The JW's Concept of The Resurrection, a False Hope?

VM44

The JW's concept of the resurrection is that at some time in the future a duplicate physical body of a person will be created and onto this duplicated body's brain, the person's memories will be impressed. The JW's are very clear that the individual does not possess a "soul" that continues on after death, so there is nothing unique to transfer from the original person to the re-created body. Why should the idea that some impostor in the future who was given my memories and who also believes that they were once me give me any hope today? Why should I look forward to such a being existing in the future? --VM44

Narkissos

Why should I look forward to such a being existing in the future?

If it is nothing for anybody to hope for, then it cannot be a false hope...

V

JWs do NOT believe in "resurrection"!!

They teach a literal definition of reincarnation. Read any dictionary:

1. the belief that the soul, upon death of the body, comes back to earth in another body or form.
2. rebirth of the soul in a new body.
3. a new incarnation or embodiment, as of a person.
(Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reincarnation)

Also, you could say they teach that the dead person is cloned with implanted memories, anyone recall Bladerunner?

Leolaia

V....They explicitly deny any sort of tangible continuity of self (rather, it is a re-creation of a duplicate self), so I can't see how any of the definitions of reincarnation apply, i.e. something that is being incarnated again. Your reference to Blade Runner tho is very appropriate. JW resurrected people = replicants.

metatron

This is exactly what bothered me for years about being a Witness and having this "hope". It's nonsense.

If they ever clone people, will this ever disprove the notion that an exact copy isn't the same person? If so,

how about identical twins?

metatron

Leolaia

If they ever clone people, will this ever disprove the notion that an exact copy isn't the same person? If so, how about identical twins?

The main difference is this: These would be people who, thanks to mental programming by Jehovah (= implanting the "memories" and "personality" of the original person), would believe they are the same people who died. The Society thinks this is resurrection. So if I die tomorrow, and in the year AD 8736 a person is created who is programmed to believe she is "Leolaia" from the 21st century, that is somehow supposed to give me "hope" of eternal life?

frankiespeakin

VM,

Why should the idea that some impostor in the future who was given my memories and who also believes that they were once me give me any hope today? Why should I look forward to such a being existing in the future? --VM44

Very good questions. WHich also makes me also question, are all past thoughts, that are cosidered to make up the "me" or "I" a real individual or are these too (the me or I) just imaginary?

ellderwho

What it really comes down to is re-creation verses resurrection. A copy of a Picasso is just that. Its not the same entity. It will never be the original.

By the Towers definition Jesus is the great deceiver. By a manufactured body for such appearances to prove it was Christ that rose.

More nonsense from Brooklyn.

V

V....They explicitly deny any sort of tangible continuity of self (rather, it is a re-creation of a duplicate self), so I can't see how any of the definitions of reincarnation apply, i.e. something that is being incarnated again.

Leolaia: I know I am splitting hairs here, and I hope you appreciate this, but I believe that reincarnation is an applicable term.

Note that I said the literal definition of reincarnation, not the religious one. See above for the definition anyway. It is a "new body." There are other terms like clone, or recreation that apply as well.

The important thing is that anyone coming alive again in Paradise will not be "resurrected" in that their old bodies will not rise again.

New body, new soul, replicated memories and personality. Creepy.

Leolaia

Actually, there are variants of the resurrection belief in early Judaism and Christianity that did not necessarily presume a restoration of the original body; rather, resurrection is construed as a re-embodiment of the soul/spirit. That could reasonably be called "reincarnation" in the "literal" sense.

We are clearly talking semantics, but again I feel that reincarnation is a misleading term, even in its "literal" sense, for WT belief. I would not hesitate to rather use the term "recreation" as a more accurate term. What is fundamental to any reincarnation belief is that something is being incarnated or embodied again (re- "again"). Notice the three definitions given in your post:

1. the belief that the soul, upon death of the body, comes back to earth in another body or form.
2. rebirth of the soul in a new body.
3. a new incarnation or embodiment, as of a person.

Watchtower belief is explicitly counter to this, that there isn't any soul or person that is embodied again in the resurrection. Even if the "resurrected" person has a newly created body, this person did not have a prior existence in another body and is being incarnated again. Reincarnation is quite a different concept.

The JW's Concept of The Resurrection, a False Hope?

Share this