..all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Eli'jah who is to come.
Resurrection to Spirit Form, Your Opinion would be Appreciated,
by jeanniebeanz 21 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
jeanniebeanz
Thank you, one and all, for your thoughts and ideas. It has been a very interesting read! I have a few thoughts and questions if you?ll bear with me;
JosephMalik,
You?ve made some strong assertions regarding the nature of the spirit as portrayed in the bible, and also the nature of the Kingdom of Christ. Although I find your ideas interesting, it would be appreciated if you could tie in some scriptural references to back up your position so that I could see what you are talking about. This is going to be a bible-based discussion with my daughter, and I?ll need to know where the proof comes from in the bible.
Bas,
My main reason for believing this is that when you have lived once, according to mathematical principles you must be born again, however long a time is in between your two lives (maybe billions of billions of years).
I have got to know; where did you get this theory? I have never heard it before. How in the world did someone think to do the math to create the hypothesis in the first place? Interesting?
Rod,
I have never thought of there being a ?red herring? in the bible leading us to a false conclusion regarding the soul. Again, interesting! When you get back to the 2 Cor. 5:6-8 I?ll read with interest. And on your point regarding the JW idea of resurrection being that of a perfect clone, I agree. It never made sense. If you kill someone and no part of them survives, they are nothing but a divinely created clone and certainly not the person who died.
Hmike,
I?m with you! These are all scriptured which made me go "hmmmm" as a witness.
Leolaia,
You have given me more homework in this one paragraph than I?ll be able to do in a week! Lol
Is Shabbat a book of the Torah? I don?t know anything about it really. Is it possible to get a copy?
A Paduan
Whare is that scripture? I cannot find it?
-
Rod P
Jeanniebeanz,
Please understand what I am trying to say. I was in no way suggesting that the Bible itself contained a "red herring" that would lead us to a false conclusion regarding the soul.
The thrust of my argument is that the WBTS is using all these scriptures (i.e. the many thousands of them) and applying them in a way that says "This is what the Bible teaches us respecting the meaning or definition of the soul, and what happens when we die." "All this stuff" means the kind of stuff the WBTS has been using as "proof" for their version of the doctrine of the Soul. In other words, I am suggesting they have handed us a "red herring" by way of misapplying or wrongly interpreting these scriptures as being relevant as to what the Bible teaches on the doctrine of the Soul. In so doing, they have been wrongly progagating the false notion that the Bible teaches that when we die, there is no continuity of existence after physical death. They teach that after the resurrection certain people will be brought back to life, or back into existence, but, in fact, it is merely God implanting His perfect memory of who and what you were while you lived on this earth. That is their rationale for how this works, since they have already concluded that when you are dead you are no longer in existence. They have boxed themselves into a corner by their own interpretations, so to speak, and so that is the only possible explanation open to them. It is a bit like drawing one's own conclusions at the start, and then back-tracking, and all along the way you have to force interpretations to make them fit the conclusion you came to earlier.
In order to understand what the Bible really teaches about the Soul and the Spirit, and life after death, etc. we must go to the right scriptures, the relevant ones, and then we can begin to understand the truth that is in the Bible. There are some very powerful and enlightening ones that show that we do live on after death, and the WBTS has to try very hard to rationalize away what certain scriptures say in order to make them fit their own pre-conceived notions and conclusions that they sold themselves on so long ago, starting with Charles Taze Russell. His approach was to use a Bible Concordance, and lined all these scriptures up, and then said "Look, here is what the Bible teaches about the Soul Doctrine." But there was a lot of background information that he did not have in his possession, nor was he an expert in Hebrew and Greek, and so he led himself down a wrong path to the wrong conclusion. And the WBTS has been perpetuating this version of the Soul Doctrine ever since. The simple truth is, they have been wrong from the start.
Rod P.
-
Narkissos
Shabbath is the title of one tractate in the Talmud.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm#t01
One very general remark on interpretation:
"The Bible" doesn't teach anything. Its texts teach a lot of different, often contradictory, sometimes incompatible things.
The ideas of complete and final annihilation, spiritual survival of the soul, spiritual resurrection, bodily resurrection, partial resurrection, general resurrection, etc., can all be found in the Bible.
To make a doctrinal synthesis out of this amalgamation of texts and ideas (as all catechisms do) one has to privilege some texts and explain the others away. As a result the synthesis is no synthesis, it is just another text and another set of ideas.
