Is everything connected to the crucifixion?

[Elijah John]

John 10.10

Thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.

I hear from Evangelicals phrases such as:

"This is not the abundant life that Jesus died to give you"

Or

"Jesus didn't die so we would be poor"

Or

"Jesus didn't die so we would be sick"

Or

"Jesus didn't' die so we would be lonely."

They say that Jesus died so we could have the abundant life.

But the verse doesn't say anything about him dying to give us all those things.

It only says he came to that we may have the abundant life.

For debate, why do Evangelicals tie everything to the crucifixion?

Couldn't Jesus have meant that he came that we may have abundant life by means of accepting the forgiveness that he proclaimed on the Father's behalf?

Or the faith that he demonstrated?

Or by means of the Wisdom that he taught?

[Divine Insight]

I have always rejected this Old Testament idea from the very beginning, because I felt that the very idea of atoning sins by killing an animal is already absurd. I would expect an intelligent God to demand restitution rather than giving amnesty if an mere animal is sacrificed on behalf of the sinner. A rich man can atone a whale of a lot of sin by just having a sacrificial feast of his livestock ever so often.

A poor many who doesn't own an unblemished animal would need to die for his sins.

It already doesn't add up.

Once again, you misstate the case. Adonai does demand restitution. The sacrifice is a memorial acknowledgement of HaTorah, not an equity remedy. Also, the poor are granted the opportunity to provide a lesser sacrifice, i.e. doves.

What?

Where in the Bible does it say that a man can atone for his own sins via his own restitution?

Show me.

If that were the case there would be no need for Christ to die to pay for the sins of men since men could make restitution for their own sins.

You people constantly misrepresent the Biblical paradigm and the demands of Christianity.

Christianity DOES NOT ALLOW for us to make our own restitution for our sin.

If that were permitted it would be a whole different religion. And there would be no need for everyone to accept Christ as their "savior" since they could redeem themselves via their own restitution.

You people constantly make apologies for this religion that aren't even compatible with the religion at all.

[marco]

He could have, but there is no need to speculate.

He told us plainly and clearly in the surrounding verses.


..... I am the door. ..... The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy ...... I am the good shepherd. ......... just as the Father knows me and I know the Father

We can say these are metaphors for something but we most certainly cannot say they are plain and clear. To complicate our clarity, the metaphors are mixed, for a door isn't a shepherd. We can figure out that he's saying he's some sort of means to an end or that he pays close attention to people who are rather like foolish sheep. Or we could construe that he's been put in charge by God whom he metaphorically calls his father. And where does the thief come in? To steal the sheep? What is the antithesis of thief? No -it is all a mess of metaphor, ripe for any interpretation.

[marco]

Yes, absolutely EVERYTHING!

Well, that's it then, we can all go home happy. Just because we take an interpretation from some verses does not mean our interpretation is correct, however loudly we announce it.

Jesus himself said the law and the prophets were about him. The temple was about him. Every promise in the bible is about him and not one could be fulfilled without the ransom. The ransom the single most important event in human history and there will be no everlasting life for anyone that does not recognise this (see John 17:3; John 10:10).

Yes, Jesus said variously he was a door, a shepherd, a vine .... but he did not add full notes to explain his metaphors. The word "kingdom" is also a metaphor, since it annexes a human idea of kingly leadership; the word "Father" is a metaphor.

For any phrase that suggests that crucifixion was the way to our eternal life (rather than just plain Jesus being the way, as one might suppose) we can search around for phrases that offer a different route to the empire, the state or the kingdom. The reason we are able to discuss here is that things are completely unclear, and Tom, Dick and Harry can all go off content with their own interpretations. As they do!

If something was "the most important event in human history" it would be clearer than clear -not just some random viewpoint.

[Checkpoint]

He could have, but there is no need to speculate.

He told us plainly and clearly in the surrounding verses.


..... I am the door. ..... The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy ...... I am the good shepherd. ......... just as the Father knows me and I know the Father

We can say these are metaphors for something but we most certainly cannot say they are plain and clear. To complicate our clarity, the metaphors are mixed, for a door isn't a shepherd. We can figure out that he's saying he's some sort of means to an end or that he pays close attention to people who are rather like foolish sheep. Or we could construe that he's been put in charge by God whom he metaphorically calls his father. And where does the thief come in? To steal the sheep? What is the antithesis of thief? No -it is all a mess of metaphor, ripe for any interpretation.

How interesting.

Your post completely ignores what I put in bold in the post you were answering.

[Elijah John]

John 10.10

Thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.

Is everything connected to the ransom sacrifice of Jesus?

Yes, absolutely EVERYTHING!

It is the reason Jesus came to earth.

It is the basis for the kingdom.

