Jesus' Physical Resurrection = Take the Ransom Back?

by InterestedOne 64 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Ding

  How come he walks through walls?

  This miracle doesn't require Jesus to be an incorporeal spirit.

  Remember that the Bible says that BEFORE he died, Jesus walked on water on the Sea of Galilee and empowered Peter to do so also.

  Even the Watchtower admits that Jesus and Peter had physical bodies at that time.

  In a post-resurrection appearance Jesus said, "I is I myself. Touch me and see. A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." (Luke 24:39).

  Later, he let Thomas touch the wounds in his hands and side to prove it (John 20:27).

  Did Jesus lie to Thomas and show him FAKE wounds on a manufactured body in order to get him to believe?

  The answer must be yes... unless the WT is wrong.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I always and still believe the physicality of Jesus' resurrection is important. What is the difference between resurrecting a spirit and resurrecting an idea? Contrary to my expectations, only a small part of me is drawn to gnosticism. How does a spirit suffer and die? It sounds as these NT authors were writing by consensus. Yet the adoption of four gospels seems to acknowledge the different emphases of each author. These aren't side teachings, such as beards, aluminum pans, blood. It is the very core of their teaching. Perhaps as a child, I did not understand the differences. How many people out there no about the Councils and refinements of dogma?

  Did Russell relate this teaching? It just seems a bit bizarre. Of course, it makes as much sense of orthodox Christianity. I am not judging it is veracity. It would be great if there could be a control group to read sundry scripture without any pre-existing beliefs or bias. I studied NT at Columbia as an undergrad. The Witness in me craved it. Greek was a requirement which defeated any ideas of going further. I just took as many courses as a non major could take. I know I've related this before on this forum. Elaine Pagels said that Carl Jung says we project our wishes and fears onto Jesus, regardless of the actual accounts. She has write down five adjectives to describe Jesus quickly. As we went around the room, only the male Orthodox Jews had correct descriptions. I decline to even say what I wrote down. Altho I no longer believe, the rush made me revert to Witness views. All the accumulated hours studying Jesus and I could not write down five items.

  I've had so many problems with my body that I wonder how that impacts my view. It has always been inconvenient to say the least. I was imprisoned with utterly agonizing pain for decades. Pain is so pressing that I can't just take a gnostic view. Part of me disassociated to cope. I do believe there is a spark within humans, not tied to the physical universe.

  Sometimes it seems as though our culture has just erected a Chinese menu God with whatever we find useful.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I always and still believe the physicality of Jesus' resurrection is important. What is the difference between resurrecting a spirit and resurrecting an idea? Contrary to my expectations, only a small part of me is drawn to gnosticism. How does a spirit suffer and die? It sounds as these NT authors were writing by consensus. Yet the adoption of four gospels seems to acknowledge the different emphases of each author. These aren't side teachings, such as beards, aluminum pans, blood. It is the very core of their teaching. Perhaps as a child, I did not understand the differences. How many people out there no about the Councils and refinements of dogma?

  Did Russell relate this teaching? It just seems a bit bizarre. Of course, it makes as much sense of orthodox Christianity. I am not judging it is veracity. It would be great if there could be a control group to read sundry scripture without any pre-existing beliefs or bias. I studied NT at Columbia as an undergrad. The Witness in me craved it. Greek was a requirement which defeated any ideas of going further. I just took as many courses as a non major could take. I know I've related this before on this forum. Elaine Pagels said that Carl Jung says we project our wishes and fears onto Jesus, regardless of the actual accounts. She has write down five adjectives to describe Jesus quickly. As we went around the room, only the male Orthodox Jews had correct descriptions. I decline to even say what I wrote down. Altho I no longer believe, the rush made me revert to Witness views. All the accumulated hours studying Jesus and I could not write down five items.

  I've had so many problems with my body that I wonder how that impacts my view. It has always been inconvenient to say the least. I was imprisoned with utterly agonizing pain for decades. Pain is so pressing that I can't just take a gnostic view. Part of me disassociated to cope. I do believe there is a spark within humans, not tied to the physical universe.

  Sometimes it seems as though our culture has just erected a Chinese menu God with whatever we find useful.
• 

  J. Hofer

  > Did Jesus lie to Thomas and show him FAKE wounds on a manufactured body?

  probably. but more probably, it wasn't jesus at all. after all noone knew him, even after spending a whole day with him.

  but in the end the whole ransom-story is so far from any logic anyway. i mean come on:

  god - who makes the rules - damns all mankind because of some fruit he wanted for himself and to remove the curse he makes his own son bleed to death (as a ransom to himself). if i were god i would have simply forgotten about that stupid fruit...
• 

  ProdigalSon

  One would think, if it was so important to Christian doctrine, that God would have been a little clearer on this when he wrote the Bible. I will now demonstrate that the whole "ransom" idea is a man-made invention (specifically, the Catholic Church but that's for another thread):

  Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for thier soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

  "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." ~Matthew 16:24-28.

