be one of them; it is if you like, a corner (Ephesians 2:19).

If blood atonement is as essential as you say, they why didn't Jesus repeat and emphasize it, over and over again?

I have answered this question here (post #2)

[JehovahsWitness]

Not asking about Paul, I'm asking about Jesus.

Fine, then let's not talk about Paul; so... what do you make of the scriptures that refer to the words of Jesus? Interpolations (by the writers of Matthew, Mark and Luke) ?

JW

[Elijah John]

Not asking about Paul, I'm asking about Jesus.

Fine, then let's not talk about Paul; so... what do you make of the scriptures that refer to the words of Jesus? Interpolations (by the writers of Matthew, Mark and Luke) ?

JW

Most likely scenario, #1, consider:

Jesus began his ministry not realizing the consequences that preaching against the Temple (and ultimately turning over the tables) would get him killed.

He began his ministry by teaching the Father's non-bloody mercy until he realized the growing opposition from the Temple authorities and Rome were about to get him arrested and executed.

By the time of the Last Supper, Jesus realized his fate and incorporated his impending martyrdom into the process of atonement.

OR

(scenario 2)

Since the New Testament was written in retrospect of the events they depict, they were written to make sense of the death of a "failed Messiah" (who was supposed to be a triumphant King and not an executed criminal or martyr) and attach new meaning and theological significance to his death.

Now how about you, how do you reconcile Jesus' NON-bloody mercy teachings with "his" blood atonement teachings?

Again, "forgive as we forgive" and "I desire mercy, NOT sacrifice" etc., etc.

Remember, Jesus said of those unwilling to forgive:

"if you do NOT forgive, neither will my Father forgive you"

Jesus did not make an exemption for the "blood-washed" believer.

[JehovahsWitness]

By the time of the Last Supper, Jesus realized his fate and incorporated his impending martyrdom into the process of atonement.

So now that Jesus has incorporated blood sacrifice into the process of atonement, are you going to accept his decision and incorporate it into your beliefs as he did?

[polonius]

By the time of the Last Supper, Jesus realized his fate and incorporated his impending martyrdom into the process of atonement.

So now that Jesus has incorporated blood sacrifice into the process of atonement, are you going to accept his decision and incorporate it into your beliefs as he did?

RESPONSE: Let's look at the dating involved.

Elijah John wrote:


By the time of the Last Supper, Jesus realized his fate and incorporated his impending martyrdom into the process of atonement.


JW wrote:

So now that Jesus has incorporated blood sacrifice into the process of atonement, are you going to accept his decision and incorporate it into your beliefs as he did?

QUESTIONS:

When did Jesus (who was crucified between 30 and 33 AD) incorporate his impending martyrdom (prediction) into the process of atonement? It show up in Matthews gospel written 50 or more years after the event.


And it doesnt show up in Pauls 1 Timothy written 130-155 CE or 66 -90 years after Pauls death. Or, perhaps Irenaeus is correct and it was about 115 years after Pauls death.

How many prophecies actually are reported before the event they are claimed to have foretold?

See regarding 1 Timothy: Secular historians generally place its (1 Timothys) composition some time in the late 1st century or first half of the 2nd century CE, with a wide margin of uncertainty. The text seems to be contending against nascent Gnosticism (1 Tim 1:4, 1 Tim 4:3)[15] (see Encratism), which would suggest a later date due to Gnosticism developing primarily in the latter 1st century. The term Gnosis ("knowledge") itself occurs in 1 Timothy 6:20.[16] If the parallels between 1 Timothy and Polycarp's epistle are understood as a literary dependence by the latter on the former, as is generally accepted,[6] this would constitute a terminus ante quem of 130"155 CE. However, Irenaeus (writing c. 180 CE) is the earliest author to clearly and unequivocally describe the Pastorals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epi ... mothy#Date

[JehovahsWitness]

Now how about you, how do you reconcile Jesus' NON-bloody mercy teachings with "his" blood atonement teachings? .... "I desire mercy, NOT sacrifice"

QUESTION: Did the fact that Jesus quoted Hosea 6:6 effectively constitute a revoking of the laws which established a temple based system of sacrifice?

Jesus twice quoted Hosea 6:6 which reads as follows:

"For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." - NIV

However, never once did Jesus do so in the context of whether or not sacrifices should literally be offered. Both quotation were to the religious leaders of his day, who scrupiously kept the Mosaic law (which included ritualistic sacrifices) but did not do so from a place of love or moral excellence.

Notice Jesus words in MATTHEW 9:13 Jesus said: "Go, then, and learn what this means: I want mercy, and not sacrifice. For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners. Notice Jesus is not apply Hosea 6:6 to the ceasing of offering sacrifices but his application was to be merciful to sinners? In short he did NOT say "Go, then, and learn what this means: I want mercy, and not sacrifice. For I don't want you to make any sacrifices any more".

And again at MATTHEW 12: 7: where Jesus declared "However, if you had understood what this means, I want mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless ones." Notice Jesus didn NOT say "if you had understood what [Hosea 6:6] means, you would not have still been offering blood sacrifices." Jesus implied the MEANING of Hosea is not to "condemn the guiltless ones". In other words, Hosea is not about discouraging the use of sacrifices, it meaning was about encouraging mercy and love along with those sacrifices.


CONCLUSION: To use Jesus' reference to Hosea 6:6 as support for the discontinuation of the Mosaic laws on sacrifices is to disregard his (Jesus') own conclusions as to the point of Hosea's words. Both Hosea and Jesus were merely highlighting that sacrifices made by those that are immoral or dismissive of Divine values have invalidated their sacrifices in the eyes of God.