If Jesus was raised a (spirit), then the (fleshly body) of Jesus who was among the apostles would (still) be in the grave. If a (spirit) only came forth from the fleshly body of Jesus, then it was (Michael) who was raised, and (not) Jesus. If Jesus was raised a spirit he would have (instantly) become (Michael), therefore when he appeared before his followers and disciples, he would have been misrepresenting himself, if he still called himself (Jesus). After his death when he spoke to Thomas, Jesus would have been deceiving his followers if he were not the (same) Jesus who had died and who had been raised. Can the Watchtower describe for us even (one) other (spirit) who was raised from scripture? Why are all scriptures pertaining to (resurrection) in the Bible, applied to (bodily) resurrections? Does the Bible change its meaning on resurrection, only in one case?
The "bodily reserrection of Christ"doctrine and John 2:19-22
by booker-t 55 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
Narkissos
Kenneson:
I fully agree that Pauline eschatology implies some final "bodily" dimension (albeit definitely not "flesh and blood"). This is referred to through many expressions, such as "redemption of our body" (Romans 8:23), "transform the body of our humiliation" (Philippians 3:21), or the "spiritual bodies" (1 Corinthians 15).
Pauline eschatology (as any) implies both continuity (which the JW version misses) and difference. IMO the "body" belongs to the latter; the body which dies is not that which raises up. The continuity is expressed with a notion of "nakedness" (or "nudity", or "bareness").
And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body...
So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven. What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
The very same idea of "another kind of body" being "put on," either over the "bare" continuity of death, or over the mortal body of the living, is also found in 2 Corinthians 5:
For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling-- if indeed, when we have taken it off we will not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan under our burden, because we wish not to be unclothed but to be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
At least it is very clear to me that this concept of resurrection / transformation does not imply the bodily resuscitation of "flesh and blood" which is implied by the empty tomb stories, Jesus' showing his wounds or eating...
So we are always confident; even though we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord-- for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we do have confidence, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil. -
Black Sheep
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
Revelation 7:9
9
After these things I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. 10 And they keep on crying with a loud voice, saying: "Salvation [we owe] to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb."Palm branches?
At least we know he had a tree to pee on :-)
-
Kenneson
Narkissos,
Whatever a glorified body looks like I can't say. But it seems to me that after the resurrection Jesus had a real body because it bore the marks of his crucifixion, which he had Thomas touch, so there is continuity here, but his body was also transformed so that he could appear in the midst of the disciples who were behind closed doors; moreover, on occasion they didn't recognize him.
What about our own human bodies? Aren't they constantly changing? Don't we continuously shed old skin, which is replaced by new? In Jesus' case the transformation took on divine dimensions so that he was no longer confined to time and space. There was sameness about his body, but there also was difference.
-
Narkissos
Kenneson,
We're not speaking of the same thing. You think of "events", of "what happened", and use the texts as evidence in your search for the "true history" behind the texts. I for one have not the least idea of "what happened", not even if anything "happened" at all, so I'm far from trying to describe it.
I, on the other hand, am interested in the texts themselves and the different ideas they imply. From this very limited point of view, I suggest that (1) Pauline theology of resurrection/transformation and (2) the empty tomb stories, especially with the insistence on wounds, touching and eating, belong to different sets of representations. Each one may be valid on its own grounds, but imo they cannot be mixed.
Or, more exactly, mixing them will result in a third doctrine which will be, for instance, neither Paul's nore Luke's. And there are about a thousand possibilities for the third doctrine: the WT's is one of them; yours is another; the classical catholic doctrine which holds that Jesus has at least three bodies in one (his dead, resurrected, and ascended one; the one he gives in the Eucharist; the one which is the Church) is still another one; the calvinist doctrine which affirms that only the first of those is real, while the others are symbolical, is just one more possibility. Everybody picks up what s/he likes.
But if we go back to the texts and stick to what they actually say I feel conciliation is impossible, and more basically irrelevant: it's either
Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate in their presence.
or
flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
-
Triple A
Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate in their presence.
or
flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Jesus, says he is flesh and bone. Paul says, flesh and blood. I do not see how Paul's statement negates Jesus from bodily ressurection. It does tell us that the immortal body does not have blood.
-
Narkissos
Jesus, says he is flesh and bone. Paul says, flesh and blood. I do not see how Paul's statement negates Jesus from bodily ressurection. It does tell us that the immortal body does not have blood.
LOL. Erm, nor flesh.
You'd have a better case considering "flesh and blood" as a semi-fixed expression (Matthew 16:17; John 1:13; 6:53ff; Ephesians 6:12; Hebrews 2:14), meaning globally "mortal mankind" or something like that, rather than referring literally and separately to the components "flesh" and "blood". But I doubt it would be enough to explain away the difference in theological perspective.
-
Triple A
Narkissos,
I agree that flesh and blood is an expression of mortal mankind. But the only place we see flesh and BONES in the NT is when Jesus is talking about is reserrected body. So I ask why the use of bones. Does this give a distinction between mortal and immortal? I believe it does.
Triple A
-
ellderwho
Whatever a glorified body looks like I can't say. But it seems to me that after the resurrection Jesus had a real body because it bore the marks of his crucifixion, which he had Thomas touch, so there is continuity here, but his body was also transformed so that he could appear in the midst of the disciples who were behind closed doors; moreover, on occasion they didn't recognize him.
What I always thought was interesting was Jesus didnt bleed all over Thomas from the wounds in hands and side.
Or Jesus didnt say " do you have any dressings for these bleeding wounds"??
-
Kenneson
For an interesting view of the "flesh and blood" issue see