What Will JW's Do If They Find Themselves Still Conscious after Death?

by Sea Breeze 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Sea Breeze said ".... a man who walked out of a tomb as he claimed he would ...." (in reference to Jesus), but there is no report in the Bible at all of a human (or even angel) seeing Jesus walk out of his tomb! There is thus no report in the Bible at all of anyone witnessing the resurrection of Jesus (though there is a report which makes the claim of people seeing Lazarus walk of his tomb). If anyone can prove otherwise please state the verse or verses.

  Furthermore, in a number of reports in the Gospel books of Bible of people allegedly seeing Jesus after his alleged resurrection, some of them say some of the disciples supposedly seeing such did not believe (presumably didn't believe that they actually saw Jesus alive after his death). Some of the reports in the Bible also say that the disciples did not recognize him at first despite having a personal two way conversation with him. The long addition to the Gospel of Mark (which I think Sea Breeze believes is authentic scripture) says that Jesus appeared in a different form after his supposed resurrection. These accounts thus leave room for the possibility that in the accounts of a purported post-resurrection Jesus, the live man allegedly seen by the disciples was not actually Jesus, but rather a a man whom the disciples mistook for Jesus.

  [In contrast the Gnostic Gospel of Peter (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter ) has an account alleging that Jesus was seen walking out of the tomb, and that his cross was seen both following (walking?) out of the tomb and talking! I don't think Sea Breeze believes in that account as being accurate, but if he does believe that Gnostic account then I invite him to tell us such.]

  Another possible interpretation of people thinking they saw the Jesus alive after his death, is that they merely had hallucinatory visions of seeing him as such. In the case of the Apostle Paul, he even claims to have seen a vision of the resurrected Jesus Christ, though according to what he wrote he didn't think the vision was a hallucination.
  

  Regarding Bible verses about the dead being conscious or unconscious, don't forget Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 (NKJV) which says the following.
  

  "5 For the living know that they will die;
  But the dead know nothing,
  And they have no more reward,
  For the memory of them is forgotten.
  6 Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished;
  Nevermore will they have a share
  In anything done under the sun."

  Those two biblical verses are 100% in harmony with atheistic scientific naturalism. Those two biblical verses are completely true. Verse 6 even entails the idea that there never will be (and never has been) a resurrection of the dead to life "under the sun" (on Earth).

  Ecclesiastes 9:10 (NKJV) says the following. "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going." That verse (with the word "grave" used in the NKJV translation instead of "sheol") is also completely true and 100% in harmony with atheistic scientific naturalism.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  The Bible speaks of a consciousness after death,

  No it doesn’t
  
  
• 

  Biahi

  Fisherman, I must respond. Ecclesiastes 9:5, says the dead are not conscious. Witnesses use this scripture as a “proof text” to teach their wrong interpretation. My Bible, The Living Bible, has a footnote on that scripture. It says that this statement reflects Solomons discouraged opinion, but IT DOES NOT REFLECT GOD’S TRUTH ON THE MATTER. Research research research
• 

  Sea Breeze

  DJW,

  All this has been covered before. Ecclesiastes is a book that is part of the "WISOM LITERATURE" in the OT. It is written from a carnal point of view, same as an atheist.

  
  From this carnal, purely physical point of view, life is all ultimately meaningless. It is a worldview that the writer ultimately rejects after considering all things. This is why scriptures like Eccl. 10: 19 which reads, "money is the answer for everything", are not projected into a Christian worldview. There is no Christian doctrine that teaches money is the answer for everything even though this is stated clearly in Eccl. 10: 19 .

  "Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit." But, Jesus said we can have meaning in our life and peace. Again, different points of view.
  
  The Bible tells us in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 that we were all created with three parts—a spirit, a soul, and a body: Only one exists "under the sun".... the body. When the body becomes separated from the soul, a death occurs. Biblically, "death" MEANS SEPARATION, not annihilation or extinction of the soul/spirit. (Gen. 35:18)
  
  Taking a rejected (carnal or purely physical) worldview and making a Christian doctrine out of it requires not only rejecting the book's own stated framework in which the book is to be understood ("under the sun"), it also requires ignoring or waving off dozens of other scriptures that show people as fully conscious after their consciousness (soul) separates from their body.
  
  I posted a number of these scriptures earlier in this thread.
  
  As far as the resurrection goes, most scholars (skeptic, Jewish, Christian etc.) who publish in this area agree on these minimum facts that are well attested to in history.