-
JosephMalik
Bas,
You will find much more detail on the views offered in my book and documents found on my web page. Furthermore, I am not the only one that shares such views but as can be expected everyone has their own variation and you should determine for yourself what such truth really is. Variation in doctrine also existed in the first century and the apostle Paul did much to resolve this. Today we are far beyond such variation and most so called Christian doctrine is not even close to the truth.
The WT for one has never had the truth or preached the good news of the kingdom as they claim. Their doctrine is a mess and unresolveable. So you are faced with the responsibility of finding truth for yourself. The task is not impossible and accurate supportable views will be found. All I have tried to do is assist in this effort but what you teach others must come from you.
Joseph
http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/ -
Rod P
Hi Narkissos,
I know this is Jeaniebeanz' thread, but I just have to reply to your comments.
The Bible is a collection of "little books" but they are not just any old books selected from random. They were put together with certain purposes in mind, one of which is to try to show that there is a thread of divine harmony and purpose implicit in the affairs of mankind; that there is a God of the Universe that is manifest in man's history. Another one includes moral code and direction for behavior and treatment of ones fellow man. There are also overriding themes such as the fall of man producing sin and death, which then leads to the need for a Saviour, a Messiah, as sinful, imperfect man cannot save himself. There is prophesy sprinkled from one end of the Bible to the other. Life after death, or the eternal destiny of mankind is an important topic that is also dealt with in many place in the Bible, and, of course, that leads us into topics like the Soul or Hell(fire), the Nature of God, the Trinity concept/doctrine. There is a whole tapestry of concepts that are interwoven together, and they can get rather complex, to say the least. Still, we try to blend and present them together as a kind of unified and harmonious whole. This is the story of Religion, and it should be no surprise that there is no universal agreement amongst them.
We can choose to believe or to not believe. We can dismiss it all as hogwash, myth and superstition, or we can pursue it with a view that perhaps there is something to it, and see where that leads to. Many start out with the latter and end up with the former. Others experience it in reverse. So yes, it does come down to individual choices and beliefs, and who is to prove in absolute terms who is right and who is wrong?
When I was a JW knocking on doors, I met some very interesting people with some very diverse religious backgrounds. I learned an awful lot from each of them, which also exposed a lot of chinks in the JW doctrines and interpretations. This led me to the conviction that the "Bible only" theory cannot be used as a basis for faith. In other words, the Bible was quite capable of different interpretations, depending on who you talked to, given the level of scholarship and intellect involved. Give two people one primary topic to discuss from the Bible, then give them six months to thoroughly research that topic, then get them in a room to debate the topic. The odds are, they will probably stale-mate, because each one has their own belief system, and so will tend to argue from the perspective of their own pre-conceived notions (i.e. the teachings of their religious affiliation). And even if one managed to change the other one's mind, what does that prove. It only proves that one had the better debate and interpretive skills, and so they could both be wrong together. It is a virtual impossible task to "prove all truth" from the Bible precisely because of the problem of Interpretation of Scripture. Therefore, something more than the Bible is needed. That became my spiritual pilgimage- to find the source or organization on earth that was inspired of God, or in other words, had the "authority" to speak in the name of God, who would be given the guidance and direction from God as to what was the truth and what wasn't. That led me to the question of the Catholic Church, who claimed Apostolic Succession from the time of Jesus until now. ("Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church"). But the Mormons say there was a great apostasy of the Church and by the Church, which was prophesied in the Bible that the end would not come until there was a falling away first. And so, the Priesthood Authority to act in the name of God was removed from the earth until the end times, and a young boy named Joseph Smith was supposedly visited by Divine Beings, including the angel Moroni, God the Father and Jesus Christ, as well as Peter, James and John, Moses and Aaron who laid hands on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and bestowed the keys of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods. Now the Authority to speak for God was back on the earth, and so now I thought I had found the basis for understanding the Bible as the Word of God ("insofar as it is translated correctly").....Except that, as time went on, and more and more historical facts came to light, it became pretty evident to me that this was a nice story, but in the final analysis, was a fabrication. This led me to leaving the Mormon Church, and so now I was stuck here on my own with the same dilemma I had years ago as a JW: How do you know exactly how to interpret the Bible in every instance on every topic. This then led me to an internal search, trying to find an inner spiritual connection with divinity, and to receive inspiration as best as I was capable of receiving. That is another story in itself. I just want to say for now that in the end, we will all end up having to stand on our own two feet, and face and struggle with these questions on our own. The best we can do is share our thoughts and discoveries with others, like is happening on this forum.
