Posts by hmike

37

Would acceptance of the gospel change the world?

by greendawn in

jw
friends

what do you think would happen if the world or at least a large powerful nation accepted and practised the gospel as it is without watering it down?

hmike

Hi Tetrapod,

Whether the account of the Tower of Babel and the dispersion of the populace is literal history or not, it contains what I consider an enormously insightful statement:

Gen 11:6..."The LORD said, 'If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.' "

As languages around the world differ, so do cultural practices and types of governments. What if the entire world was united in language, culture, and economy under a centralized government? What if all the great minds of the world were able to work together, unhindered by differences in not only their own political and social views, but also the ideologies of heads of governments? What if everyone was united in common goals and unhindered by cultural, political, and communication barriers? What if there was no war or competition between nations? As I read it here, Genesis says, "nothing will be impossible for them." Diseases would be cured, quality lifespans would be lengthened, perhaps indefinitely, all the frontiers could be explored and understood, even controlled--mankind would become its own god. That may sound wonderful, like utopia. That's assuming, of course, we get and remain on the right track. But what if we take a wrong turn? What if we go in a destructive direction without realizing it? And, of course, in this kind of world, there would be no place for non-conformist thinking. So, the very things that hinder man's progress can also serve as a check against self-destruction.

People, when working together without barriers, are capable of great things. But without proper direction, "great" in what way? Ultimately, who's going to decide?

37

Would acceptance of the gospel change the world?

by greendawn in

jw
friends

what do you think would happen if the world or at least a large powerful nation accepted and practised the gospel as it is without watering it down?

hmike

If you're talking about a theocratic government abrubtly and forcibly administered, forget it! As long as people are in charge, using their own discretion, there would be problems. Power would corrupt many good people, and many would just go along with it and profess whatever was expected to get what was in their best interests. Humility and a true sense of service to the Master and humanity would go out the window. And, there's too many know-it-alls; it would lack productive direction.

Of course, if the world was united in purpose and direction under any system, tremendous things would be accomplished. But for good?.... That's the point behind the Tower of Babel and the breakup of mankind.

The kingdom of God is in the heart; it cannot be compelled on anyone. It starts like a seed and grows, but expect the tree to be pruned to be fruitful. In this world with the way it is, the kingdom has to be subject to persecution and oppression.

7

Why God never received a PhD:

by tetrapod.sapien in

from atheist empire:.

why god never received a phd:.

1. he had only one major publication.

hmike

He gave us Thomas Edison and Bill Gates to show us a PhD is not necessary for success.

17

CHRIST MUST HAVE BEEN RESURRECTED BODILY!!!!!!

by chuckyy in

i have always had a problem with jesus being resurrected as a spirit creature, even when i was a witness.. the reason for this is that jesus said in the gospels that if they "destroyed this temple", he would raise it again in three days.

but, here"s the interesting bit.

this same account says that when jesus was resurrected, his disciples realised that he had been talking about the "temple of his body.".

hmike

WTS says he materialized a body tailor made with nail holes in it simply for demonstration purposes.

Do they realize that if they claim Jesus just gave the disciples what they expected to see, contrary to reality, it calls into question everything he said about events in the OT--creation, Noah and the flood, Jonah--meaning that these events didn't really happen and Jesus knew that, but just went along with it for the sake of his illustrations because that's what people believed?

17

CHRIST MUST HAVE BEEN RESURRECTED BODILY!!!!!!

by chuckyy in

i have always had a problem with jesus being resurrected as a spirit creature, even when i was a witness.. the reason for this is that jesus said in the gospels that if they "destroyed this temple", he would raise it again in three days.

but, here"s the interesting bit.

this same account says that when jesus was resurrected, his disciples realised that he had been talking about the "temple of his body.".

hmike

Thanks for the reply, Leolaia.

So the phrase "flesh and bone" seems unique. Whether these are the actual words of a resurrected Jesus, or part of a fictional account, would you agree that this is significant in the understanding about the glorified body, esp. Jesus? From the references you quoted, it appears to me that it was meant to establish that the body of Jesus was indeed different from the one he had before, no longer subject to some of the normal human limitations, which would counter any kind of "swoon theory."

