Jehovah's Witnesses only: Questions regarding the resurrection in Jehovahs Witness theology

[Samael_Khan]

And you do not get to put your own spin on our beliefs to suggest things that we do not believe to be true. If they are not your beliefs, then so be it....ignore them. It makes no difference to us what you want to believe....we do not owe you an explanation other than what we have already given you.....OK?

Very ironic and hypocritical of you.

I believe I already have, but your logic is apparently not my logic.

Again....you cannot duplicate people. God can indeed "re-create" a person, but that is not a duplicate like a carbon copy. A new body is created from exactly the same elements as God used to create Adam. The personality of the individual (from god's memory as the soul isn't immortal) is then re-implanted in the consciousness of that individual. They will identify themselves as who they were with all their memories intact.....and others will also recognize their loved ones. Death is simply "life interrupted" for those who are in sheol/hades.....but for those in "gehenna"...it is life completely withdrawn, permanently. For those who go to heaven, it is a resurrection with a spiritual body, like Jesus.

The "personality recreated from god's memory part" is what makes those resurrected duplicates. It is like copying information from one hard drive to another. The copy is exactly the same but still a copy, not the original.

We have already told you all you need to know....so I will not respond further. This is just getting ridiculous.

This is your defense mechanism reacting.

 

[Clear]

Hi Deeje;

"THE GOD OF THE LIVING" - DOES IT APPLY METAPHORICALLY OR LITERALLY WHEN APPLIED TO ANCIENTS WHOSE BODIES HAVE DIED

Regarding Luke 20:37-38 That the dead are raised even Moses showed at the Bush when he calls the Lord, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. For God is not a God of [the] dead but of [the] living for all live to him."

You referred to the Jehovahs Witness interpretation in support of the concept that a memory of the dead means they are not completely dead.

In ancient Judeo-Christianity, this verse was not metaphorical. God was LITERALLY the God of those who were LITERALLY alive.

The ancient Christian literature witnesses to us that they literally believed that it was only the bodies of the ancients that was dead. Their spirits lived on.
God is LITERALLY a God of the living and not merely a God who remembers the living.

The early Christian literature witnesses that they believed this was a literal reference to a living Abraham, a living Isaac and a living Jacob whose bodies had died but were still living spirits and God was still their God.

For example, Christian Decensus Literature describes the descent of Christ into hades during the three days his body lay in the tomb and his interactions with these yet living spirits of the patriarchs.

For example the Bartholemew text has Bartholomew ask Jesus regarding where he was during the three days his body was dead :

Bartholomew speaking to Jesus, says “Lord, when you went to be hanged on the cross, I followed you at a distance and saw how you were hanged on the cross and how the angels descended from heaven and worshiped you. And when darkness came, I looked and saw that you had vanished from the cross; only I heard your voice in the underworld,.....Tell me, Lord, where you went from the cross.”

In this early christian account, Jesus summarizes his descent into Hades saying :

Quote: "I went to the underworld to bring up Adam and all the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.... When I descended with my angels to the underworld ,in order to dash in pieces the iron bars and shatter the portals of the underworld”... “ I shattered the iron bars....And I brought out all the patriarchs and came again to the cross.... “I was hanged upon the cross for your sake and for the sake of your children.” (The Gospel of Bartholomew chapt one)


As another example, the early Christian Gospel of Nicodemus, text contains multiple testimonies of the living Jesus after his resurrection AND descriptions of Jesus actions in Hades when he visited the “spirits imprisoned” there. Joseph (of Arimathea) observes to those discussing Jesus resurrection :

Quote: “Why then do you marvel at the resurrection of Jesus? It is not this that is marvelous, but rather that he was not raised alone, but raised up many other dead men who appeared to many in Jerusalem. And if you do not know the others, yet Symeon, who took Jesus in his arms, [Luke 2:34] and his two sons, whom he raised up, you do know. For we buried them a little while ago. And now their sepulchers are to be seen opened and empty, but they themselves are alive and dwelling in Arimathaea”...Joseph said: “Let us go to Arimathaea and find them.” Then arose the chief priests Annas and Caiaphas, and Joseph and Nicodemus and Gamaliel and others with them, and went to Arimathaea and found the men of whom Joseph spoke.” (Gospel of Nicodemus Ch one)

These men then speak with the resurrected sons of Symeon (who were NOT Christians and were NOT baptized while they were alive). These two had died, and gone to the world of Spirits, converted to Christianity while in the spirit world, and had then been resurrected with many others at the resurrection of Christ and who were walking among and teaching others regarding Jesus. The brothers described what happened in this Spirit world (sheol, hades, etc).

