by Ice Blue 45 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I know of some old timers that have long past away by now who did not re-marry after their spouses died because they wanted to wait for the new system so they could be there for them in the resurrection.
There are still a few of those around.
From what I understand lately (the last several years) the GB discourages that. Don't know why they would even care one way or another.
I know of some old timers that have long past away by now who did not re-marry after their spouses died because they wanted to wait for the new system so they could be there for them in the resurrection
Yeh, I knew some such too. They said they would be content to be their 'companions'. Does this mean a possibility of a marriage that isn't a marriage, a living together that isn't actually 'living together'. I never did see any scripture to support the view
Does this mean a possibility of a marriage that isn't a marriage, a living together that isn't actually 'living together'. I never did see any scripture to support the view
Me?
Well I never really questioned it, not for many years anyway until the borg/org started making issues out of it.
These folks had been around a lot longer then I had and I figured what ever was in their heat was just that and I figured no one was really in any position to refute that. It kinda pssst me off to hear newer so called authorities do just that. I felt like saying to a few elders etc. "Where do you get off telling this 80 year old woman whom has studied the Bible long before you were a twinkle in you daddys eye that she is all wrong and should believe something that has brought her comfort for the twilight of her years.
As far as I'm concerned it's entirely up to God period. If two people have been together 40 or 50 years and want to be together after the resurrection then it really is nobodies business but theirs and Gods.
I like to think of it (the void by death thing) as an out. There are more people who have a need for an out then there are people who don't want one.
So maybe it all will be based on each individuals situation the same as judgment. Everything in the end is a personal experience that is nobodies business but theirs and their creators.
For those who don't believe in God thats also their personal property. I don't think all the God fearing people have a right to judge all the non-believers either.
Just because someone doesn't believe in God doesn't mean we can read his/her heart. Maybe God knows what he's doing with out our input.
Ice
We know that the human race is in a dying state. Second death is spoken of in the Bible. The first resurrection is in Revelation 20:6 " Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and will rule as kings with him for the thousand years."
I really don't know if any of this will come about but "we got to have faith "as the saying goes.
SC
IceBlue:
As you suggested I looked at the "Insight Book" under Marriage>Celebration. It may not be obvious on first reading, but under the heading "Proof of Virginity", it says:Obviously, in the case of Mary and Joseph we have a unique situation! In Matthew 1:18 Mary is spoken of as being "betrothed" (NJB) to Joseph. In verse 19, the word rendered "husband" is translated from the Greek word "aner" which basically means "a man (prop. as an indiv. male)" (Strong's Greek entry 435). So, at this time they were engaged to be married, but not married in the sense of being 'man and wife'. Going back to the Insight book, on page 727, it says: "The Hebrews viewed an engaged couple as bound as if already married, though cohabitation did not take place until the formalities of the wedding were completed." It appears to me that the engaged state was considered so serious because a vow had been made that the couple would eventually get married. Joseph was told specifically by the angel Gabriel not to be afraid "to take Mary home as your wife". She was pregnant before they had gone through with the actual 'marriage', because Joseph had not as yet taken Mary 'home'. It is stated, no doubt because of the unique state of affairs, that by the time Jesus was born he had had no intercourse with her (which would have been the usual thing after taking her 'home' as his wife).
Now, on the point about what make us 'us', I think we may have to agree to disagree, since your perception of what makes you 'you' is probably a lot different from my perception. However, I will give the subject a final consideration. I do agree with you on the fact that our physical-world personality is changing all the time, no doubt in some ways we do not understand. My problem is this. If our personality (qualities/traits) is, as I currently believe, based on a physical 'etching' of the brain, then it would be quite possible for another body to have its brain 'etched' with that same pattern. Rather like a computer program that is copied from one computer to another. Imagine if that were possible while you were alive. Would you consider that clone to be you? That is why I believe there is something beyond physical personality (as found in the brain) which constitutes the essence of us. When God breathed into Adam the breath of life, I believe it was something more that went into his body than just a blast of air. If there were not some 'inner' not-physical self that differentiated us from one another in God's eyes, then how would it be possible for a Christian to be 'converted' to life in a heavenly body?
At the end of the day, though, it is faith in God as knowing what is best and happiest for us that will act a comforter when we contemplate our future life. Of course we each are expert at seeing things from our own frame of reference. Please be assured that I'm not trying to contend with you or put down your view of things, for you may well be right and I wrong, and I would indeed be happy if this had a bearing on your happiness in the new system of things.
I wanted to make some comments on points raised by other posters, but this will have to await a more convenient time.
Kind regards.