Now in spite of these limitations, I still like to study the Bible and compare texts and to try to glean certain "truths" from that collection. But instead of seeing it as though every jot and tittle, every word, every letter, is the very Word of God, I see the Bible as a useful tool (but not the only tool) from which to study spiritual concepts and questions. And even if you cannot produce a synthesis on all topics with all scriptures, I still am of the view that the exercise has value, and also that some scriptures do, in fact, trump others in terms of establishing certain "doctrines" (for lack of a better word). But at the same time, I am not interested in establishing some kind of dogma around Biblical passages aligned with certain paths of logic and reason, given that there may be different ways of looking at various passages. In some respects, this is not much different than studying Shakespeare, or Homer and the Illiad, etc. where people study and debate them endlessly, and over time, new insights can still be gleaned from them. It's as though "turth" has different levels, like the layers of an onion. Some individuals deal with the surface layer, while others peel them away and penetrate deeper levels of understanding, and so on. That is why I will not spend my life pooh-poohing the Bible. There is still value there, just as there is in many other books, inspired or not.
You have mentioned spiritual, bodily, partial and general resurrections that are all contained in the Bible. But these are not necessarily contradictory. Some may be aspects of a broader topic, some may be literal, some may be symbolical or analagous. They are all worth exploring, and they do not have to used as grist for the mill of biblical criticism and skepticism. To each their own. Maybe the Bible is like a giant software program, say a word processing one, where anyone can turn it on and use it or play with it and see what they come up with. Everyone's document produced from that program would end up different or unique in some way or another, but no-one would suggest that it is a useless exercise. It is a tool that is meant to explore to see what one can discover!
Regards,
Rod P.
-
Narkissos
Hi Rod P,
Nice reading you. Quite a journey.
-
moanzy
HI DAD!
It's me Moanzy
-
A Paduan
matthew 11:14
-
Rod P
Jeanniebeanz:
Sorry I took so long getting back to you. Your scripture at 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 led me on a pretty lengthy search. There is a ton of stuff on the subject, and at times, I thought it would become inexhaustible, making it difficult to focus on your question at hand.
One of the problems of trying to explain what the Apostle Paul meant here is that we need to examine who he was, what he said in a number of his epistles, and even look at the chronology of his missionary journeys over time, because all of this has a bearing on the matter of CONTEXT when interpreting Paul. The other thing we unfortunately have to get into is "textual criticism" which makes some very interesting cases for a number of different viewpoints as to how to interpret what Paul wrote.
Still further, there are questions of authorship. Did Paul really write this? Some say it is all a patchwork that has been cobbled together at a much later date, and then ascribed it to Paul. Others use evidences of internal harmonies of the epistles that bear the stamp of authenticity that this belongs to Paul, and him only.
Then there are the Preterists who believe that the New Testament with all its prophecies about the end-times, saw the fulfillment of all bible prophecy which culminated in the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. They therefore, have an entirely different perspective on 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 than many others, especially when it come to timing of the resurrection, and what happens when we die.
Then there are the Agnostics. One writer in particular, has devoted a lot of pen and ink to 1 & 2 Corinthians, but has also written about all of Paul's epistles at length. His context, however, is that Paul, from the time of his conversion to the end of his ministry, had actually started quite a different Christianity than that contained within the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Gospels tell of the life of Jesus, about his teachings and the miracles he performed. The Apostles knew him personally and followed him around, and they wrote these things down. Their focus however, was very much to do with the Law of Moses, and how Jesus fit into that scheme of things as the Messiah. This had almost nothing to do with Gentile converts to Christianity. The Apostle Paul, on the other hand, spent his entire ministry on preaching to the Gentiles, particularly the Greeks and the Romans, and taught that the Christ was meant for the whole world, and not just the nation of Israel. The Gospels were very much connected with Jesus in the flesh. Paul was all about a "spiritual conversion", and a "spiritual Christ" and finding inspiration and revelation from God (not Jesus himself).
I find this a real conundrum here, because I am seriously wondering whether the Christianity that Paul taught is the same Christianity that the Apostles taught from when they were with Jesus.