  It's quite obvious to me that the cross and Jesus' death was a metaphor describing something that we ALL have to do to be his followers: Deny ourselves, take up the cross, and lose our life to save our soul. If this means that we all have to be physically crucified, then not one of us can truly be a disciple of Jesus.....EVER. The whole story of Jesus is a parable that describes what we have to do to enter the kingdom: Stop being selfish and learn to serve others, and to do it from the heart and not under compulsion, for the common good of all including ourselves. This is the result of recognizing that we are all ONE.

  This is the key: SOUL = CONSCIOUSNESS

  The Dalai Lama and many others speak the truth. Selflessness is the key to ascension and an awakened consciousness, and this can now be scientifically demonstrated.

  All of this was lost when the Catholic Church literalized these Savior stories so that the masses would believe they were worthless born sinners that are powerless to change the world without their historical Jesus coming back to save them. This has led to 2,000 years of spiritual darkness and collective impotence.

  Additionally, Jesus was teaching the Law of Karma: you reap what you sow, and what goes around comes around. There is no "defined line" between eternal life and eternal death. Especially when one measly lifetime is all there is to go on. Judging a person's eternal fate based on one lifetime when we all come into this world under vastly different circumstances and there is no level playing field? That never made any sense to me and never will. We all simply have to keep doing this physical life until we are ready for the next level up.

  And last but not least: If the above verses are to be taken literally, Jesus was a liar who told his disciple that some of them would survive to see him return and would see the kingdom. If that return was a personal experience, then he wasn't lying.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Yes. When I was young, I thought God wrote it on gold tablets. Maybe I confused it with the Book of Mormon. One of my favorite Christian authors discussed my then hatred of Paul. His wording was unfortunate. If he knew he were writing scripture, he would have been more careful.

  The point about nonrecognition of Jesus runs consistently through the resurrection accounts. The breaking of bread one makes sense from a Eucharist view going backwards. I expected a physical Jesus. My mind often wonders what he thought or believed. People could write clearly in classical times. Perhaps they could reason better than now. The gospels could be clearer. All the stories remind me of the constitution. Maybe the vagueness is purposeful.
• 

  peacefulpete

  This miracle doesn't require Jesus to be an incorporeal spirit.

  Remember that the Bible says that BEFORE he died, Jesus walked on water on the Sea of Galilee....

  Well that is another interesting topic. Mark, understood to be the earliest version, has Jesus be a spirit/apparition walking upon water which terrifies the Apostles until he steps into the boat and identifies himself. Very docetic! Jesus isn't depicted as a man who can do tricks but as a spirit which can transform into a man. Most interesting however is the pericope summary:

  50 because they all saw him and were terrified.

  Immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.” 51 Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, 52 for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.

  Mark here makes very clear that the water scene had a direct connection with the earlier story of self multiplying loaves. THis is where our Western thinking gets in the way of perceiving the author's intent. We are assuming something entirely erroneous if we feel the Mark stories were chonological events in real time. The Docetic/Gnostic (for lack of a better word) approach to teaching knowledge was throught the use of metaphor and symbolism that only had meaning to the initiated. The author deliberatly indicates this to his readers. So what was the symbolism? The treading water manifestation was likely consistant with the mystic Jewish (and wider ANE) symbolism in representing power over death. IOW the walking on water scene was intended to be a metaphor of Christs power over death rather than some demonstration of a magic trick. This makes the connection with the loves story more clear but only if we can understand the "meaning" of the loves story. This story uses gemetria (a form of geometry and numerology that understood numbers and shapes to have equivalent letters and words as a way of revealing hidden mysteries) That gemetria is intended in the story of the 5000 fed is implicit in the way the exact number of squares and number of fihes, loaves, baskets and people are inumerated. As some have calculated the gemetria, it calculates to identification of Christ as divine (deathless). As such it serves a similar purpose as when writers explicitly refer to Jesus being resurrected. (this to was likely literalized only later).

  Interestingly the later version in Matthew retains much of the same structure but drops the reference to the loaves and turns it into a miracle story with Peter being invited to repeat the trick using faith. IOW the author of Matthew had himself missed the "meaning of the loaves" and demystified the metaphorical story into just another miracle tale.

  I do know how nuts this sounds but take a bit of time to research the contemporary practice in Jewish mysticism and many of these odd passages which refer to numbers start to make sense.
• 

  VM44

  "Jesus was raised as a spirit being w/o a physical body, and that he materialized bodies at will"

  Then what would a JW call the "materialized body"?

  Would they say it was a non-physical body?

  Jesus did eat some fish showing that his body was indeed "physical"!

  How would a JW respond?
• 

  VM44

  Luke 24

  36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

  37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.

  38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?

  39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself ! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

  40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.

  41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"

  42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,

  43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

  The word "ghost" in the above verses is "pneu=ma" in Greek , and is also translated using the word "spirit"!
• 

  VM44

  Do the JWs believe what they read in the Bible?

  Or do they believe what they are told to believe by The Watchtower?