Also, BOTR, that is an interesting possibility that you bring up that Jewish Christians and Greek or Greek-influenced Christians may have understood the so-called resurrection hope differently. I need to look into that more. Thanks!
Did Stephen believe he would have to wait 2000 years for a resurrection?
by Socrateswannabe 47 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Band on the Run
My main source was a FN in one Bible. I had no idea what names were Hebrew and which were Hellenized. When I first start reading the academic literature decades ago, I knew the references. I can't remember and i need to remember too many things for professional reasons. If it is very important, I can always find it.
Sometimes I think being an amateur gives you a broader view. I've posted this before but I think the lesson is good. When I was in college, almost all the scholars were convinced from language in Paul's letters and then the Nag Hammadi Gnostic find, that the Synoptic Gospels all relied on an unknown source called Q. I could not understand all the arguments for it. They knew it was a collection of sayings of Jesus with no narrative. It contained no miraculous birth or Passion stories. It was sayings only. The law firm was extremely busy so I did not read anything for fifteen to twenty years. When I returned, the existence of Q was in grave doubt. Now recent reading indicates that there is a division between scholars who believe in Q (the majority) and a few others who are convinced that Q never existed.
I've seen similar things happen in law. It is hard to stay current or understand all the arguments. I thought some of these theories were newly minted just for my generation. I was shocked that the research started in the late 1800s. The WT quotes so many facts. I suppose I missed KH the night this was discussed.
-
Bobcat
Socrates:
BOTR reminded me of another resource that you can use (or at least look at). It is the Tyndale House Toolbar. It makes possible access to some scholarly articles along with numerous other Bible resources.
Take care
-
Larsinger58
The first resurrection is back into the flesh just prior to the 2nd coming. The 2nd coming occurred in 1992, so everyone who needed to be resurrected has been resurrected.
Per 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrected ones are likened to seeds that are implanted into imperfect bodies. That just means they share a body with a modern person. That is sort of sci-fi, but it has two incredible advantages:
1) The resurrection is totally invisible! Think of bodies coming out of the graves and how much complication that would cause. They would need to be taken care of. They would need explaining. This way, it is invisible.
2) This solves the issue of orienting ancient ones to the modern world. If they came back in their own bodies then they would have to learn a modern language. It would take years of tutoring and mentoring to get them up to speed as to what happened since they died. But this way, they share the knowledge of a modern person and also speak a modern language! So the orientation is instant! Think of the time that is saved. To update a single person on what has gone on since they died, it would take another person many years to teach them. This means several people would be preoccupied with just helping the newly resurrected ones to adjust to the modern world. This way, their orientation is INSTANT! It's brilliant!
So, when you correct the ancient timeline, whether using the Bible or the VAT4956, Jerusalem's fall must occur in 529 BCE and thus the 2nd coming in 1992. So th4e 1st resurrection will have taken place before December 25, 1992. You didn't notice it because it was invisible.
I was aware of the modern identities of Daniel and Peter before I became the Christ. Those two just happened to be planted into persons I knew personally.
Now, I know you and the average person lack the faith or don't believe the Bible at all, and thus cannot accept this. But for those of us on the inside track, we accept what the Bible teaches and what the Bible teaches is coming true. Stephen is thus resurrected and sharing the modern identity of someone on the planet.
-
Band on the Run
Lars,
It feels strange calling Jesus in a familiar way. Who are Daniel and Peter? Is it a sacred secret?
I would love to chat with Paul or Peter. Daniel - not so much.
-
Socrateswannabe
Bobcat, thanks for the link to the toolbar. That looks very promising. And BOTR, thanks for explaining some of the evolution of this scholarly thought. I realize that even the experts change their minds or find new evidence, but at least I would hope that is realtively objective and that there is no hidden agenda in their theories, as we see so rampant in the WTS. I think also, such as the issue regarding the Q source, that if a preponderance of scholars think it so, then that is a pretty good indication that it might be accurate.
-
tec
Stephen went immediately to Christ 'under the altar' (Lord Jesus receive my spirit), where he sleeps along with his fellow servants and brothers (all those who belong to Christ, and who die in Christ), until the time that Christ wakes them, and returns to gather all those who belong to Him who are still alive. Revelation 6:9-11)
That resurrection has not yet occurred (as the wts sort of says), because Christ has not yet returned to gather all those who are still alive who belong to Him. When He does this, the dead in Christ (those under the altar) will rise, and those who are still alive will be caught up to meet Christ in the air. (1Thes 4: 16-17).