17

CHRIST MUST HAVE BEEN RESURRECTED BODILY!!!!!!

by chuckyy in

i have always had a problem with jesus being resurrected as a spirit creature, even when i was a witness.. the reason for this is that jesus said in the gospels that if they "destroyed this temple", he would raise it again in three days.

but, here"s the interesting bit.

this same account says that when jesus was resurrected, his disciples realised that he had been talking about the "temple of his body.".

hmike

The Society's teaching that Jesus was a spirit without a body and materialized different bodies to appear to them is the docetic heresy confronted in the gospels (cf. "Feel and see me, for a spirit (pneuma) does not have flesh and bones", Luke 24:39) and in Ignatius (cf. "For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and he came to Peter and those with him, he said to them: 'Take hold of me; handle me and see that I am not a disembodied demon (daimónion asómaton)'. And immediately they touched him and believed, being closely united with his flesh and blood", Smyrnaeans 3:1-2)

Leolaia, if you're still checking on this thread, I see a problem with this statement from Ignatius. Paul had written, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50). Jesus stated that he was "flesh and bone." I think the omission of blood in the resurrection body is significant. It was established in the OT that blood was essential for life in any higher creature (e. g., Lev. 17:11). From their observations, the ancient people knew that if a human or animal lost enough blood, death would follow. (Today, we understand that, among the reasons, blood is essential because it brings life-sustaining oxygen to the cells and removes CO2 waste.) A resurrected or reconstructed body that is suitable for existence in the heavenly realms would have substance--some kind of flesh or other material--but would not need blood. As long as the body is dependent on blood for life, it means there is regeneration and cellular reproduction taking place, because cells die (they may have been observant enough to realize this based on what happens with skin and wounds). But a resurrection body--not subject to death--would not need that. Even if we don't consider the Bible as inspired by God, I think people of ancient times would equate all the degenerative processes of aging, disease, and bodily function failure (we would say "organ failure") somehow with blood. They may even have understood something of the blood-oxygen relationship based on their experiences from climbing high mountains. If breathing becomes difficult at higher elevations, what about being in heaven somewhere up in the sky?

This is something that may make the manner of the torture and death of Jesus especially significant. With all the beatings, crown of thorns, and crucifixion, there would be a tremendous blood loss, not to mention the loss from the spear in the side. I don't know if it's ever been estimated how much blood would have been lost, but I think it was actually the cause of death rather than suffocation. Basically, Jesus was drained of blood, like the sacrificial animal, which wouldn't have come about by stoning or any other conventional means of slow execution. The body of Jesus still had flesh, muscle, and bone, but very little blood by the time it was laid in the tomb. So, when Ignatius writes "flesh and blood," I don't think he reasoned it out too well.

97

Was Jesus Created?

by 9thWonder in

was jesus created?

this question came out of a discussion i was having with a preacher of a no-denominational church.

he was trying to convince me of the truth of the trinity doctrine.

hmike

The "voice of the archangel" doesn't have to be the voice of Jesus--just an archangel announcing the entry of Jesus into our visible, physical dimension. Since ancient times, the approach of a king or other high official has always been announced in some way.

97

Was Jesus Created?

by 9thWonder in

was jesus created?

this question came out of a discussion i was having with a preacher of a no-denominational church.

he was trying to convince me of the truth of the trinity doctrine.

hmike

Inquirer,

You seem to put a lot of stock in the inferiority of Jesus based on his title Son of God. I'd like to separate references to the man, Jesus of Nazareth, and the Word (logos) who was one with the Father in the beginning, and who lived among people in the man Jesus. When people ask, "Was Jesus Created?" of course, they are referring to the Word, perhaps the messenger of the YHWH, the memra of YHWH, or what the WT teaches was the Archangel Michael. According to the NT books, Jesus of Nazareth, the man, was born in human fashion to Mary. So Jesus had a definite beginning in history if we take the gospel accounts to be historical books.