And the kingdom is the meaning by which Jehovah’s name will be vindicated

Jesus himself said the law and the prophets were about him. The temple was about him. Every promise in the bible is about him and not one could be fulfilled without the ransom. The ransom the single most important event in human history and there will be no everlasting life for anyone that does not recognise this (see John 17:3; John 10:10).

Sorry, those verses say NOTHING about "the ransom" or excluding others.

And as the promises of the "Old" Testament are appropriated (borrowed?) by NT Christians, you seriously say they don't apply to OT believers, ie Jews and others as well? Or for those who don't believe in Jesus the same way you do?

And no, every promise in the Bible is NOT about Jesus and the "ransom".

So what if it turns out there is no literal Adam and Eve? Then there is no Garden fall, no "original sin" no first Adam, so no "2nd Adam" either.

What happens to your ransom theory then? It's foundation is myth, pure myth, a shaky one at that.

And if you folks don't believe Jesus was God, then how is your belief that he died as a sacrifice to "pay for" our sins, NOT the advocacy of human sacrifice?

At least in that one particular instance.

It's one thing to see absurdities and atrocities as the road to Heaven, (eternal life) quite another to close the road (in one's imagination) to folks who find God in other ways and look down on them as "lost".

Sorry, you JWs and Evangelicals don't own God or have a patent on Him. For EVERYONE who calls on the name of YHVH will be saved. And then some. We don't know, only God knows a person's heart.

The Hebrew Bible says that YHVH forgives the contrite for His own sake and His Name's sake before Paul even dreamed up his human-sacrifice, blood atonement theology!

That metaphor may work for him to make him feel closer to God, and it may work for you, but it is not a "one size fits all", and does not work for everyone.

You cannot prove that your group possesses the only "true worship acceptable to God".

You may believe it, but you cannot prove it.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

You are right I am stating my BELIEFS and I believe that the bible absolutely PROVES this to be true. and that the Scriptures sited prove my point entirely. Naturally since we are talking about beliefs there is no burden of proof. Still it only fair I explain WHY I believe as I do which, as I implied earlier is because of how I understand scripture (scriptures above)


If you think my beliefs are absurd and don't accept how I interpret scripture, you are free to say so, I am not here to impose my view on anyone. I believe what Jehovah's Witnesses do proves them to be God's people and the only organisation that has God's backing on earth today. I repeat I believe it is PROOF, I believe it does indeed demonstrate the truth of our statements BUT THESE ARE BELIEFS. I acknowlwdge that believing something doesn't make it true.

I have shared my OPINION on scripture, and beliefs about what that proves, is that against the rules?


NOTE You can take the above to apply to whenever I express personal belief and opinion.

[JehovahsWitness]

And no, every promise in the Bible is NOT about Jesus and the "ransom".

Yes every promise in the Bible IS about Jesus and the "ransom". In that they all relate to it and none of the promises in the bible would be possible without it. (And Adam and Eve were literal people because Jesus referred to them as such)

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

It's one thing to see absurdities and atrocities as the road to Heaven, (eternal life) quite another to close the road (in one's imagination) to folks who find God in other ways and look down on them as "lost".

Who are you the "Imagination Police"?!

People have the right to their own thoughts, dreams and imaginations and yes...even beliefs. In fact they are free to look down on others if they choose. If you feel there are people running around in possession of with "illegal imagination" ... call a cop. Lobby your local congressman but last I heard, we live in a world where no one can police another person's thoughts.


Die Gedanken Sind Frei my friend !

JW


[youtube][/youtube]

[JehovahsWitness]

If something was "the most important event in human history" it would be clearer than clear -not just some random viewpoint.

No I don't believe so, I think some of the most important events in history, those have had dramatic repercussions have taken place far from the view of public scrutiny and unperceived by the masses. Negotiation of treaties, forging of alliances ... and I'm a hopeless conspiracy theorist, so don't get me started on project paperclip and the black economy... anyway, Jehovah's Witnesses believe the ransom was absolutely cental to mankind's future and that it was indeed to date the most important event in human history.

Others of course are free to disagree, I should imagine an atheist would by default,

JW

[Checkpoint]

If something was "the most important event in human history" it would be clearer than clear -not just some random viewpoint.

No I don't believe so, I think some of the most important events in history, those have had dramatic repercussions have taken place far from the view of public scrutiny and unperceived by the masses. Negotiation of treaties, forging of alliances ... and I'm a hopeless conspiracy theorist, so don't get me started on project paperclip and the black economy... anyway, Jehovah's Witnesses believe the ransom was absolutely cental to mankind's future and that it was indeed to date the most important event in human history.

Others of course are free to disagree, I should imagine an atheist would by default,

JW

Seeing your phrase "the most important event in human history" rang a bell for me, and this post is to simply share that with you.

It is a song about "the greatest day in history".

You may like it or hate it, it may set your feet dancing or stamping, but what it has to convey is directly connected to what you have said.

Ransom includes its own result, the firstfruits...

Let's celebrate!