I have been examing this doctrine for a very long time and I must admit it makes no sense at all. When I talk to born-again christians about this doctrine the first place they always run to in the Bible is John 2:19-22. The verse simple states: Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews thought he was talking about the temple building. But John explains that he was talking about the temple of his body." From these verses born-agains have created a very far-fetched doctrine that makes no sense scriptually. First of all there are so many questions that come to mind if we believe that Jesus arose in his fleshly body and took it to heaven. First of all the most important question I would ask is how is Jesus if he took his body to heaven going to use the bathroom? If it is the same body that he died in then he would have to be able to use the bathroom. The first thing born-agains will say is that Jesus has a "glorified"body now. But my question will be did Jesus arise in the "same" body or a different body? If he arose in a glorified body then christians cannot say it was his same body. If it is a glorified body then it was a different body and John 2:19:-22 falls at the wayside. I feel that John 2:19-22 is used in a figutive way comparing the temple building to Jesus' life that was going to be restored in 3 days. Why would 1 Pet 3: 18-19 say that Jesus was put to death in the flesh and made alive in the spirit" if Jesus had his fleshly body? And the argument that christians use about the word "soma"always meaning a fleshly body is wrong because Paul uses "soma" in 1 Corinthians when he describes physical bodies and "spiritual bodies" and he uses them in the "dative" or comparison so they cannot mean the same. 1 Cor 15:45 Jesus is said to be a live-giving spirit Paul would have never said this about Jesus if Paul believed in the bodily reserrection doctrine of Jesus. And the all important question that I would like to know from christians is if God is a Spirit and those worshipping him in spirit and truth how could Jesus if he is God be flesh when the bible specifically states God is a Spirit? This kills all of the Jesus in his "human nature" mumble jumbo that I have heard. I think the truth of the matter is that Jesus arose in the spirit just like God is in the spirit and Jesus is residing along side of God in a spiritual body.
The "bodily reserrection of Christ"doctrine and John 2:19-22
by booker-t 55 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Narkissos
I agree with you booker-t: the first concept of Jesus' "resurrection" was evidently spiritual, not physical; this is the idea of Paul, although he somewhat obfuscates it in 1 Corinthians 15 with his mention of "spiritual bodies" (which by the way he doesn't apply to Jesus: Jesus' spiritual body is nothing but his church); and it is still obvious much later in 1 Peter.
Of course there are a number of passages which imply a bodily resurrection, and those were obviously made up to counteract the earlier concept and its later Gnostic or docetic (meaning, Jesus' body was always an appearance, not a true physical body) developments. Such are the stories of the empty tomb (at least after Mark), the apparitions of Jesus where he shows his wounds, asks to be touched, or eats...
Now in John 2:21f the comment about the temple being his body appears as a kind of gloss, a second-hand commentary which is not even put on Jesus' lips. If we set it apart Jesus is shown saying exactly what the witnesses in his trial accused him of saying: "I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days." (Matthew 26:61//.)
-
Double Edge
The "bodily reserrection of Christ"doctrine and John 2:19-22 I have been examing this doctrine for a very long time and I must admit it makes no sense at all. That's interesting, because I've always told my JW friend that I thought their "spiritual" resurrection of Christ doctrine made no sense. I found the following on Google that breaksdown the mainstream Christian belief :
-
Brummie
I spent so many hours studying this one doctrine before I left the JWs, finally it became one of the major reasons I did leave the WT society, they are in error,. He was raised bodily according to scripture.
Its obsurd that they believe Jesus was raised a spirit, it defies their own doctrine. They believe Jesus did NOT have a spirit, he was exactly the same as Adam...NO spirit. What was raised? Which part of Jesus was raised? They say his "life pattern" was raised, erm, did a life pattern dies for us? A life pattern is just information! Did information suffer and die? Obsurd.
1st Peter 3:18 doesnt support the idea that a life pattern was raised, it says "HE" was raised. So they have no supprt there. There is the argument that it doesnt support he was raised a spirit either, it says he was raised BY the spirit. Check KIT.
Acts 2, (32?) His body did not see corruption? His soul was not left in Hades. Even if his flesh disolved into a million atoms (as the WT teaches) then he still saw corruption, they contradict scripture! So Acts teaches his flesh was raised. "This SAME Jesus (that you saw die) Was raised" No one saw his spirit die did they? The same that died was raised.
Fact is, what they teach is obsurd. A "spirit" that had no connection to the man that died, was raised from the dead! But how can a spirit that didnt die be raised??
They can believe whatever they choose to, but it doesnt make sense. Jesus didnt have a spirit, but a spirit that didnt suffer was recreated and put in his place.
Confused? You should be..lol
-
Narkissos
Brummie,
I agree with you that the WT teaching of total annihilation at death is incompatible with any resurrection doctrine, whether spiritual or bodily. As has been repeatedly shown, it is an impossible blend of the Sadducean (cf. Ecclesiastes) concept of death as an absolute end (as far as the individual is concerned) and half the Pharisee concept of both immortal soul and resurrection.