Then there is the Catholic Church and their scholars, who claim they have been there from the start and down thru the centuries, and so they claim to be in a position to know better than anyone else what Paul said and what he meant. Then along comes Protestantism with its many branches like the Pentecostals and Baptists and Evangelicals and Presbyterians and Methodists and Mormons and J.W.'s and on and on and on. Each of these seem to add their own flavor, context, commentary and interpretation. So by the time you wade thru all this stuff, you begin to wonder what Paul meant in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 after all.
Firstly, I think we need to read 2 Cor. 5:1-5 in conjunction with vs. 6-8.
1 For we know that if our earthly house, a tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 And, in fact, we groan in this one, longing to put on our house from heaven, 3 since, when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 Indeed, we who are in this tent groan, burdened as we are, because we do not want to be unclothed but clothed, so that mortality may be swallowed up by life. 5 And the One who prepared us for this very thing is God, who gave us the Spirit as a down payment. (Holman NT)
(Weymouth NT) 2 Cor 5:1 For we know that if this poor tent, our earthly house, is taken down, we have in Heaven a building which God has provided, a house not built by human hands, but eternal. 2 For in this one we sigh, because we long to put on over it our dwelling which comes from Heaven- 3 if indeed having really put on a robe we shall not be found to be unclothed. 4 Yes, we who are in this tent certainly do sigh under our burdens, for we do not wish to lay aside that which we are now clothed, but to put on more, so that our mortality may be absorbed in Life. 5 And He who formed us with this very end in view is God, who has given us His Spirit as a pledge and foretaste of that bliss.
Now, it seems to me the particular scripture you are quoting (2 Cor.5:6-8) is describing the ?hope? that Christians have, for Paul speaks of being "confident" or "of good courage". He describes that "while we are present in the body" or "at home in the body" we are "away from the Lord". But for Christians, since we "walk by faith, not by sight" (i.e. a belief and hope in what happens after this life), we are "willing to be absent from the body and present with the Lord" or "at home with the Lord". In other words, after we die, and leave this body, as Christians, we will be with the Lord. And since the Lord is in Heaven, that is where the Christian will be also.
The question is, does this actually mean that immediately after death we would be with the Lord in heaven? It is possible that Paul means that our future eternal life (after we physically die) is a present possession, because of the hope we have in Christ.
Now, just because we have this hope, as Christians, about being with the Lord after we die, does this mean Paul is saying this will happen immediately after death? I don?t think this particular scripture teaches that particular concept. To interpret it that way would be to read too much into the passage, or going beyond what it really says, even though the idea about being with the Lord in Heaven after death is a correct notion. To understand about the timing of when we would join the Lord in Heaven after death, we must look to other scriptures to answer that question.
There is an intermediate state between the time when we die and the time of our resurrection. During this intermediate state, the spirit or immaterial part of our being continues to exist as a conscious entity apart from the physical state we are in now. We can understand this to be a state of immortality, even though we will not yet have been given an incorruptible and glorious resurrected body, which happens later. Right now we cannot see or discern our own immortality, because of the corruptible physical bodies we possess, which will die. But after our physical death, our immortality will become apparent. Personally, I happen to believe that when we die, we will find ourselves still conscious after death, but we will be a "Spirit Form". I also believe we can be with the Lord before the actual resurrection. Jesus told his apostles "In my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you." I believe we will go to an appropriate "mansion" after death, that the kind of life we lived in this life will decide, like a kind of reward, some better or more than others. Then, at the resurrection, we will be given "incorruptible" bodies (i.e. ones no longer subject to death), as opposed to our present bodies, which are corruptible (mortal).
I do not believe that the body we will be given in the resurrection will be the same body that was put in the ground at the time of our physical death, for logical reasons. For one thing, every cell in our bodies gets completely changed about once every seven years. If we lived to be the age of 70, we will have had 7 new bodies in the physical. Which one would get resurrected? Every day we slough off millions of dead skin cells. In one lifetime, our fingernails would grow about 6 or 7 feet. We cut our nails and discard the old. Which cells that formed our nails would be raised in the resurrection, if this is the physical body that gets resurrected? We are of the dust, and we return unto the dust. In the history of mankind since Creation, how many countless billions of cells from hundreds of millions of dead human bodies have been recycled back into other animals and insects and other lifeforms, even other humans (eg. The food we eat)? In other words, it just is not logical that we are talking about the resurrection of our physical bodies which we occupied when we were alive. Instead, we will be given higher, incorruptible bodies in the resurrection, don't you think?
For a more comprehensive description of death and the resurrection, it would be useful to consult 1 Corinthians Chaper 15.
