Jehovah's Witnesses

[Elijah John]

At least Evangelicals believing Jesus to be "God" conclude basically that God sacrifices Himself, TO Himself.

That shields Evangelicals from the charge of condoning human sacrifice.

Not so with Jehovah's Witnesses. They believe Jesus to be entirely human, yet they believe his martydom was a blood sacfrice to Jehovah

Now we know that Jehovah's Witnesses do not condone the general and systematic sacrifice of human beings, as did say the ancient Azetcs to appease their gods.

For debate:

a) Does the belief that Jesus was Michael the Archangel before his incarnation shield the JWs from the charge of condoning a one-time, human sacrifice?

b) And is this one-off human sacrifice the best way to honor Jehovah?

c) Or would it do more honor to Jehovah to consider that Jehovah "desires mercy NOT sacrifice"? To see Him as a wise, just and merciful Father who does not need blood in order to forgive?

[onewithhim]

At least Evangelicals believing Jesus to be "God" conclude basically that God sacrifices Himself, TO Himself.

That shields Evangelicals from the charge of condoning human sacrifice.

Not so with Jehovah's Witnesses. They believe Jesus to be entirely human, yet they believe his martydom was a blood sacfrice to Jehovah

Now we know that Jehovah's Witnesses do not condone the general and systematic sacrifice of human beings, as did say the ancient Azetcs to appease their gods.

God sacrificing Himself TO Himself is ridiculous, really. There is no sense in that at all, I'm sorry.

JWs do believe that Jesus truly was human, otherwise his "corresponding sacrifice" wouldn't have meant anything. (See Romans 5:15,17-19.) He is actually referred to as "the last Adam," because the Savior had to be equal to Adam (before Adam rebelled)---perfect and sinless. (See I Corinthians 15:45; also verse 22.)

[onewithhim]

For debate:

a) Does the belief that Jesus was Michael the Archangel before his incarnation shield the JWs from the charge of condoning a one-time, human sacrifice?

b) And is this one-off human sacrifice the best way to honor Jehovah?

c) Or would it do more honor to Jehovah to consider that Jehovah "desires mercy NOT sacrifice"? To see Him as a wise, just and merciful Father who does not need blood in order to forgive?

In answer to....(a) I have never heard that line of thinking. Regardless, JWs have seen in the Scriptures that blood is sacred to Jehovah, it represents the life of an individual; He has a certain view of blood, and it's His prerogative to make any law He desires in respect to blood. (See Leviticus 17:11,14; Hebrews 9:22.)

(b) All I can say is that Jesus thought so. We honor his sacrifice because he made that sacrifice with specific intentions & according to the will of God. Whether or not we individually feel that bloody sacrifices are acceptable to our fragile sensibilities, the fact remains that Jesus did it, and we are in awe of his great love for God and for the human race to have done that.

[Elijah John]

At least Evangelicals believing Jesus to be "God" conclude basically that God sacrifices Himself, TO Himself.

That shields Evangelicals from the charge of condoning human sacrifice.

Not so with Jehovah's Witnesses. They believe Jesus to be entirely human, yet they believe his martydom was a blood sacfrice to Jehovah

Now we know that Jehovah's Witnesses do not condone the general and systematic sacrifice of human beings, as did say the ancient Azetcs to appease their gods.

God sacrificing Himself TO Himself is ridiculous, really. There is no sense in that at all, I'm sorry.

I actually agree with you there, it is a ridiculous notion. But the disturbing alternative is human sacrifice, albeit a unique single human sacrifice in Jesus.

Unless of course one wants to heed Micah 6.6-6.8 and Hosea 6.6 and many other verses that indicate Jehovah does not need, nor does He demand blood at all, human or animal.

And Jesus too, taught bloodless forgiveness during his lifetime in the Lord's prayer, the Beattitudes, and the Parables. Jesus taught that God is a forgiving Father.

[onewithhim]

At least Evangelicals believing Jesus to be "God" conclude basically that God sacrifices Himself, TO Himself.

That shields Evangelicals from the charge of condoning human sacrifice.

Not so with Jehovah's Witnesses. They believe Jesus to be entirely human, yet they believe his martydom was a blood sacfrice to Jehovah

Now we know that Jehovah's Witnesses do not condone the general and systematic sacrifice of human beings, as did say the ancient Azetcs to appease their gods.

God sacrificing Himself TO Himself is ridiculous, really. There is no sense in that at all, I'm sorry.

I actually agree with you there, it is a ridiculous notion. But the disturbing alternative is human sacrifice, albeit a unique single human sacrifice in Jesus.

Unless of course one wants to heed Micah 6.6-6.8 and Hosea 6.6 and many other verses that indicate Jehovah does not need, nor does He demand blood at all, human or animal.

And Jesus too, taught bloodless forgiveness during his lifetime in the Lord's prayer, the Beattitudes, and the Parables. Jesus taught that God is a forgiving Father.

Yes, he did teach that God is a forgiving Father. By the same token, he did die and he believed that he was doing it for the redemption of the human race. (Matthew 20:28)

[JehovahsWitness]

a) Does the belief that Jesus was Michael the Archangel before his incarnation shield the JWs from the charge of condoning a one-time, human sacrifice?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't WANT to be "shielded" from "the charge of condoning a one-time, human sacrifice" any implication that accepting the ransom sacrifice of Jesus is negative is entirely in the mind of those that believe such a thing is "accusatory" rather than God's means for salvation.

Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only Christians that totally embrasse the notion of Jesus sacrifice, indeed the blood of Jesus (as representative of his life sacrifice) is absolutely fundamental to the faith of JWs. We believe it to be the basis for the forgiveness of our sins, the possibility of a relationships with God and the basis of our hope for eternal life.


Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the fact that Jesus (The Word) had a pre-human existence (and evidently a different name "Michael") does not negate the value or merit of his sacrifice or mean that he was not "100% human" while on earth.

[JehovahsWitness]

b) And is this one-off human sacrifice the best way to honor Jehovah?

The best way to "honor Jehovah" is to obey him. Jesus was asked by God to do something wholely unique in human history, that is to be born as a human and offer his life as a ransom for mankind. He honoured God by obeying him and fullfilling that commission.

No human is asked to offer their life as a ransom for mankind but Jesus did indicate that the Christian course would involve personal hardship and sacrifice (see Mat 16:24 Lk 9 : 23-27). The best way to honour God is to live up to ones Christian dedication no matter what the cost, and recognize that even if one were to die rather then violate ones Christian conscience, God never forgets those that are loyal to his name and purpose and will reward those like the Apostle Peter, Paul, first century Christians and others even in our modern age that were killed by opponents or died because they wanted to remain faithful to God.

All such deaths are viewed by God as "sacrifices" and will not be forgotten (see Rev 6: 9, 10; Heb 11:6).


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

c) Or would it do more honor to ... see Him as a wise, just and merciful Father who does not need blood in order to forgive?

c) Or would it do more honor to Jehovah [...]to see Him as a wise, just and merciful Father who does not need blood in order to forgive?

It would NOT honour God to misrepresent him or to lie about information He has communicated to mankind.

God is both merciful Father AND a righteous judge. His wisdom is expressed in how he has put in place an arrangement to save mankind from adamic sin and death while at the same time respecting his own righteous standards. Since the ransom is central to this salvation, it would be God DIS-honoring to attempt to ignore or down play its import. To ignore or worse attempt to argue that the ransom is immoral, illogical or unnecessary would be grossly disrespectful to Jehovah. To reject the sacrifice his beloved son made on our behalf, and to knowingly fail to obey the command to commemorate and recognize Jesus' blood sacrifice as he (Jesus) explicitly requested on the last night of his life, would be to court Jehovah's displeasure.

On one of the few occassions Jehovah literally spoke from heaven he said "This is my son, listen to him". It is god-dishonoring to fail to listen to Jesus' explainations as to his ultimate purpose for coming to the earth ie to offer up his life in behalf of mankind

MARK 10: 45
For even the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.� NWT

LUKE 22:20
Likewise, he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. NHE Bible

JOHN 1:29
On the next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! NET Bible

1 PETER 2:24
and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross*, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. AMSB
* other translations "tree/stake"

ROMANS 5: 7, 8
"God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.� - NWT

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 7 by JehovahsWitness]

In that sense, I see how your interpretation makes sense. But that's not exactly the sense of the word 'sacrifice" as it is used in the sacrificial system, or with Paul's blood atonement theology. Jesus was supposed to be an extension or a fulfillment of the sacrificial system, according to Paul and Hebrews, right? A replacement, perhaps.

But what you are describing sounds more like heroic martyrdom than it does appeasement, blood-satisfaction sacrifice.

Yes, martyrdom for Jehovah's cause is the ultimate honor a human can demonstrate towards Jehovah, but short of that, a contrite heart towards the Father. Or mercy, NOT sacrifice.*

Appeasement is the pagan way, not Jehovah's way*. And blood transaction is legalism, not grace.

[2timothy316]

Jehovah's Witnesses don't WANT to be "shielded" from "the charge of condoning a one-time, human sacrifice" any implication that accepting the ransom sacrifice of Jesus is negative is entirely in the mind of those that believe such a thing is "accusatory" rather than God's means for salvation.

Yes!
I find it interesting that JWs are being targeted for simply pointing out something that is already historical fact. To us it's like pointing at a mountain and saying 'this mountain predates all mankind, and now the snow that melts from it serves to bring life giving water to millions of people'. Then person next to us says, 'Why do you hate mankind by pointing out at one time they didn't exist? Why do you believe that way?' Meanwhile we are like, 'uh, what?'

Like JWs have a choice as to how things unfolded in God's plan. Jesus willingly gave his life. It's fact. What do JWs (and an uncountable number of non-JWs) and their acceptance of this fact have to do with really, anything? Like if we deny it, somehow it will change the past.

We can't let our flawed sense of human justice allow us to be sad for Jehovah or Jesus. Jesus didn't die for nothing. Nor is he still dead. He is alive and because of his loyalty has been given authority over both Heaven and the Earth. Why ignore the good Jesus' death brought and focus only what mankind did to the Son of God? We either accept what Jehovah and Jesus did was in the best interest of all creation or not. What we accept will not change historical facts.