Jesus Christ - The man who was raised from the dead

by hooberus 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Dansk

  Hi Freddy,

  Their grammatical form is most similar to that of the Apocryphal gospel of Thomas. This is but one example giving credibility to the idea that texts not recognised by the Church hold important clues about Christ's true life and his teachings.

  Yes, it's well known that the Bible we have today contains books that were originally discarded, and many of those that were discarded by the early Church Fathers are believed to have far greater credibility, such as the gospel of Thomas.

  Principles such as karma and re-incarnation, for example, were common knowledge then, and seem to have been reaffirmed by Christ. Imagine the implications that this discovery holds for Western Christianity and its churches, who have kept Christ in their doctrinal top pockets and have constrained the entire Western culture within the narrow teachings of blind faith, organised religion and original sin!

  This is VERY interesting, if true (?).

  There is also much historical truth in the towns and villages of Northern India to prove that Jesus and his mother Mary spent time in the area. For instance, at the border of a small town called Mari, there is nearby a mountain called Pindi Point, upon which is an old tomb called Mai Mari da Asthan or "The final resting place of Mary". The tomb is said to be very old and local Muslims venerate it as the grave of Issa's (ie Christ's) Mother.

  Jesus and Mary sure got around a lot, didn't they!

  Ian

  Edited to add this synopsis I found on Amazon regarding Jesus Lived in India: His Unknown Life Before and After the Crucifixion by Holger Kersten The result of many years investigative research, this book takes the reader to all the historical sites connected with Jesus in Israel, the Middle East, Afghanistan and India. As well as coming across age-old links between the Israelites and the East, the author finds evidence of the following - the youthful Jesus who followed the ancient Silk Road to India, while in India he studied Buddhism, adopted its tenets and became a spiritual master, that he survived the crucifixition and, after the "resurrection", he returned to India to die of old age and that he was buried in Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir.
• 

  hooberus

  That aside, don't you think someone who has been resurrected from the dead, especially in Roman times where such matters would be recorded, would have had copious amounts written about him? Instead, there's not not one shred of evidence - not one historical document - that testifies to the account other than in the Bible. An event of such magnitude would have had reams written about it surely! Thousands would have flocked to see this resurrected man, if only to find out what potion he had been drinking - what elixir of life he'd been using.

  How come Josephus doesn't give more than a few lines to any mention of Jesus? (As you know, those lines are not considered to be original by many critics). Outside of the Bible, where's the evidence?

  Regards,

  Ian

  Dansk, I hope someday start a thread on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have done one on the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and a resurrection thread would be a logical follow up.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/63458/1.ashx

  This series of threads is however a biblical one on the Bibles teachings of the continuing manhood of Jesus Christ verses the Watchtowers claims of a recreated "angel."
• 

  hooberus

  stillajwexeldersaid:

  Hooberus -- at long last we are in agreement -- a man not a God or The God or Almighty God that Almighty God raised -- no room for trinity crap here

  Do you also agree then that He is not an angel?
• 

  Narkissos

  Hooberus,

  OK I'll make my question clearer: where did the WT apply the qualification "angel" to the resurrected Jesus?
• 

  hooberus

  The watchtower claims that Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel.

  "Scriptural evidence indicated that the name Michael applied to God's Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be the `archangel,' meaning `chief angel' or `principle angel'" (p. 1152). Aid to Bible Understanding

  "The foremost angel, both in power and authority is the archangel, Jesus Christ, also called Michael." (Watchtower, Nov. 1, 1995, p. 8)
• 

  czarofmischief

  Hey,

  Maybe Jesus is still alive today! Maybe he posts here under the name JCanon!

  Hah!

  CZAR
• 

  Satanus

  Nav

  Conscioussness not without form, hmmm. You could be right. I don't know if your comment on 'a course in miracles' is a joke or not. While i have heard a lot of positives about the message in the book, i am skeptical about it's origins being jesus. New age writers/channelers love using biblical terms like jesus and christ. However, it's a good selling point.

