Bart Wrote:

>The last Watchtower/Awake I read had an article on this. I
>remember quite clearly the illustration which had a set
>of balance scales with Adam on one side and Jesus on the
>other. The caption was to the effect that Jesus' sacrifice
>exactly cancelled Adam's sin.

Only in the sense as in these scriptures

"18 So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts
was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification the
result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were
constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one
[person] many will be constituted righteous" (Rom. 5:18,19)

Adam and Eve had the right to continuous perfect life had they not
sinned. When Adam and Eve sinned they lost that right and all the
children born to them were "born in sin" and had no right to "perfect
life". Jesus' ransom sacrifice bought back what was lost- the right to
perfect life. In that sense Jesus canceled out Adam's transgression.

Bart sarcastically wrote:

>So "wow", no you don't believe that Jesus died for your
>sins. Only that He died so you could pay for your own
>sins.

You are wrong. You don't understand the issue you are speaking of.
Jesus died for all sins. Mine included.

>Further, I've had lots of discussions about Jesus' resurrection
>with JW's. Invariably they assert that God faked the
>resurrection by "keeping a copy of Jesus in His mind"

"faked" is your own word. No JW would ever say such nonsense. The only
thing that's "fake" is you representation of what JWs believe. Jesus
died. When a person dies they die. "for dust you are and to dust you
will return".

As far as Jesus- he was no resurrecxted in the same body he died in. If
he took back what he had sacrificed the ransom would be invalid.

If Jesus did not truly die you are still in your sins for the ransom
would not be paid. I'm assuming you believe in an "immortal soul" that
survives the body at death? NOT a Bible teaching.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article <179.55.08.05.551729000@srcbs.org>, Mike Rhodes says...

>On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:41:42 +0000 (UTC), Matthew Johnson
> wrote:

>>In article <177.29.16.05.574599000@srcbs.org>, Mike Rhodes says...

>>>On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:52:13 +0000 (UTC), Matthew Johnson
>>> wrote:

[snip]

>>In particular, if you wish to really understand what I was trying to say by
>>using the driver's distraction as a metaphor, you must understand that I am NOT