35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? What kind of body will they have when they come?" 36 Foolish one! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And as for what you sow, you are not sowing the future body, but only a seed, perhaps of wheat or another grain. 38 But God gives it a body as He wants, and to each of the seeds its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same flesh; there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is different from that of the earthly ones. 41 There is a splendor of the sun, another of the moon, and another of the stars; for star differs from star in splendor. 42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead: Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption; 43 sown in dishonor, raised in glory; sown in weakness, raised in power; 44 sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 Like the man made of dust, so are those who are made of dust; like the heavenly man, so are those who are heavenly. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the man made of dust, we will also bear the image of the heavenly man. 50 Brothers, I tell you this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and corruption cannot inherit incorruption. 51 Listen! I am telling you a mystery: We will not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. 53 Because the corruptible must be clothed with incorruptibility, and this mortal must be clothed with immortality. 54 Now when this corruptible is clothed with incorruptibility, and this mortal is clothed with immortality, then the saying that is written will take place: Death has been swallowed up in victory. 55 O Death, where is your victory? O Death, where is your sting?... (The Holman Christian Standard Bible)
Even so, I think there are many questions left unanswered here as to timing. When exactly will the last trumpet sound? Why does it say "we will ALL be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye?" Does this mean "everyone"? In other words, there is a whole other discussion that we would need to enter into here to get all of the answers to yield a comprehensive picture of everything, and the exact order of things. That is why I do not think we can interpret 2 Cor. 5:6-8 as a stand-alone scripture to "prove" that as soon as we die, we immediately go to Heaven to be with the Lord.
Now, here are a few quotations from some writers along the way:
Max King (1987)
"The question centers in the meaning of these two houses or garments and how the change from one to the other is made. The general practice of equating the earthly house or garment strictly with the physical body rather than with that which determines man's mode of existence, proves to be more of a disruption than an exposition of Paul's pattern of thought. In this view, "putting off" and "putting on" become independent actions that necessitate a time gap between the two houses or garments. But Paul's language here points to something more than just putting on a garment sometime after another garment has been put off... (The Cross and Parousia of Christ, p.597)
Preterist Commentaries:
"Certainly we should believe the statement of Jesus in John 11:25-26; however, this statement provokes more questions than it answers. What is the nature of the resurrection? Is it received before physical death, that one should never taste of death, though the physical body should subsequently die? That seems to be the implication of this statement to those Preterists who believe that the fulness of the resurrection has already been given.
Is the resurrection simply a revivication of our physical bodies, or something else? We know that, whatever the nature of the resurrection, it is not physical, but spiritual:
1 Corinthians 15:44 "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."
The question remains, therefore, is this spiritual body only received after the death of the physical body, as this verse might seem to imply, though John 11:25,26 seems to contradict this? An important key to that answer is found in 2 Cor. 5 and 1 Cor. 15. Paul here seems to declare that our spiritual body, the "eternal house," can be received while still inhabiting the physical body.
2 Cor.5:4 "For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life."
1 Cor.15:54 "So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory."
In other words, knowing that the resurrected body is a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44, Paul here seems to teach that it is to be received at the time of individual redemption, which appears to be precisely what Christ taught. (cf. John 3:3,6; 11:25-26)
Nag Hammadi
"The Savior swallowed up death - (of this) you are not reckoned as being ignorant - for he put aside the world which is perishing. He transformed himself into an imperishable Aeon and raised himself up, having swallowed the visible by the invisible, and he gave us the way of our immortality. Then, indeed, as the Apostle said, "We suffered with him, and we arose with him, and we went to heaven with him". Now if we are manifest in this world wearing him, we are that one's beams, and we are embraced by him until our setting, that is to say, our death in this life. We are drawn to heaven by him, like beams by the sun, not being restrained by anything. This is the spiritual resurrection which swallows up the psychic in the same way as the fleshly."
"What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the discosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth! Indeed, it is more fitting to say the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ."
But the resurrection does not have this aforesaid character, for it is the truth which stands firm. It is the revelation of what is, and the transformation of things, and a transition into newness. For imperishability descends upon the perishable; the light flows down upon the darkness, swallowing it up; and the Pleroma fills up the deficiency. These are the symbols and the images of the resurrection. He it is who makes the good."
(The Treatise on the Resurrection)
Anyway, I don't know if I have made things more confusing than when you first raised the question. Please regard these comments simply as some food for thought. I still have lots to learn!
Rod P.