Posts by Cold Steel

14

After Armageddon...Then What?

by Cold Steel in

i've read the sarcastic short stories about it, but seriously, i'm stumped.. after armageddon, what then?

yeah, i know they'll bury our bodies or cart them off to be burned, but then the earth will become paradise and then what??

seriously, what do they (the leaders) do to remain relevant?.

I wonder if there will be publishing? Will there be any need for Bibles and Watchtowers? Will there be articles like "Armageddon: Why It Took So Long" or "Governing Body Announces 'Our Mistake...Birthdays Okay All Along!'" There might even be an article entitled: "Chistmas Changed to December 26! No Longer a 'Pagan' Holiday!"

14

After Armageddon...Then What?

by Cold Steel in

i've read the sarcastic short stories about it, but seriously, i'm stumped.. after armageddon, what then?

yeah, i know they'll bury our bodies or cart them off to be burned, but then the earth will become paradise and then what??

seriously, what do they (the leaders) do to remain relevant?.

Cold Steel

Fernando: Many religious people say that Armageddon is a battle. But early in the 19th century, Bible scholar Adam Clarke wrote: “How ridiculous have been the conjectures of men relative to this point! Within the last twenty years this battle has been fought at various places, according to our purblind seers and self-inspired prophets! At one time it was Austerlitz, at another Moscow, at another Leipsic, and now Waterloo! And thus they have gone on, and will go on, confounding and being confounded.”

Armageddon is not Ragnorak, despite what the Society thinks. And Adam Clarke was a product of his times, remember. The Jews had not gathered back to the lands of its inheritance, nor did the prospects of them building their temple seem to be encouraging. Prophecy states that Armageddon will be the culminating battle in which the "Beast" (or "Gog" or the "Antichrist") is destroyed with his armies and in which Jesus would return, convert the Jews and bring about the promised Millennium. Clarke, and of course, the Bible students, could not see the prophecy materializing literally because Palestine still had not realized its prophetic destiny.

All that has changed now. Israel is a nation, it has many powerful enemies who have promised holy war if the Dome of the Rock and the mosque, which occupy the place where the Jews will build their temple. So the JWs are clearly behind the times. But since they've gone too far down the road, they really can't change horses in midstream.

If, for the sake of argument, we say the JWs are correct about Armageddon being the classic battle between good and evil, I just wondered if they had any "plans" once Armageddon happened.

Also, according to the GB, is it an event that can happen at any time? And once it does, what will be, according to them, the new lines of authority? Will the GB be in charge until further notice??

5

If Luke 16:19-31 is fictional then would that not apply to Matthew 24:45-47 as well

by I_love_Jeff in

how do the jehovah's witnesses determine which parable is to be taken literally, such as matthew 24:45-47, and which one, for example luke 16:19-31, is an allegory?.

are both parables not open to interpretation in the eyes of the jehovah's witnesses?

are they using the eisegetical approach to scripture?.

Cold Steel

Luke 16:19-31:

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Matthew 24:45-47

Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

I can't speak for the WTBTS, but scriptural exegesis normally favors those who are doing the interpreting. In Luke, most would argue that Jesus never gave a parable that wasn't, in many ways, true to life. In the allegory that Luke gives, a man who had thought of nothing but himself on earth found himself entreating the righeous Lazarus, who had died and now sat in the bosom of Abraham. It's a compelling story about a man who failed to keep his first estate and was forced to beg for mercy from a man whom he had held in disdain during life.

Then in Matthew, the Lord is speaking of his own coming in the latter days. Those who are prepared for his coming will be those he rewards. Thus it is, he will reward his faithful and wise servant who he finds doing his will. A few things here:

the servant will be of the Lord's authorized household
he will be the ruler over his household
he will feed and care for the rest of the staff
that servant will be exalted to being a ruler over all things

The GB cannot be this servant because, like the first parable, not a prophecy of future events. It's a teaching aid.

The "faithful and wise" servant is not self-appointed or self-acclaimed, but is of the Lord's authorized household and the Lord must recognize his servants, for it is his household.

Because it is not a prophecy, the parable explains the rewards of those authorized servants who prepare themselvs for the Lord's coming by serving others; for the greatest man in the Lord's house is the greatest servant. In the time before the Lord's arrival, that servant who is busy serving others will be exalted by the Lord at his coming. In other words, the Lord's servants who prepare for their Lord's coming and are not found sleeping shall be rewarded. It's not "one" servant, but many; for it applies to all of the Lord's servants who await his coming.