  SS
• 

  Satanus

  testing
• 

  Narkissos

  Hooberus:

  Not that I would defend in any way the JW doctrine, but I still disagree with your "man" vs. "angel" logic for the sake of intellectual honesty.

  As an example of very poor Biblical interpretation, the WT identifies Jesus with the archangel Michael. But it is not quite the same as identifying him with any unqualified "angel". Contrary to the general Jewish and Christian tradition (due to its ignoring the extracanonical writings which belong to the background of the NT), the WT affirms there is only one archangel: so his nature is really unique. In this perspective JWs can accept easily (without much distorsion) the texts about the superiority of the Son over angels (e.g. Hebrews). Whatever the exact nature they ascribe to this "Archangel-Son", they do combine it in their own simplistic way with a measure of "humanity". For instance, to use their vocabulary, they don't say he "materialized" (as the "angels" are supposed to have done before the Flood), but that he became flesh and was born as a man. In their own rudimentary theology they say "Jesus will be a good king because he has been a man", implying that he keeps something of his humanity after his spiritual resurrection. So the argument "either man or angel" opposed to their doctrine is about as honest, IMO, as the argument "either man or God" opposed to a Trinitarian.
• 

  hooberus

  Not that I would defend in any way the JW doctrine, but I still disagree with your "man" vs. "angel" logic for the sake of intellectual honesty.

  My arguments are honest:
  

  I have shown that scriptures teach in several places (four recent threads) that Jesus Christ is a man and that the scriptures give a negative that He is not an angel.

  I have also accurately represented the Watchtowers opposite position (which teaches that Jesus Christ is now not a man, but that he is an angel.)

  As an example of very poor Biblical interpretation, the WT identifies Jesus with the archangel Michael. But it is not quite the same as identifying him with any unqualified "angel".

  An archangel is still an angel by nature (albeit a high ranking or highest ranking one) compare 2 Peter 2:11 with Jude 9.

  The Watchtower in their book "Revelation Its Grand Climax at Hand !" identifies the entities called "another angel" (Revelation 7:2 NWT); "another strong angel" (Revelation 10:1 NWT); and "another angel" (Revelation 18:1 NWT); as being Jesus Christ.
  

  Contrary to the general Jewish and Christian tradition (due to its ignoring the extracanonical writings which belong to the background of the NT), the WT affirms there is only one archangel: so his nature is really unique.

  They would probably say that his position is unique, but that He has the nature of an angel.
  

  In this perspective JWs can accept easily (without much distorsion) the texts about the superiority of the Son over angels (e.g. Hebrews).

  They have to reason that the Son is superior to the other angels, but that He is still an angel (albeit the highest ranking one).
  

  Whatever the exact nature they ascribe to this "Archangel-Son", they do combine it in their own simplistic way with a measure of "humanity". For instance, to use their vocabulary, they don't say he "materialized" (as the "angels" are supposed to have done before the Flood), but that he became flesh and was born as a man.

  While the Watchtower does teach that Jesus was a fully human man after being born as a man, they teach that after his "resurrection" he was one again Michael the archangel who merely "materialized" bodies (just like the angels are supposed to have done before the flood). These "materialized" bodies are what he showed the disciples.
  

  In their own rudimentary theology they say "Jesus will be a good king because he has been a man", implying that he keeps something of his humanity after his spiritual resurrection.

  The Watchtower speaks of Jesus being a man in the past tense. For example the Book "You Can Live Forever in Paradise Earth" says that he was a man. The Watchtower teaches that Jesus permanently forfeited his humanity. They might however say that he "remembers" being human.
  

  So the argument "either man or angel" opposed to their doctrine is about as honest, IMO, as the argument "either man or God" opposed to a Trinitarian

  Trinitarians teach that Jesus Chist is both God and man, whereas the Watchower teaches that Jesus Christ is now by nature an angel, and that He is not a man. Therefore an "either man or angel" argument is appropriate.

  Most importantly, I have shown that scriptures teach in several places (four recent threads) that Jesus Christ is a man and that the scriptures also give a negative in some of these same situations that He is not an angel.