Thanks for your quick response TJ. You didn't reply my happy New Year wish; do I suppose you don't mark the beginning of the new year, and why, if I may?
While I find your argument in favour of the theory of collective resurrection in the second coming (if that's what you mean) as opposed to the theory of life after death in heaven or hell interesting and attractive (because I'd rather think about how to live rightly on earth than bother about the afterhere which is not so certain), my opinion on Jesus' status vis-vis Adam and the worth of His sacrifice is this: Though Jesus and Adam are invariably referred to the second and first Adam respectively, Jesus (the second Adam) was an extraordinary MAN; GOD who came in human form to reside amongst human beings whereas Adam was simply the first ordinary man ever created. The bible makes Jesus' Godly status clear when it says "I and the father are one" (Jesus speaking) (please help me find the bible verse if you can). In addition, if you believe in the Trinity you'd see that the inclusion of "son" amplifies Jesus' extraordinary status. Secondly, Adam sinned, reason why we're here today, at risk of penury, but Jesus did not sin, rather, he bore the sin and shame of the first Adam and his succeeding generations and atoned them ALL on Calvary.
As for the value of Jesus' death, he did not die simply to buy back what Adam lost, he came and died to show mankind the light to God. Jesus' himself declared "I am the way and the light, no one comes to the father except through me" (again you'll have to help me find the verse, not really a bible savvy). You'd remember that there was no middleman or necessity for sacrifice during Adam's stay in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve did not know suffering and in Eden, they lived the live God had wanted for man, until they sinned. Adam's sin to me, started the shedding of blood, as seen in the first animal killed to make clothing for them, whereas Jesus came to stop the shedding of animal blood for sacrifice because he was the ultimate sacrificial lamb. In essence, I am saying that the act of sinning and the (re)action (of atonement) are not proportionate: the worth of Jesus' sacrifice was worth more and by far accomplished more than just atoning for our sins. Thanks TJ, I should be interested in reading your thoughts on this. I am traveling for two days and I'm not going with my laptop, will be able to reply to any further posts on my blog only when I return, on Monday, 3rd January 2011.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Prince. While I do recognize that it's now 2011 and I hope that it's a prosperous calendar year for you, Witnesses do not especially recognize the start of the new year in the way most others do. We take no part in the superstitions and especially the revelry that usually accompanies the arrival of the new year.
I'm glad you find the resurrection promise attractive. While it is true that some are called to a position in heaven for a stated purpose, this should be the expectation of true Christians: "there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell." (2 Peter 3:13)
You pointed out how Jesus is God's Son in distinguishing him from Adam. While I agree that Jesus was certainly God's "only-begotten" Son, you should also recognize that Adam too was originally himself a "son of God". (John 3:16; Luke 3:38) The scriptures seem to use this term, "son", for any of Jehovah's perfect (or sinless) creatures that bear his image. Angels are 'sons of God'. (Job 1:6) And of course, Christians look forward to becoming (one day) 'sons of God' in the same sense.
The verse you are referencing is John 10:30, which says, "I and the Father are one." But did Jesus really mean that they are both God? Where is the Holy Spirit if that's the case? Even the staunch Trinitarian John Calvin admitted that this is not what Jesus is saying, writing, "The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father."
Jesus later prayed to his Father that his disciples "may be one just as we are one". (John 17:22) Is it more likely that Jesus is praying that they literally would become the same individual or rather that they should be one in purpose, in total agreement with each other? That is what he means when he says he and his Father 'are one'.
Jesus himself only recognizes one true God, and it's not himself:
"Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: 'Father . . . This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.'" (John 17:1,3)
Further, he objected to others giving him titles he felt only God deserved:
"Jesus said to him: 'Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God.'" (Luke 18:19)
I don't expect you to accept this view after reading these few verses, but I hope it gives you an idea of why it is so important to allow the Bible to interpret itself. Many verses may seem to be saying something, especially given our expectations we bring to the text, but often the context, either the immediate or the larger context of the Bible as a whole, will put these verses in a new light. As long as we remain sincere and humble, we allow God to shape our understanding of his word.
Please have a safe trip; I look forward to hearing back from you. :)
Post a Comment