Roman executioner's are not priests,

[Elijah John]

Roman executioners are not priests, and the cross is not an altar. So how can Jesus execution be considered a "payment for sin"? In any kind of a theologically legal sense, that is.

If Jesus death is truly a legal "payment for sin" as Paul seems to teach, and as Jehovah's Witnesses claim, (ransom), then wouldn't his death have to be performed on the Temple altar, at the hands of a Jewish priest?

1) Is the idea of Jesus death as a "payment for sin" anything more than a metaphor? A metaphor that is useful for Paul and his followers, but not for everyone.

2) Is the notion of Jesus martyrdom as a "payment for sin" Divine revelation? Or theological speculation.

3) Seems Paul wanted to play the legal, Priestly game in regard to Jesus death, so why wouldn't the legal, priestly rules have disqualified his interpretations?

4) Is Pauline blood-atonement theology legalistic?

5) Would Jesus have approved of such a legalistic approach?

Please address any combination of the above.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 20 by marco]

While I would agree in general with tam's definition of a covenant (ie that covenants always involved two or more parties), biblically speaking a covanant does not always put both paries under obligations. Covenants can be d be either unilateral (where the party on one side was solely responsible to carry out the terms) or bilateral (where parties on both sides had terms to carry out). The "rainbow covenant" is a unilateral covenant (which is why God could make it with animals who cannot agree to anything) as well as Noah. You will notice all the terms in the covenant are personal on God's side since he is the only one that put himself under any obligation for action and/or to refrain from (a) certain(s) action.


FURTHER READING
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200271442#h=20

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 20 by marco]


QUESTION: Does the loss of life in floods and Tsunamis prove God has broken his "rainbow covenant" ?

No, if we take a look at the original Hebrew in verse 15b (where God specifically words his intentions) the words are as follows

"never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh" - NASB

If the "to" in "to destroy" is taken as an infinitive of purpose, then the clause can be understood that never again shall flood waters be sent for the intended purpose of destroying all flesh. God has indeed honored this covenant; he has never since sent flood waters with the intention of wiping all life from the planet.

Other translations read:

And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. - ESV

water will never again become a flood to destroy every creature. - Holman Christian Standard Bible

various other translations
http://biblehub.com/genesis/9-15.htm

DOES GOD CAUSE FLOODS

Although God can and has controlled the elements in bible times, it would be a mistake to conclude that ALL floods and Tsuenamis throughout history (many of which result in loss of life) are manifestations of divine retribution. Natural disasters such as floods and Tsuenamis are a part of the earth's "natural" weather patterns and are not comparable to the events in Genesis.



JW


FURTHER READING Are Natural Disasters Punishment From God?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... unishment/

RELATED THREADS


What were the reasons for the flood in Noah's day?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 011#890011

Who were the Nephlim mentioned in the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 690#875690

Does the bible not say God will burn up the earth?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 703#813703

[marco]

[[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/

"never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh" - NASB

If the "to" in "to destroy" is taken as an infinitive of purpose,

I absolutely love this and commend whoever buried into the statement to extract an infinitive of purpose. An alternative would have been to point out that not "all" flesh was destroyed but that would have introduced the question: When was the last time ALL flesh was destroyed? So the safer argument is the infinitive of purpose.

What a legalistic mind Jehovah had. He is lucky to have such clever interpreters. Incidentally, yesterday I was given Awake! by two lovely ladies and I have read it from cover to cover; much of which I agree with, surprisingly.

[tam]

[Replying to post 20 by marco]

While I would agree in general with tam's definition of a covenant (ie that covenants always involved two or more parties), biblically speaking a covanant does not always put both paries under obligations. Covenants can be d be either unilateral (where the party on one side was solely responsible to carry out the terms) or bilateral (where parties on both sides had terms to carry out). The "rainbow covenant" is a unilateral covenant (which is why God could make it with animals who cannot agree to anything) as well as Noah. You will notice all the terms in the covenant are personal on God's side since he is the only one that put himself under any obligation for action and/or to refrain from (a) certain(s) action.


FURTHER READING
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200271442#h=20

Thank you! (and thank you Marco for pointing Noah out.) I had forgotten about unilateral covenants/contracts.

(Just as a side note, I would suggest that animals are able to agree or disagree; as well as obey or disobey; praise JAH or refrain. The blood speaks - and animals have blood. We may not be able to hear them in that way, but God can. So the communication may simply be on a level that we do not understand. But that is another thread and I do not want to derail this one, especially since the point was on the issue of legality.)


Peace to you and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[polonius]

JW posted:

Is the idea of Jesus death as a "payment for sin" anything more than a metaphor? A metaphor that is useful for Paul and his followers, but not for everyone.

Yes, its not for everyone. It's not for atheists and people that don't believe the testimony of the Apostle Peter.

1. Jesus was executed by the Roman authorities for insurrection, allowing it to be believed that he was the messiah who who would return the rule to Israel. Note the document "King of the Jews" was affixed to his cross.

2. What "testimony" do you have otherwise from the Apostle Peter? Didn't the "atonement" idea start with Paul?

[JehovahsWitness]

JW posted:

Is the idea of Jesus death as a "payment for sin" anything more than a metaphor? A metaphor that is useful for Paul and his followers, but not for everyone.

Yes, its not for everyone. It's not for atheists and people that don't believe the testimony of the Apostle Peter.

1. Jesus was executed by the Roman authorities for insurrection, allowing it to be believed that he was the messiah who who would return the rule to Israel. Note the document "King of the Jews" was affixed to his cross.

2. What "testimony" do you have otherwise from the Apostle Peter? Didn't the "atonement" idea start with Paul?

I didn't post the above. The only thing I posted was the following:

Yes, its not for everyone. It's not for atheists and people that don't believe the testimony of the Apostle Peter.

Maybe it would be an idea to use quotation marks following a statement such as

JW posted : <- followed by a colon




Jehovahs Witness

[polonius]

Correction of post #26

JP posted

I didn't post the above. The only thing I posted was the following:

Yes, its not for everyone. It's not for atheists and people that don't believe the testimony of the Apostle Peter.

Question: What specific "testimony of the Apostle Peter" are you referring to?