Quote: “We, then were in Hades with all who have died since the beginning of the world. And at the hour of midnight there rose upon the darkness there something like the light of the sun and shone, and light fell upon us all, and we saw one another, and immediately our father, Abraham, along with the patriarchs and the prophets, was filled the joy, and they said to one another: “This shining comes from a great light.” The prophet Isaiah, who was present there, said : “This shining comes from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This I prophesied when I was still living: The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, the people that sit in darkness saw a great light.” Then there came into the midst another, an anchorite from the wilderness. The patriarchs asked him: “Who are you?” He replied: “I am John, the last of the prophets, who made straight the ways of the Son of God, and preached repentance to the people for the forgiveness of sins.....And for this reason he sent me to you, to preach that the only begotten Son of God comes here, in order that whoever believes in him should be saved,....Therefore I say to you all: When you see him, all of you worship him. For now only have you opportunity for repentance because you worshiped idols in the vain world above and sinned. At another time it is impossible” (Gospel of Nicodemus Ch two)

These early Christians, in their vast literature, witness to their beliefs that the spirits of mankind LIVE after the body dies. Thus, even as it relates to the ancients who died, to them, it was no metaphor to say that God is a God of the living. Whether their religion was true or not, still, their literature makes very clear what the early belief was in ancient Christianity.

Your modern religion with it's interpretations are not the same religion and same interpretations of the ancient Christians.

In early Judeo-Christianity, there was a spirit placed into mankind which was the locus of intelligence, emotions and moral cognizance of the body. While the body died, the spirit lived on. Thus, in ancient Christianity, all individuals whose bodies died, still lived. In ancient Judeo-Christianity, this concept that the dead still lived before God was not a metaphorical doctrine such as the dead “lived” as a “memory” such the Jehovahs Witnesses have created. I think this was the point @Brian2 was trying to make to you when he spoke of the more original Christianity and it's doctrines.


WHAT TERM DO THE JEHOVAHS WITNESSES WANT OTHER TO USE TO DESCRIBE THE DEAD WHO HAVE BEEN RECREATED IN JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEOLOGY?

Deeje, I do not mean to offend you, nor to frustrate you. However, you must try to see your theology from the position of others to whom it is being described.

If, in Jehovahs Witness theology, the original person literally dies and upon resurrection, God re-creates a second person who is exactly like the personality of the first (though in an immortal body), then how do the Jehovahs Witnesses want others to describe this “non-original recreation of the original person”?

What is wrong with :
Exact copy
Exact duplicate
Exact re-production
Exact re-creation
Exact clone

And what logical and rational term do you want others to use for these "non-original re-created individuals"?


Clear
νεσισεω

 

[Clear]

Hi @Israel Khan

IF DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS ARE RESURRECTED, THEN WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF MORTAL SUFFERING FOR THE ORIGINAL INDIVIDUALS

I think your comments regarding the concept that, IF God will ultimately, create individuals who are without moral fault and it is THESE morally improved individuals who are then resurrected, instead of the morally faulty originals, then there was no reason for the original individuals to go through a world of sin and oppression and suffering.

This complaint of the philosophers and theists applies to a large swath of various Christianities who have adopted the idea that individuals will be “made perfect” at the resurrection. While I agree with the philosophers and theists that liars and oppressors and bullies cannot be allowed into heaven, the “process Judeo-Christian theologies” have neatly avoided this sort of dilemma since, for them, attaining a heavenly existence was a process of gradual improvement, rather than a “re-creating” of a perfect version of the original person. The concept of gradual education in the moral laws and social requirements of heaven are woven into much of the early Judeo-Christian literature.

For example, Jewish Zohar relates the same question you asked about spirits. If they are sent to this world, only to return later, what is the purpose? The answer is that they are tutored in moral and social laws. They are to learn, by their own experience, the difference between good and evil and learn, by their own experience, the disastrous consequences of evil. The version from Zohar is as follows :

“the spirit of the female and the spirit of the male, are hence preeminent above all the heavenly hosts and camps.” The question in the sacred text is then asked : It may be wondered, if they are thus preeminent on both sides, why do they descend to this world only to be taken thence at some future time?

“This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day.

In this wise, the Holy One, be blessed, possessed a son from the matron, that is, the supernal holy spirit. He dispatched it to a village, that is, to this world, to be raised in it, and initiated into the ways of the King’s palace. Informed that his son was now come to maturity, and should be returned to the palace, the King, out of love, sent the matron for him to bring him into the palace....”

Thus, this life was seen as a tutoring experience. A time to learn moral and social laws that would prepare one to be able to ultimately, be able to live in a social heaven, in harmony and unity, having learned the rules upon which social harmony and unity are created and sustained.

Many early Judao-Christian texts are quite explicit in explaining their doctrines underlying the New Testament Theology on this subject.

For example : Speaking of the spirits of mankind and the manner after which they enter their moral experience through being born into bodies, Jewish Haggadah relates :

“The spirit and body of man are united in this way: When a woman has conceived...God decrees what manner of human being shall become of it – whether it shall be male or female, strong or weak, rich or poor, beautiful or ugly, long or short, fat or thin, and what all it’s other qualities shall be. Piety and wickedness alone are left to the determination of man himself. “Then God makes a sign to the angel appointed over the spirits, saying, “Bring me the spirit so-and-so, which is hidden in Paradise, whose name is so-and-so, and whose form is so-and-so.” The angel brings the designated spirit, and she bows down when she appears in the presence of God, and prostrates herself before him.”

