I'm sure this has been discussed before on this board, but since I'm new I'll throw it out there anyway. The Watchtower never reveals what the people (mainly Jews) of Jesus day held as to the afterlife. It is true that the Scribes and Pharisees had terrible ideas mixed with Greek philosophy and that they stumbled the people. This is my point though. God had allowed his people for centuries to have ideas that weren't "Watchtower" approved. Many of the people in Jesus day believed in life after death, as well as other ideas. Jesus never came to teach people the correct "theology". He instead focused his entire message upon faith. When people where healed by Jesus he then didn't say, "now that I healed you, here is all of the doctrines you need to understand before you get baptized". That would have been absurd. Instead he would say something like "You faith has made you well, be on your way". People in Jesus day had views of such things as the afterlife, condition of the dead, ect..., but Jesus didn't focus on one opinion or the other. Lots of information regarding this subject can be found in Alfred Edersheims book "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah". It has given me much insight to realize that Jesus didn't focus on the theology that everyone is so consumed with today, including the Watchtower Society.
Jesus, the people of his day, and of theology
by drew sagan 34 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
DannyBloem
You are very right, nice points:
The view in past centuries have been very different from each other, and from the current view.
The view of the afterlife evolved in time, even when the bible was written, and also after.This fact says enough to draw a good conclusion about the truthfullness of the current teachings...
-
Honesty
So true.
The Jw's definitely believe in the afterlife, though.
The '144,000' doctrine tells it all.
-
peacefulpete
It is true that the Scribes and Pharisees had terrible ideas mixed with Greek philosophy and that they stumbled the people.
Terrible ideas? First off please identify "scribes". Then explain why the Pharisees' ideas about afterlife were 'terrible'. The pharisee movement was badly misrepresented in the NT. Rather than being legalistic and ridgid, most often it was the Pharisees that endorsed tolerance and liberal interpretation. The supposed quotes from Jesus about the greatest commandments and balanced views of the sabbath actually were from Pharisee Rabbis of the day. Much of the general pattern of Christian theology identifies itself as rooted in Pharisaism. The authors of the Synoptics endorsed the notions of immortal life with pain or reward after death. This was from the Pharisees. Saduccees were a retro movement much like the JWs. They imagined a past theology and claimed to represent the original 'Mosaic' theology, as if there was one. Therefore they dismissed the afterlife and spirits of all kinds as pagan. Actually ,the early people of Judah believed a powerless quasiexistance after death, "Shades of Sheol" is a great book reviewing this typically Middle Eastern belief. The Greeks in general actually shared a similar view, with only a few influential philosophers endorsing the then radical notion that the afterlife could be shared with the gods or heros of the past. It was a complex process of gradually intigrating the two. I have to fly.
-
Hellrider
When the JWs refer to the belief in an afterlife as a "heretical doctrine", they, ironically, take the side of the Saducees, a group that even Jesus refers to as heretics (because they don`t believe in the ressurection). The idea of ressurection and soul survival, was stressed by the Pharisees. And if you read the Gospels carefully, you will see that not once does Jesus express disagreement with them on basic doctrinal issues. He accuses and condemns them constantly, yes, for being hypocrites, not teaching what they preach, making themselves important, etc, but not once does he express disagreement on basic doctrine. And Paul, when accused and brought before the court, is set free because he takes advantage of the hostility between Saducees and Pharisees in the court, by taking the side of the Pharisees (who then, consequently, thinks Paul is a great guy). Jesus refers to the soul, the ressurection, hell etc, all the time thruout the Gospels. And when the JWs refer to such things as soul survival and hell as "heretical doctrines" that weren`t part of the "original judaism" (whatever that was), then they should be aware that ressurection of the dead isn`t exactly super-emphasised in the OT either. One little funy thing I`ve noticed: Within the JW-view on the soul, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke chapter 16, takes on a really funny perspective: The dead rich guy is in hell (or Gehenna, as the JWs would say, thinking for some reason that that fixes the problem of the soul, ha ha), and Lazarus is in "the bossom of Abraham", obviously in heaven. They are both clearly conscious, and the question is why are they conscious? (You know, the JW will come running with Eclessiastes and "the dead are conscious of nothing bla bla"). One JW I asked, responded by saying "it`s just a parable". Ok, yes, it`s just a parable, but that would mean that Jesus, the son of God, in his own parable used a heretical, ungodly doctrine as basis for his own parable! And that would be just absurd!
-
drew sagan
I guess I didn't make clear some of my points and said a few things in the wrong order. I didn't really mean to spark up debate about the influence of Greek philosophy amongst the Jews and the idea of the afterlife in particular. The writings of Philo and the Apocrypha are a clear indication that Greek philosophy had worked its way into the differant sects of the Parisee movement. The Talmud is full of such referances to the superstitions that where held, including the instructions of rituals in the protection of spritism. Such things where in stark contrast to Gods Law, but where accepted by the people and religious leaders.