But the fact remains, in the NT there are texts about a spiritual resurrection and texts about a bodily resurrection, and IMO it is impossible to make them agree (why should we?).
-
Brummie
, in the NT there are texts about a spiritual resurrection
Nark, which scriptures are they? Can you remember? I think I remember whittling it down to only one Scripture in Corinthians that could be interpreted as a spiritual ressurection after getting rid of the watchtowers interference, but I'm going back a while now, so there could be more.
(why should we?).
I agree really
Brummie
-
Narkissos
Brummie,
The texts booker-t mentioned in the initial post (1 Corinthians 15; 1 Peter 3:18-19) are a good start. Actually the Pauline epistles repeatedly connect Jesus' resurrection to the "spirit" (Romans 1:3f etc.), especially as it operates in his believers who henceforth are his body (through baptism and the eucharist). This central idea would not work had Paul thought of Jesus' individual human body as resurrected on the third day (where would it be now btw?).
In the Gospels (Mark 12:18ff//), the famous discussion between Jesus and the Sadducees explicitly teaches a spiritual resurrection ("like the angels"). The Sadducees criticise the concept of a bodily resurrection and Jesus answers that this is not what is meant by "resurrection". (The WT's applying this to a physical resurrection results in an absurdity which nobody could ever understand, i.e. husbands and wives bodily resurrected yet not married.)
-
AK - Jeff
Narcissos -
Just trying to get the watchtower filters shed at this point - but wouldn't Heb 11:35 indicate that there were more than one sort of resurrection, since some would receive a 'better resurrection'?
To me this would support the idea that Jesus would attain the 'best' type of resurrection. If there was both a 'bodily' resurrection and a 'spirit' resurrection, it would seem to be consistent that the place of residence would determine the type of resurrection needed. Since Christ obviously resides in the heavenly realms, how would he receive a 'bodily' ressurection?
Resurrection does not of itself indicate the raising of the exact bodily type that died - does it? To me, resurrection means 'a returning to life' - not of the body but of the personage.
Those that died in past centuries would not have to have the precise body would they? What is needed is a restoration of life to the person - irregardless of the vessle that that person occupied?
In trying to evaluate what the scriptures actually say here, I was amazed at the short list of scriptures that actually use the word. Even including the multiple mentions of the word in the same discussion, the word only appears about 45 or 50 times in the New testament.
At first blush at least I would have to come down on the side of a 'spiritual' resurrection. But that is the teaching of the Wt, and I am not sure that I have been able yet to shed the 'overprints' that have been a part of me for 35 years or so.
Jeff
-
Kenneson
The empty tomb narratives are evidence enough that the early Christians did not believe that Jesus' body decayed in the grave.
By means of touch and the sharing of a meal, the risen Jesus establishes direct contact with his disciples. He tells them that he is not a ghost (a spirit) and that the risen body in which he appears to them has continuity with the same body that had been crucified, for it still bears the marks. See Luke 24:30, 39-40,41-43; John 20:20,27; 21:9, 13-15. Yet at the same time this authentic, real body possesses the new properties of a glorified body: not limited by time and space but able to be present how and when he wills; for Christ's humanity is no longer confined to earth but belongs henceforth only to the Father's divine realm See Matt. 28:9, 16-17; Luke 24:15, 36; John 20:14, 17, 19, 26; 21:4. For this reason too the risen Jesus enjoys the sovereign freedom of appearing as he wishes: in the guise of a gardener or in other forms familiar to his disciples, precisely to awaken their faith. See Mark 16:12: John 20:14-16; 21:4, 7.
The glorified body of Jesus does not mean Jesus has lost his humanity. He didn't lose that anymore than he lost his divinity when he became human. He still has a body (he is not a ghost), but it is transformed. Paul calls Jesus the "man of heaven" at 1 Cor. 15: 47
-
Narkissos
AK-Jeff:
As to the spiritual resurrection concept, I agree. It is still not the WT teaching, for it implies a personal continuity through and beyond death (call it "spirit" or "soul", but personal).
Hebrews 11 obviously refers to the martyrdom stories in 2 Maccabees 6--7, which imply both the idea of immortal soul and bodily (although in some "glorified" sense) resurrection. What the latter adds to the former is the necessity of vindication and punishment. The oppressor has got to see the martyrs in their glorified state as part of his humiliation (also Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 2 and 5).
As to the Biblical terminology of resurrection, whether in Hebrew or in Greek, one should note that it is only a metaphorical use of common words. There is no specialised vocabulary: the two main NT verbs usally translated by "resurrect" simply mean "to awaken" and "to raise", and they are in no way limited to the dead.
Kenneson:
I agree that all those texts insist (some of them pretty heavily) on bodily resurrection. But to me they are rather evidence that "the early Christians" did not all believe the same thing.
Whatever the case, IMO 1 Corinthians 15:47 is a very bad example, as it actually refers to a "man from heaven" (a very common myth with a host of variations, e.g. the "Son of Man", the "Second Adam"), not to the humanity the Son of God would have acquired by coming on earth (as later orthodoxy implies).