Resurrection, Reconstruction? What is it? It never made sense to me. Your opinion.

by Wasanelder Once 40 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Hairtrigger

  The resurrection:

  JC is supposed to have resurrected two people from the dead during his supposed lifetime? Or was it three? Forget his own resurrection.

  Never before in the history of the human race was anything so magical and astonishing ever performed. Witnesses who saw the first bring—back -from the dead must have been amazed and news of this should have spread like wildfire across the Roman world. Roman leaders would have made inquiries and sought to bear out the veracity of this occurrence. But ? Zilch. No one outside the small circle of the affected ever got to know of this. Next was Lazarus. Again the Roman world remained oblivious to this great artists performance. Why? Just one witness to the Roman leaders would have turned the whole Roman Empire Christian. Christians would not be fed to the lions in the arena, he would not have to be crucified , his message would have been taken really seriously by all and imposed by the Emperor and books would have been written with all he had to say and would have saved the world a lot of grief and bloodshed. There would be no need for his death and resurrection the latter of which was again witnessed by a dubious number.

  And what was the purpose in resurrecting Lazarus and the boy? According to the beliefs laid down by the church and the GB death pays for our sins. Resurrection cleanses us and tests us for a thousand years. Shouldn’t the two of them been living for a thousand years after they were brought back to life. No they died again? Isn’t that against big J’s laws ? Are we to assume Lazarus old boy sinned against his god after being resurrected as well as the little boy? And that’s why they died forever and will never be resurrected again? Why a separate set of rules for the two and another one for the rest of mankind?Looks like the Bible and the church and the GB invented each other’s BS.
• 

  truth_b_known

  Regardless of the denomination, Christian afterlife has always perplexed me. It is like signing a contract without reading it or understanding it.

  There is no clear understanding of what humans living on Earth will be doing for eternity in the Witness paradise or what life will be like as a resurrected human. I have heard speculation of the resurrected not being physically recognizable or even being brought back in these sexless bodies.

  Being told "Whatever it will be like we are sure it will be good (translation - at least you will be alive, forever)." Sorry, but I want to know the details. Living forever isn't necessarily a good thing and one person's paradise is another persons hell.
• 

  under the radar

  First off, my personal belief is that it’s all BS.

  But when I did believe in the big sky daddy, I thought of resurrection as kind of like when you transplant your old hard drive into a new computer. Functionally, all the old programs and data are still there, so it’s essentially the same computer, just maybe running a bit more efficiently due to a new processor, better cooling, etc.
  

  Probably a weak analogy, but it’s the best I could come up with.
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  @hairtrigger

  Your argument is based on the assumption that if one Roman saw what happened everything would change. It's a weak argument though. There is no reason why others should believe what one Roman said, or even a bunch of Romans.
  Don't forget it was the Jews that wanted Jesus gone at all costs, regardless of any miracles or resurrections. After Jesus' death they would have strongly denied any powers that Jesus had, otherwise it would have made them look like slayers of God's son. And they did deny everything Jesus did, and deny it to this day. No one would have wanted it to be written into history, that the man they killed had performed miracles and brought people back from death. No one would have wanted to be known as a slayer of God's son, the Romans didn't, it wasn't even their battle. It was the Christians that went out and told people what really happened. And the Romans who believed, became Christians.
• 

  Hairtrigger

  Nitty- Gritty

  My argument is based on the hush- hush manner in which the raising of the dead was done.- or said it was done. Why couldn’t it be done in the presence of Roman rulership? Where it could have been a witness to JC and n effect Big J’s greatness and divinity?
• 

  Wasanelder Once

  Ding, I honestly couldn't bring myself to believe it. Yes I promoted it but there was never any emotion in my appeal of it to others. It seemed the most unfair to me the way it was taught. Hitler types being brought back after such torment and suffering put on others by them. How could I have peace even knowing that asshole was getting a second chance while someone else was dying in Armageddon because they had a suspicion of the WT man made religion or sincerely were born a Muslim? It was among the many cracks in the damn that broke and washed me away to freedom.
  
• 

  Sea Breeze

  And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. - John 5: 29

  Here's another scripture that doesn't fit with the WT view that everyone pays for their own sin when they die and they get to be resurrected in a paradise earth for a do-over.
  
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  That's what faith and beliefs are about, believing in the irrational and the improbable no matter what is established to a appealing degree..

  Humanity has been asking the gods for help with sickness and death for thousands of years, who knows maybe this will continue on for another thousand years. ?

  In the mean time I think its better to deal with the probable to what we have within the known and accepted physical world.

  Waiting for the gods of ancient times to help us out is not really a good wager to make wholly based upon the inspired imaginations of few men who lived a long time ago.
  
• 

  Sea Breeze

  That's what faith and beliefs are about, believing in the irrational and the improbable

  All people (atheists included) live with faith and probabilities every single day. Historians use a set of apparatuses to determine history and then write books.
  
  The below is a list of "minimum facts" concerning the resurrection of Jesus. Half on the list have a 95% agreement with all critical scholars including atheist researchers and bible critics like Bart Ehrmann. The other half have over 75% agreement with the same global crowd.
  
  They are simply using the same critical analysis used with any historical examination.

  
  

  After examining these minimum facts, the most reasonable and rational conclusion for me is that Jesus indeed resurrected from the dead.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Quite an acknowledgment to make when its realized its all based upon hearsay.

  What about all the other expressed stories that were told by other ancients about their own select gods, were they also all factually true ?