Remember, from the gospel books of Matthew and Luke, we are told that the child, Jesus, was conceived in Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. Now, Son of God has a lot of meaning in it, but this is where it starts--at the conception, or birth, if you prefer. Jesus of Nazareth, the walking, breathing, physical man was conceived without Joseph or any other natural father, but from God Almighty, so that is why Jesus is called the Son of God. No pre-incarnate manifestation of the Word is referred to as the unique Son of God. There are only prophecies looking ahead to one whom God would call his Son. The Bible does not address how the Word came to be, other than to say he was with God in the beginning, so we cannot speak of the Word as being created, or even born in any sense.

Jesus of Nazareth, on the other hand, was not only born physically, but was subject to all kinds of limitations that came with having a human physical body. Some of these he could overcome by taking command of natural forces, but remember, the gospels speak of him getting his power and insight from the Holy Spirit, even after his resurrection. For the most part, he lived as a kind of super-prophet. Nevertheless, the Word, the one who was God and with God in the beginning, was in Jesus, perhaps as his own spirit, and that is how we see fit to refer to Jesus as God. That title is completely appropriate even though he is forever bound with certain limitations because of the human--albeit glorified--body.

So there's no problem with Jesus saying that the Father was greater than him, nor with the Almighty being the "God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ."

97

Was Jesus Created?

by 9thWonder in

was jesus created?

this question came out of a discussion i was having with a preacher of a no-denominational church.

he was trying to convince me of the truth of the trinity doctrine.

hmike

If only some ancient unknown apostolic letter was discovered that would clarify the issue one way or other or if we could travel back in time and ask all the apostles to clarify the issue. Was there a time when the Firstborn Son did not exist? Is he inferior to the Father?

Well, greendawn, if we could travel back in time or even just look back, we wouldn't have to ask anybody--we could watch all the events and settle all these issues for everyone. But then, what would happen to faith?

97

Was Jesus Created?

by 9thWonder in

was jesus created?

this question came out of a discussion i was having with a preacher of a no-denominational church.

he was trying to convince me of the truth of the trinity doctrine.

hmike

9th Wonder,

The pastor you had the discussion with brought that up about Jesus because that is invariably the crucial issue for religions and individuals alike. Many will hold a belief in God (possibly known by different names), but it always seems to come down to "What do you do with Jesus?" No wonder he is called "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall" (I Peter 2:8).

There are issues in Christianity that are important to us that the writers of the Bible texts did not address directly or specifically because those issues were not important to them. After the sayings of Jesus on how to live, the most important issue for them was, "Did Jesus have the authority and approval of God do and say what he did?" They all agreed in the affirmative, with evidence cited including (1) the miracles Jesus performed, (2) his resurrection from the dead, (3) the voice of God (at the baptism and on the mountain), and (4) how various details of the life of Jesus conformed to OT prophecies. The writers of the synoptic gospels did not concern themselves with the pre-existence of Jesus, choosing to focus on his earthly life and the evidence just cited. The book of Acts picks this up by citing miracles performed through the apostles in the name of Jesus. From the gospels, it is only in the book of John that the writer uses the pre-incarnate state of Jesus--the Logos--as an argument for the authority of Jesus: Jesus had the authority of God because he was one with God from the beginning and came from Him. This completely differentiated Jesus from any other prophet or teacher in the past, present, or future, and was meant to be a definitive response to any dispute about his right to act as God Almighty.

So, from the standpoint of the writers, this was all they wanted to establish. They were not interested in discussing the nature of Jesus from a philosophical perspective, or just for the sake of discussion. They went only as far as was necessary to support their assertion (initially to the Jews) that Jesus was God’s promised Messiah and Lord. The Trinity Doctrine was not the issue for them the way it is for us today, so it was not specifically addressed--it must be inferred from what was written.

By referring to the pre-incarnate Jesus as the Word (Logos), the answer to your question I see is that the Word could not have been created because the Genesis account has God speaking everything into existence. Now, you can speculate about the meaning of this representation, but what it appears to come down to is that God couldn’t (or chose not to) create the means by which He created.