14

After Armageddon...Then What?

by Cold Steel in

i've read the sarcastic short stories about it, but seriously, i'm stumped.. after armageddon, what then?

yeah, i know they'll bury our bodies or cart them off to be burned, but then the earth will become paradise and then what??

seriously, what do they (the leaders) do to remain relevant?.

Cold Steel

I've read the sarcastic short stories about it, but seriously, I'm stumped.

After Armageddon, what then? Yeah, I know they'll bury our bodies or cart them off to be burned, but then the earth will become Paradise and then what?? Seriously, what do they (the leaders) do to remain relevant?

First, aren't those with the "heavenly hope" going to be the rulers of Earth? Isn't that going to part of their jobs? But what about the Kingdom Halls? Are they going to be necessary, according to today's leaders? Will there be any disciplinary action or will all the survivors all be perfect? What can one expect of the new leadership? Have any church manuals addressed these things?

And finally, do you think the Governing Body really believes that their convoluted concept of Armageddon is really right around the corner? Does anyone on this site even know a GB member? How devout are they regarding their own doctrine?

Anyway, I was just curious about what happens next?

...

14

Are people like Abraham, Isaiah or Jeremiah in heaven ?

by Durden in

i am discussing with my father about various subjects and this is one of them.. what arguments can i use to support this "doctrine" (so to say) ?.

i am looking for texts to support this (i knew quite a few, i just to learn something new).

thanks in advance.

Cold Steel

Are you speaking of the doctrine that man has an eternal spirit? Or are you asking if Abraham and other patriarchs and/or prophets are now in Heaven?
Regarding the latter, Heaven, as it pertains to us, is not yet in existence. It is what the earth will become after our resurrections. The inhabitants of the earth were first destroyed by water, which symbolized its baptism. Next, it will be cleansed by fire, which represents the baptism of fire and the Holy Spirit. Finally, at the end of the Millennium, this world will go through a “death” and “resurrection” of its own. After the former, the earth will be instantly transformed into the abode of the righteous. There will be no “paradise earth” with gardens and eternal picnics and family reunions that will last forever. Man’s resurrection, according to the apostle John, will be glorious and like unto the Savior’s resurrection. The earth will be radiating glory, and those inhabiting it will be beings of incredible light and glory. The idea that man will go back to being like Adam and Eve is incredibly WRONG. As the Greek Orthodox teach, “Jesus became as we are so that we might become as he is.” That’s why Adam and Eve fell, so that, through Christ, we might take a giant leap upward and become one with Christ and the Father. In short, the Father had every intention that man would fall. And through Jesus, we might not again become as Adam, but become as Christ in power and light, inheriting all that the Father has.
If God the Father is God, and Jesus Christ is God, and we can be one with them, then we have incredible potential. But as Paul wrote: “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the father of spirits, and live?” (Hebrews 12:9) Also: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of god: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans 8:14-18)
For the Jehovah's Witnesses to believe that man has no spirit, how do they reconcile the above? The prophet Zechariah wrote: “ The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord , which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. ” (Zech. 12:1)
I cannot conceive of God being the father of “breaths” instead of spirits. Or forming the “breath” of man within him. True, the word breath in both Hebrew and Greek can mean either breath or spirit. One must use context to differentiate between the two in any given passage, and most Christians (and Jews) in many cases translates the words “spirit” while the Adventists, many times in the face of overwhelming logic, do just the reverse. In school we covered both interpretations in the various languages and passages, and while people on both sides of the issue can push their interpretations, our professor said, the Adventists are in the distinct minority.

22

Do you think that "Born Agains" will eventually abandon the "Hellfire" doctrine?

by booker-t in

i have talked to christians for years on this subject and they all seem more confused then ever.

some born agains have a hard time reconciling hellfire damnation with jehovah's loving personality.

the two just can't mix.

Cold Steel

What bothers me is when a sect declares that anyone who isn't a member is condemned to hell or eternal death. The JWs believe that all non-JWs will be destroyed unless they haven't heard about their "good news." If people are good, decent, honorable people but are Baptists, Jews, Catholics and other sects that are part of "Christendom" they should beware, for their time is short upon the earth.

It makes me wonder what happens once these people are dead and how the JWs will clear our bodies away so that we will no longer pollute this world, which is then going to become a paradise. Our thoughts will then come to an end and then it will be as though we never existed. Other sects consign all Jews and people who have never undergone the mystical experience of "salvation" to an eternal hell fire. It's like the old saying, "No one will be saved but thee and me, and sometimes I have my doubts about thee!"