Peace,
tammy
-
Cold Steel
If one wants to take a fresh look at the Bible, the best thing to do is start with a fresh piece of paper. The concept of the dead sleeping is not only not biblical, it was something the first century Christians simply didn't believe. If one starts from the premise that one is resurrected a spirit, then the Adventist view of death makes a modicum of sense. But Jesus was not resurrected a spirit, and our resurrections will be after the manner of Christ's. Christ was a spirit before he came to the earth. When he was crucified, his spirit went to Paradise, the realm of the spirits, and preached to the spirits in prison.
Peter states:
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3:18-20)
He also states:
For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6)
If the dead are sleeping, how can the gospel be preached to them in the spirit world? The great Christian scholar, Origen, stated what he had heard from those who came years before him: "After death," he says, "I think the saints go to Paradise, a place of teaching, a school of the spirits in which everything they saw on earth will be made clear to them. Those who were pure in heart will progress more rapidly, reaching the kingdom of heaven by definite steps or degrees." (Father Jean Danielou (1955) Origen. Sheed and Ward; see also (1961) From Glory to Glory, Texts from Gregory of Nyssa's Mystical Theology. Introduction by Jean Danielou. Scribners.).
Origen, the greatest scholar of the Third Century, was far closer to the actual events in the New Testament than most of the other early church fathers. And, in fact, he studiously researched the early church and its earliest scholars. In fact he was described as having one foot in the ancient church and the other in the later "early" church. To think this doctrine was changed in the Fourth Century or later just doesn't wash. And Zechariah, in beginning his last three chapters on the battle of Armageddon, writes: " The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord , which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him." (Zech. 12:1) And Paul states: " For I am in a strait between two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ; which is far better: n evertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you." (Phil. 1:23-24) How can one "abide in the flesh" when one is simply "the flesh" and "breath" and nothing more?
Paul also writes extensively about the reality of a physical resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. In verse 29 he argues: " Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" Regardless of whether the Galatians were practicing a legitimate doctrine is moot; the fact that Paul was using it as evidence of the resurrection indicates that if the dead were being preached to, they would be cognizant to make a decision if someone performed the work for them. If the dead slept and were aware of nothing, why would the Galatians baptize others in behalf of them? It would have been the perfect opportunity for him to have condemned the practice and set everyone straight on the state of the dead, only he didn't. He used it as a teaching tool.
Finally, Jesus could not have been clearer about being physically resurrected. His body was gone. Later he appears to the apostles, shows them his wounds, lets them feel those wounds, then eats fish! "For a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see I have." Did the authors leave out the part where he said, "Nah, I'm just kidding. I'm really a spirit...see?"
Adventists have to practice a set standard of denial, and you guys really can't be blamed. You've been brainwashed by some of the most scripturally inept people on the planet! You think Armageddon is Ragnorak, and you deny all the scriptures in the Old and New Testaments that place it in Jerusalem. Jesus returns, but not to the Mount of Olives as the scriptures state, but somewhere else. I see people all the time asking about "Armageddon" as though it were Judgment Day, and the fate of the Saved being a restoration to the sad state Adam and Eve were in before the fall of man. No glory, no purpose, just a meaningless eternal future in a garden.
So, again, if you're going to understand the Bible you have to forget virtually everything you've been taught, read, or thought you've understood. And you should begin by throwing away your New World Translations and using any one of a number of good translations.
Just sayin'....
-
cantleave
So, again, if you're going to understand the Bible you have to forget virtually everything you've been taught, read, or thought you've understood.
And join another wacky delusional cult called the Church of the Latter Day Saints!!! Mormon nutter!
-
prologos
What did the writer Luke have in mind when he used the word "spirit" and put it in Stephens mouth? or
what did Luke think that Stephen understood when he used the word "spirit" at the onset of death?
I do not think it was spirit like in a greek "psyche" loaded with all the information of Stephen's good life, but
the general value, life, unique to the martyr, now only in posession of a living being, the already resurrected lord,
WHO WOULD HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE -THROUGH OBSERVATION ALONE,- OF ALL OF STEPHENS DETAILS.
The timing of his resurrection is subject to the above mentioned good observations on Pauls writings, of which Stephen might have known little. but:
that is only a comment on the text, that after all
has as its premier premise
the TALKING SNAKE.