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?

[2timothy316]

Also, I'd like to see some evidence that Jesus death is in anyway a pagan practice. Because the death of Jesus was foretold in Genesis with the strike to the heel. Jesus was harmed but it wasn't even close to the 'deathblow'. However, the true deathblow will come to Satan's head. There will be no recovery from this blow to the head. That is true death. We need to have the same perspective of death as God has. It's only permanent if He wants it to be. (Genesis 3:15) We also need to keep in mind it wasn't Jesus' Father that killed Jesus. It was wicked men. Jehovah used these wicked minded people in his purpose. Romans 9:21 "Does not the potter have authority over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for an honorable use, another for a dishonorable use?"

[Elijah John]

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.

Not targeting JWs for the theology of blood sacrifice. Just want to make that clear. I realize Trinitarians also embrace blood theology.

Just saying that the JW embrace of blood sacrifice amounts to the embrace of human sacrifice as JW's do not believe Jesus to be God, but entirely human, and yet still embrace his martydom as an "atoning sacrifice for sins".

Trinitarians, by contrast, see Jesus martyrdom on the cross as "God sacrificing Himself to himself.

I reject BOTH points of view, JW's and Trinitarians.

Also, what is a "historical fact" as you say? That Jesus was executed on the cross, or that the death was an "atonement".

If the former, I agree with you. if the latter, that is theological speculation and a matter of faith not historical fact.

[otseng]

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

Moderator Comment

You need to be careful here in your wording. This can be interpreted that other posters are not honoring God and lying.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 12 by Elijah John]

Also, what is a "historical fact" as you say? That Jesus was executed on the cross, or that the death was an "atonement".

If the former, I agree with you. if the latter, that is theological speculation and a matter of faith not historical fact.

What it is is prophecy fulfilled.

Isaiah 53

4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.


There is much more in the entire passage.

It is clearly talking about one innocent man who will die for the sheep who have gone astray, and that is "us all".

This Isaiah passage would have had a prominent place in what Jesus shared with his disciples after he rose again.

Luke 24

25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?�
27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?�

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 14 by Checkpoint]

That "fulfillment" is theological interpretation, not necessarily historical fact.

[JLB32168]

I agree that God sacrificing Himself to Himself – aside from making no sense, is simply abhorrent. God stayed Abraham from sacrificing Isaac. St. Gregory the Theologican says, “Why then should be blood of His only begotten Son please the Father, who would not even receive Isaac when he was offered as a whole burnt offering by Abraham, but replaced the human sacrifice with a ram?�

Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t paid to anyone – just as a soldier sacrifices himself by throwing himself on a grenade isn’t sacrificing himself to anyone but does it to save the lives of his fellow human beings.

[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.

I feel I must clarify here, I was not saying that YOU (the poster) is misreprenting God or lying about him, just as I am confident you are not saying that those that believe in human blood sacrifice (like myself) are misrepresenting God.

In a similar vein, we of course cannot establish scientifically who would be "lying" but the by definition a lie about God one would assumbe be displeasing to Him (unless his was enamoured of lies, which it is generally agreed the God of the bible is not). What I was trying to say, and I will clarify to avoid offense is, in answering the question "what is the best way to honor God" I approached the point first by saying "avoid the things that dishonour him" (lying, blasphemy, immorality, etc) I was not suggesting that the YOU the OP were engaging in any of these things.


JW

[Elijah John]

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.

I feel I must clarify here, I was not saying that YOU (the poster) is misreprenting God or lying about him, just as I am confident you are not saying that those that believe in human blood sacrifice (like myself) are misrepresenting God.

In a similar vein, we of course cannot establish scientifically who would be "lying" but the by definition a lie about God one would assumbe be displeasing to Him (unless his was enamoured of lies, which it is generally agreed the God of the bible is not). What I was trying to say, and I will clarify to avoid offense is, in answering the question "what is the best way to honor God" I approached the point first by saying "avoid the things that dishonour him" (lying, blasphemy, immorality, etc) I was not suggesting that the YOU the OP were engaging in any of these things.


JW

Thanks for the clarification. And allow me to also clarifiy. In all my posts here, I do not mean to suggest that those with traditional views regarding blood atonement are Biblically "wrong". That theme of blood atonement is certainly there in both Testaments.

My contention is there exists a counter-theme that is also Biblical, namely forgiveness through simple repentance, that was taught by the Prophets, John the Baptist, and arguably Jesus himself. (The Lord's prayer, the Beattitudes, and the Parables).

And I never mean to suggest that those who differ with the interpretation I have chosen are "unsaved" or anything like that.

I believe God's grace and mercy transcends our understanding of doctrine and theology, and that He is always more concerned with attitudes of the heart towards Him and towards our fellow humans, than He is about getting our "dogma right".