22

Do you think that "Born Agains" will eventually abandon the "Hellfire" doctrine?

by booker-t in

i have talked to christians for years on this subject and they all seem more confused then ever.

some born agains have a hard time reconciling hellfire damnation with jehovah's loving personality.

the two just can't mix.

Cold Steel

The hellfire doctrine is completely unjustifiable for a God who is loving and merciful. That said, I do believe that hell is a real place, but that, like all of God's creations, has a purpose and is remedial in nature. It helps people who have passed to see the pain they've afflicted and, in some cases, the atrocities. People who have experienced it have said it's very difficult to go through. Imagine if you're someone like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Lincoln--and you have to live through the experiences and pain of every person you've tortured, murdered or wronged in your life; to intimately know them and see how they suffered because of you. People who are muderers, adulterers, rapists, warmongers and such will not come forth until the final resurrection, and when they come forth, they will come forth in the lower glories (see I Cor. 15) There are many accounts of hell in "life after death" experiences. The important thing is that hell has a purpose, and it's ultimately for our own good.

Evangelicals believe hell is justice, and people who merit it rejected the mercy that the Atonement wrought. Thus, they will suffer forever, having their souls seared, but their flesh remains immortal and impervious to harm. It's a horrible doctrine and it's one reason I bailed from the evangelical church I used to go to.

Will they ever change? I doubt it.

23

Did the Apostle Paul teach and believe in the "bodily reserrection of Christ" doctrine?

by booker-t in

i often encounter trinitarians that say all of the apostles believed in the bodily reserrection of christ.

they often point to isolated verses in the bible where jesus is called a "man" after his reserrection and this they believe is proof positive.

the seem to throw out all of the verses in the new testament that shows jesus arose "in the spirit" (1 pet 3:18).

Cold Steel

MP: You do realise that people 200 years ago were a whole foot shorter than today. If there was an Adam he would have been probably 4 or 5 foot tall. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Adam was 9 foot.

Correct. But...before the flood, people lived much longer lives. Some believe that people were naturally larger during those days and that after the flood, people weren’t as large. Who knows?

MP: But he was resurrected after 2 days and nights. Died on Friday up by Sunday morning.

Not necessarily. Many people believe he died on a Jewish Sabbath that took place on Thursday, not Friday.

MP: If you read Mark there is no resurrection. The resurrection only appears after Mk 16:8 which all Bibles acknowledge is not found in the oldest texts and is an addition. Thers (sic) right there’s no resurrection in Mark!

We don’t have the originals of any of these texts. Just because the oldest texts don’t have the resurrection story does not prove that what comes after Mark 16:8 is an interpolation, or addition. Mark 16:8 reads: “ And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. ”

Why do you think they fled from the sepulcher? And why do you suppose they “trembled” and were “amazed” and “went out quickly”? Did they just look at the body and flee? Doesn’t make sense. It’s entirely possible that the rest of that chapter was removed from the older texts by scribes who didn’t believe in Jesus’ physical resurrection. To abruptly end the 16th chapter at verse 8 simply doesn’t make sense. There’s no continuity. And why would Mark, of all the witnesses of the resurrection, not believe it?

MP: That the bodily resurrection of Jesus is accepted as valid Christianity by members of other religions isn’t true. Muslims believe somebody got switched and not the real Jesus died on the cross. Even Mark doesn’t believe in the resurrection, check 16:8+.

Oh, it’s true. Band didn’t say that all religions accepted the bodily resurrection of Jesus as valid Christianity; he just made a general statement. And just because Muslims don’t believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, they can, and do, accept that Christians believe it. And your point about Mark 16:8+ you say is an interpolation, I want to hear your views about why you don’t think Mark, of all those who witnessed the resurrection of Jesus would later say he didn’t believe it?

.

23

Did the Apostle Paul teach and believe in the "bodily reserrection of Christ" doctrine?

by booker-t in

i often encounter trinitarians that say all of the apostles believed in the bodily reserrection of christ.

they often point to isolated verses in the bible where jesus is called a "man" after his reserrection and this they believe is proof positive.

the seem to throw out all of the verses in the new testament that shows jesus arose "in the spirit" (1 pet 3:18).

Cold Steel

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have long blamed any doctrine it didn’t like on the Greeks or later Roman “pagan” practices and beliefs. Specifically, they blamed the bodily resurrection doctrine on Greek incursion into the early Christian beliefs. But in this they are sorely mistaken, and of course, with the Society forbidding their members to take non-JW religious instruction, how would they know any different?