  
  

  
  

  Many people find these facts impossible to explain away from a purely natural point of view. So, they end up believing that Jesus was raised from the dead. If a person believes that, then it provides a formidable basis to believe the other things that Jesus said.
  
  First century religious leaders didn't know what to do with this man. So, they had him executed, but he apparently didn't stay dead. People today still wonder what to do with him. Wise men still seek him. Christians simply believe him and take him at his word.
• 

  Rattigan350

  If they are conscious, then they are not dead.

  A person can not be called Dead and still yet be alive.

  Seabreeze is confused with those scriptures listed about lake of fire, Rich man and Lazarus. As it was said, No one is punished for eternity consciously for 840 months of life.

  People are dead, until the resurrection.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  They'll say:
  
  Well, looks like I'm anointed afterall!

  lol
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Sea Breeze though you are dismissing Ecclesiastes as "is part of the "WIS[D]OM LITERATURE" in the OT" and "is written from a carnal point of view, same as an atheist" the book actually doesn't teach atheism (as much as I might wish it did). For, example verses 7 and 9 from the same chapter 9 state belief in God. That chapter is actually expressing a Jewish religious view in Judah that there is no afterlife at all. Perhaps it was the same view as the Sadducees whom as you know denied the resurrection of the dead and the existence of spirits and angels. As you know, the Sadducees ran the Jewish temple of YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah in the second temple period and worshipped Yahweh, offering sacrifices to Yahweh. A scholarly book I quoted from months ago says that at a certain time in the history of biblical Judaism there were religious teachers and worshipers of Yahweh who taught the people that there was no afterlife at all. The book says those teachers were trying to refute the idea of other religious Jews. peacefulpete is correct in saying that there was a diversity of Jewish religious views about an afterlife, but his post on page two of this topic thread left out the view that some Jewish worshipers of Yahweh believed there was no afterlife at all.

  The book of Proverbs is also wisdom literature, yet it also states beliefs in God, it even says that wisdom comes from God. As a result, just because a book in the Bible in the Bible is wisdom literature, that mean it is atheistic. Atheistic books didn't make it in the Hebrew Scriptures, scriptures which the NT says are inspired of God.
  

  Fisherman, though many Christians teach that the book of Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon, a number of modern critical scholars say it was not written by him, despite the extant copies of the book saying it was written by him.
• 

  peacefulpete

  As far as the resurrection goes, most scholars (skeptic, Jewish, Christian etc.) who publish in this area agree on these minimum facts that are well attested to in history.

  You keep saying that despite having patiently been shown otherwise.

  Of your list 5 and 9 can be regarded as well established facts.

  5. The disciples (language drawn from the Gospels, "certain Jewish believers" would be more accurate) had experiences which they believed to be the risen Jesus (Christ).

  9. The church was born and grew.

  The rest of the list is in dispute as pious fiction drawn from OT midrash or contradicted by the NT itself or early documents.
  
  
• 

  TonusOH

  Sea Breeze: Many people find these facts impossible to explain away from a purely natural point of view.

  The only one that I could see an issue with is number 11, which appears to claim that there was a "risen Jesus." All of the others could be factual, since they do not require any sort of supernatural event to be true. A man named Jesus could have been crucified. If he had followers, they could have felt despair and hopelessness. And so on.

  Aside from number 11, assuming that these are all true doesn't get us to Jesus as anything other than a popular/controversial and influential person who was put to death. Number 11 cannot be taken at face value as something that could happen from a naturalist perspective. And even people who would believe in the supernatural would not necessarily accept number 11, since they might believe in a different religion or deities.
• 

  peacefulpete

  TonusOH...I agree with your logic that many of these items "could ' have happened. But none of them are established facts as was claimed. Many 'historical Jesus' writers use a similar logic as you have, by eliminating the impossible, they imagine some historical core. That approach however fails to appreciate the creativity of the author of Mark, the role of OT midrash and the boastful nature of Paul.

  "Paul" is claimed to have been a highly recognized Pharisee but at the same time claimed to have been sent on a mission by the Sadducean High Priest. Highly unlikely. Many of the doctrinal issues that inspired contempt for Christians were equally divisive among those groups. Also Roman law forbid local authorities conducting executions without their endorsement. Making the Acts stoning story improbable and illegal. Also Acts has Paul (Saul) being a resident of Jerusalem participating in the stoning by the Sanhedrin. Either we have Paul's backstory being fabricated post-Paul or he was exaggerating to impress his audience. Given the contradicting versions in Acts and the Paulines, we have to recognize that either is possible, and maybe a mix of the two.