PS: Sorry for the long post(s), but a long time ago I learned to touch-type, so I can get quite a bit of data from my brain to the 'page' in a short period of time. But if I've rambled, I do apologise!
ICE
Yeh I know - but I sure as hell don't think I like it. It doesn't seem fair to me, but who am I ????????? Especially when you consider I am about to get a divorce - seems kind of academic, don't you think? (Probably blasted all my chances now)
I understand how you feel, this is normal. And when you love someone that much it is not normal to think that you can't be with them again some day, or that they may even die before us leaving us behind. We just don't like to think about those kinds of things.
When I got divorced I thought that there would be another person that I could love as much as my wife. I didn't want to. like you said: I sure as hell didn't think like that. But after a time of healing a time came to move on I realized that I do have the capacity to love again and that in fact it could be much better than the first time. I am sorry about your divorce ICE, it is a hard time to go through, I know from personal experience. Feel free to email me if you ever want to talk about it. So never say never and don't feel like you have used up your one and only chance. Life will get better with a little time.
Best Regards, Stealth
This issue always fascinated me!
What SC wrote is the only approach I could find that made sense back when I was still an active jw. It seemed so clear to me that Jesus was referring to the "heavenly resurrection" people when he said "they are as angels in heaven" and that they "could not die".
It was also Jesus' style of teaching (when dealing with individuals who were just trying to set him up, trick him, etc; they weren't REALLY interested in the question or answer) to speak over their heads; he gave it right back to em by answering questions they DID NOT ask. I could come up with an example if I wasn't feeling so lazy right now.
Apparently the existing polemic regarding this issue has not changed... reasons why that is lame and illogical:
-If an individual, resurrected to earth, does NOT marry (----> does not have sexual drives, desires, or ability to shoplift the booty) they will no longer be a human being. Humans have endocrine systems, are full of hormones, and these things circulate throughout the entire body, affecting virtually every biological function. Estrogen and Testosterone - to name just TWO out of, I dunno, a zillion? - affect us physiologically a lot more than just sexual function. A person with no sexuality at all will have to have completely new wiring, at least endocrinologically.
-They would have to be recreated without certain organs, ie ovaries, testicles, uteruses, and why should a man have a penis, even? Maybe a little teenie weenie little bitty thing, through which to pee, I guess.... but who needs erectile tissue or sperm or prostates or any of that stuff? HEY, maybe in the new system, being perfect, people will NO LONGER PEE !
-If the angels were so intrigued with the idea of human sexuality that they betrayed their creator, tossed everlasting live in a perfect spiritual realm, and perhaps even felt ripped off (!), how much MORE difficult would it be for those poor mere humans who had experienced death, coming back to life among the sexually active lucky Big A survivors? Just thinking about the chaos THAT would be like makes my skin go all crawly...
There are at least fifty unique rational arguments to add to the above. It's just dumb to try and force the lame WTBTS non-explanation into making sense.
The most memorable remark I got from an elder when being too "inquisitive": "Don't go beyond what is written." (by the GB, that is.)
(welcome all you newbie ones, btw!!!)
Plmkrzy, as usual, your comments are right on, imo!
laura, I agree.....in almost banging my head against my bible as I read this passage again and again, I can only conclude that it appears much simpler if Jesus is understood as referring to the heavenly resurrection. A jw friend of mine feels the same way.
LauraLisa: I think your view that Jesus was not giving them the information they were looking for is a good idea. For as you pointed out, they were trying to trick him, which is why he may have spoken enigmatically to them. From what I've read of Jewish belief at the time of Jesus Christ, it seems apparent that they believed in a fleshly resurrection, so the Saduccees whom the historian says believed that "souls die with the bodies" ("Antiquities", 18.1.4), would be probably unaware of a "heavenly resurrection". So yes, maybe Jesus was bringing out "new light", and the fact that (as has been brought out - which I had forgotten about) the resurrected ones also "do not die anymore" could be used to support such a view. Nice post.
Kind regards.
Thank you for all your thoughts and comments.
NewWay - You and I will probably always have to agree to disagree on many issues. It is true, there is insufficient information in the Bible to accurately say what will or will not become of the resurrected ones. I guess my argument with it all is; that it is used in the 'sales patter' as if more were actually known. Far too much is surmised, then dished out as if it were fact. And don't try telling me it isn't - I was a JW for far too long to swallow that pill. Non-the-less I do appreciate your comments and your willingness to discuss things in more depth.
Stealth - your words were kindly - thank you.
LauraLisa - Very logical, thoroughly enjoyed your post, gave me lots more to think about and discuss.