Dr. Richard Draper writes:

The Hellenistic mind-set found the idea of a resurrection strange indeed. Many a Greek or Roman would have had little difficulty believing that a god had sired a son, for their mythologies supported the idea. Also, belief in prophecy and portents was widespread,1 as were reports of miracles and those who performed miracles.2 The idea that a mortal could become as the gods was not difficult for many to accept,3 and there were precedents for both men and gods dying and coming back to life.4
But the idea that a mortal could rise from the dead and enter eternal life with a physical body had little precedent. Much of the Hellenistic world denied the reality of any kind of resurrection, let alone a physical one. The Greek rejection of the physical body made the idea of a resurrection of that body abhorrent. Some believed that mortals had been resuscitated from death, but these isolated incidents were a mere postponing of eventual death.5 There simply was no room in the Hellenistic world view for belief in any kind of a general resurrection at the end of world history.6
In view of this cultural setting, it is easy to understand the Athenian reaction to the Apostle Paul when “he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection” (Acts 17:18). The crowd responded by calling him “a babbler” who set forth “strange gods” (v. 18). When Paul later gave his “unknown god” sermon (17:22—31), the people listened intently until he spoke of the Resurrection, at which point “some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again on this matter” (v. 32). In the end, the doctrine of the Resurrection found few Greek adherents. (Source)

Notes

1. For examples from the Hellenistic culture, see Ovid, Metamorphoses, 1.589—94; 5.301—519.

2. Examples of the Roman view of the times are found in Cicero, De Divinationa, 1.1—38; 2.64,70; Tacitus, Histories, 1.3, 18, 86; 4.81; for the Jewish view, see Josephus, Jewish Wars, 6.285—95.

3. For reports of healings, see Tacitus, Histories, 4.81; Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, “Vespasian,” 7; Dio Cassius, 65.271.

4. See, for example, Metamorphoses, 14.800—28.

5. In Oriental belief a number of death-defying savior-gods such as Tammuz, Bel-Marduk, Adonis, Sandan-Heracles, Attis, Osiris, the Cretan Zeus, and Dionysus were never really mortal and thus had no bearing on the New Testament witness.

6. A number of Greek authors (see, for example, Homer, Iliad, 24.551; Herodotus, 3.62; Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 1360 ff.) simply state that resurrection is impossible. Others accepted the idea only as an isolated miracle (see, for example, Plato, Symposium, 179; Lucian, De Saltatione, 45).

As stated previously, the resurrection of Jesus couldn't be spelled out better than the 40-day ministry (Acts 1:2-3) The JWs need to wake up to the fact that the early Christians not only believed that people have spirits, many believed that we all lived previously before coming to the earth. If man does have a spirit, of what use would resurrection back to a spirit serve? You die, return to God as a spirit and later receive a bodily resurrection. This is indisputably what the early church believed.

Cofty: So according to you Jesus has no blood.

That’s correct. How resurrection works is not something that’s spelled out in scripture. All we know is that the body is changed from a corruptible to an incorruptible state, that it’s perfected, glorified and changed to accommodate its new environment.

23

Did the Apostle Paul teach and believe in the "bodily reserrection of Christ" doctrine?

by booker-t in

i often encounter trinitarians that say all of the apostles believed in the bodily reserrection of christ.

they often point to isolated verses in the bible where jesus is called a "man" after his reserrection and this they believe is proof positive.

the seem to throw out all of the verses in the new testament that shows jesus arose "in the spirit" (1 pet 3:18).

Cold Steel

Booker-T: I often encounter trinitarians that say all of the apostles believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ. They often point to isolated verses in the bible where Jesus is called a “man” after his resurrection and this they believe is proof positive.

Sorry, Booker-T, but all the apostles believed in Jesus’ bodily resurrection. The reason is fourfold: 1) Jesus prophesied that if his enemies tore down his body (temple) that he would build it up again in three days; 2) they saw Jesus and saw that he had a body of flesh and bones (not blood, bones); 3) Jesus told them that he wasn’t a spirit, for, as he said, “a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see I have.” Finally, 4) he demonstrated to them that he wasn’t a spirit. He let them thrust their hands into his feet and hands, and into his side. Then he ate fish with them and shortly thereafter broke bread and blessed wine.

Thus, Jesus’ resurrection was prophesied; his disciples saw and witnessed that he had a body of flesh and bones. Jesus, himself, denied strenuously that he was a spirit and, in fact, demonstrated it to them.