By scribes I'm actually thinking of more than just those who lived during Jesus time, but instead of all those copiers of the Law, Talmud, Apocrapha, Ect... that had brough in all kinds of various interpretations by their "copies" throughout the centuries.
What I meant by the Pharisees "terrible" ideas was not really the idea of an afterlife, but instead the spiritism and superstitions that had evolved and accepted amonst the Jews. Such things are found very eaisly, and I can post some of the referances to these things if you like.
I simply meant that despite all of the conflicting views on differant theological issues at the time, Jesus corrected only what he had to and went no further. He instead refered to the more important issues of love and faith. This is in stark contrast to the Watchtower and other super conservitive groups that wish to impose their point of view.
Sorry for the confusion. The word "terrible" wasn't the best choice. -
yesidid
Thank you Drew,
Even though I had not thought of it before, you are absolutely correct. Jesus message was not primarily doctrine but faith and love. How could I have missed it?.
I have checked and the book in is our library. Cant wait.
yesidid
-
Narkissos
Belated welcome Drew Sagan,
Regardless of the common beliefs in 1st-century Judaism and Christianity, it's quite interesting indeed that doctrine, i.e. what is to be believed, is of comparatively little importance in the teachings ascribed to Jesus by the Synoptic Gospels (especially Matthew). Even belief in Jesus as the Messiah / Son of God etc. is far from central. The emphasis is on what is to be done. And this contrasts a lot with Paul, or even John.
This I think we owe to the so-called Judeo-Christian movements, such as the Galilean radicals or the James group in Jerusalem, which were almost exclusively active within the Jewish sphere. Paradoxically doctrine may be quite secondary to a school of thought which works within a definite ethnic/national area. It can have a very open preaching (such as, "repent, for the kingdom of God has drawn near") because it doesn't need to create a close community with a self-defined identity. It just brings its contribution to a larger whole (the nation), which provides the common identity.
To a potentially international movement such as Pauline and post-Pauline Christianity, otoh, doctrine becomes vital inasmuch as it is henceforth the only ground for group identity. The Pauline mission could not remove the ethnic barrier between Jews and Gentiles without creating a religious, doctrinal one -- between believers and unbelievers, in time between orthodox and heretic, etc.
There is a deep tragedy in the James vs. Paul conflict when one thinks of it.
-
peacefulpete
Very insightful observation Narkisssos,
Drew, I should have welcomed you as well, sorry, and WELCOME. BTW sometimes our (especially my) responses are succinct without intent to be confrontational. I just hate typing. You simply made some statements that are JW (and Bible literalist in general) baggage and I and others were trying to help you see things from a broader perspective.
-
drew sagan
I totally see where you are coming from. I hate typing as well. There are a hundered differant ways to cut the same lemon.
I actually have another idea brewing in my head that flows into this subject, let me throw it out there.
2 Timothy 3:16
This is a favorite bible verse amongst Witnesses. Was Paul writing this about his own letters? All of the other N.T. writings? Or just the O.T. writings?
Of course the answer is quite obvious when looking at the verse that comes before it (in my opinion, mabyee someone has their own? Lets discuss).
"and that from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through the faith in connection with Christ Jesus."
This then possibly opens the debate as to if the N.T. writings where ever intended to be in "The Bible", or are they a simple guide, written by imperfect men that give us the last bit of light into Gods plan for mankind?
There is a famous quote that says "the only thing we can learn from history is that we can't learn from history:
I can't remember who said it, but I sure do like that quote.
In a nutshell I think thats what all Christians today are struggling with. We still haven't learned from the mistakes made long ago.
Jesus knew that many would become "Christins" after he left the earthly scene, but would never truely be his followers. Christiantiy would become like the many other religions the world has seen, it would take on a "phyisical" presence.I simply feel we need to get past that. To look at it for what it is. Never forget that looking to men ends in failure, looking towards God is with salvation. All of the N.T. writers where imperfect, made mistakes
I know my arguements are weak in some areas. I still believe that Gods plan for mankind is found in the pages of the Bible, but not in the traditional way others view it. I'm familier with some of the information regarding the first century Christians, their stuggles and their failures. When looking at such history it can almost become depressing. But after much thought my conclusion at this point has been to see how such things are part of Gods plan, and not proof it dosn't exist.
Thanks so much for your opinions and critisim. This is the first time I have ever put what I believe into writing. It is sloppy and inconsistant, but in time I think this can really help me to develop. Best wishes to all of you!
-drew