By the way, I’m not a “Trinitarian” in the traditional sense; however, the scriptures tell us that Jesus was not Michael, the Archangel, but rather, the great Jehovah, the Savior, the Shepherd and Judge of the World. The Beginning and The End, and the great Intercessor between the Father (El, or Elyon) and man.

They seem to throw out all of the verses in the new testament that shows Jesus arose “in the spirit” (1 Pet 3:18).

Completely untrue. When Jesus was on the cross, he told the thief, “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” This paradise is not heaven, but a holding place. Origen, one of the earliest church fathers and one who was considered to have one foot in the first century church and the later church, wrote concerning Paradise: “After death,” he says, “I think the saints go to Paradise, a place of teaching, a school of the spirits in which everything they saw on earth will be made clear to them. Those who were pure in heart will progress more rapidly, reaching the kingdom of heaven by definite steps or degrees.”

Peter also records: “ For...this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. ” (1 Peter 4:6) Thus, men die and are taught the Gospel of Christ as spirits. This is done so that afterwards, they may be judged in the same manner, or “according to” men in the flesh.

When Jesus was put to death in the flesh, his spirit departed and went to Paradise. There, he initiated the teaching of recalcitrant spirits who had perished in the ages before the Atonement became efficacious for them. Thus were the words of Isaiah fulfilled: “And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.” (Isa. 24:22) Also: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. (Isa. 61:2)

One verse I love to ask “BR” (bodily resurrectioners) to explain is Galatians 1:1 where the apostle Paul clearly shows that he is an apostle of Jesus not of men or a man but of Jesus. This would totally make no sense if Paul believed Jesus still had his fleshly body in heaven.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Again, Jesus clearly wasn’t just a man; he was Yahweh, the Messiah, the Holy One of Israel, our Advocate with the Father. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit. If he had, he would have been a liar and a deceiver, and what possible reason would he have to mislead the apostles? Remember, Jesus “showed himself alive” after his resurrection, showing “many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: and, being assembled together with them, commanded them....” (Acts 1:3-4) Not only did they receive revelation via the Holy Spirit, they were receiving instructions directly from the Savior, who clearly was not a spirit.

Another scripture needing explaining is the verse in Galatians 3:26-29 where Paul says you are neither Jew, nor Greek, nor male, nor female. This shows there is no gender in heaven, and if Christ arose as a fleshly man than Paul lied in these verses.

This is a complete non sequitur.

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

If we take this in a strictly literal way, then we all absorbed spiritually into Jesus. We lose our individualities, our genders, our backgrounds, and we are somehow consolidated physically and spiritually into Jesus, becoming literally one with him. Of course this is ridiculous. Paul is simply saying that in the Gospel it doesn’t matter it you’re a king or a queen, or if you’re a laborer, or of the House of Israel or are a gentile or if you are male or female. Salvation is available to all because we are the children of God and co-heirs with Christ.

In the resurrection, not a hair on your head will be lost. When Jesus was resurrected, his body was gone! Where did it go? He was using it. It had gone from being a thing of clay to a being of unimaginable light and glory. Instead of flesh and blood, he was flesh and bone, with spirit instead of blood. And we become one with Christ in the same way that Christ is one with the Father.

If Jesus arose in the same body he had before he died then all of his disciples would have recognized him, especially Mary Magdalene but she thought he was the gardener.

There is no “if.” The angel announced, “He is not here...he has risen!” Again, where was his body if he had not risen?

If Mary did not recognize him, and if the apostles who saw him on the road, it is a monumental non sequitur to suppose it was because he was a spirit. How about the time Jesus angered the Jews by announcing that he was the one who spoke to the ancient patriarchs as Yahweh? When in a blind fury they sought to stone him, he vanished out of their sight. How do you suppose he did that? Was he a spirit then? Or perhaps he had the power to cause people who were looking at him to not see him. That would allow him to pass through the people without being detected. Perhaps, too, he intentionally clouded the minds of the apostles so they could not recognize him. Perhaps he wanted them to see him with their spiritual eyes, for they later said that when he opened the scriptures to them, “did not our hearts burn within us?”

The resurrection has a purpose. Each of us has a spirit within our body and perhaps, together, they work to a greater purpose. Jesus, after his resurrection, was a completely different being than he was before coming to Earth. We know that through the Atonement, we all receive our bodies back, glorified and perfected. Some are raised to greater glories than others, depending on how they lived their lives, and Paul likened it to the sun, moon, and stars. And even these have varying degrees of glory as we behold them on the earth. (See 1 Cor. 15)

So yes, the apostles were all believers in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.