Occasionally the spirit is reluctant to leave the untainted pre-mortal heaven for an earth where she knows her existence will be more difficult as she gains her moral education by coming to earth. In such accounts, God is NOT angry but the text says “ God consoles her. The text relates God telling the soul that

“The world which I shall cause you to enter is better than the world in which you have lived hitherto, and when I created you, it was only for this purpose.”

The entire chapter regarding the spirit discusses in detail what happens with spirits before they enter the body and it relates their forgetting of their prior preparation and existence with God. (I might mention that souls anciently are all described in the female gender - like ships are - in modern parlance)

While I have only given you two example from the ancient literature of the early Judeo-Christianity (the type @Brian2 mentioned where man had a spirit), there are entire genres of their literature dealing with the spirits of mankind, their nature, their purpose in coming to earth, their existence in a world of spirits after the body dies and while awaiting resurrection.


I like your insight regarding the lack of purpose of a world of suffering if there is no retained memory and/or if God could have simply created perfect individuals in the first place.


Clear
νεσισεω

 

[Samael_Khan]

Hi @Israel Khan

IF DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS ARE RESURRECTED, THEN WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF MORTAL SUFFERING FOR THE ORIGINAL INDIVIDUALS

I think your comments regarding the concept that, IF God will ultimately, create individuals who are without moral fault and it is THESE morally improved individuals who are then resurrected, instead of the morally faulty originals, then there was no reason for the original individuals to go through a world of sin and oppression and suffering.

This complaint of the philosophers and theists applies to a large swath of various Christianities who have adopted the idea that individuals will be “made perfect” at the resurrection. While I agree with the philosophers and theists that liars and oppressors and bullies cannot be allowed into heaven, the “process Judeo-Christian theologies” have neatly avoided this sort of dilemma since, for them, attaining a heavenly existence was a process of gradual improvement, rather than a “re-creating” of a perfect version of the original person. The concept of gradual education in the moral laws and social requirements of heaven are woven into much of the early Judeo-Christian literature.

For example, Jewish Zohar relates the same question you asked about spirits. If they are sent to this world, only to return later, what is the purpose? The answer is that they are tutored in moral and social laws. They are to learn, by their own experience, the difference between good and evil and learn, by their own experience, the disastrous consequences of evil. The version from Zohar is as follows :

“the spirit of the female and the spirit of the male, are hence preeminent above all the heavenly hosts and camps.” The question in the sacred text is then asked : It may be wondered, if they are thus preeminent on both sides, why do they descend to this world only to be taken thence at some future time?

“This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day.

In this wise, the Holy One, be blessed, possessed a son from the matron, that is, the supernal holy spirit. He dispatched it to a village, that is, to this world, to be raised in it, and initiated into the ways of the King’s palace. Informed that his son was now come to maturity, and should be returned to the palace, the King, out of love, sent the matron for him to bring him into the palace....”

Thus, this life was seen as a tutoring experience. A time to learn moral and social laws that would prepare one to be able to ultimately, be able to live in a social heaven, in harmony and unity, having learned the rules upon which social harmony and unity are created and sustained.

Many early Judao-Christian texts are quite explicit in explaining their doctrines underlying the New Testament Theology on this subject.

For example : Speaking of the spirits of mankind and the manner after which they enter their moral experience through being born into bodies, Jewish Haggadah relates :

“The spirit and body of man are united in this way: When a woman has conceived...God decrees what manner of human being shall become of it – whether it shall be male or female, strong or weak, rich or poor, beautiful or ugly, long or short, fat or thin, and what all it’s other qualities shall be. Piety and wickedness alone are left to the determination of man himself. “Then God makes a sign to the angel appointed over the spirits, saying, “Bring me the spirit so-and-so, which is hidden in Paradise, whose name is so-and-so, and whose form is so-and-so.” The angel brings the designated spirit, and she bows down when she appears in the presence of God, and prostrates herself before him.”

Occasionally the spirit is reluctant to leave the untainted pre-mortal heaven for an earth where she knows her existence will be more difficult as she gains her moral education by coming to earth. In such accounts, God is NOT angry but the text says “ God consoles her. The text relates God telling the soul that

“The world which I shall cause you to enter is better than the world in which you have lived hitherto, and when I created you, it was only for this purpose.”

The entire chapter regarding the spirit discusses in detail what happens with spirits before they enter the body and it relates their forgetting of their prior preparation and existence with God. (I might mention that souls anciently are all described in the female gender - like ships are - in modern parlance)

While I have only given you two example from the ancient literature of the early Judeo-Christianity (the type @Brian2 mentioned where man had a spirit), there are entire genres of their literature dealing with the spirits of mankind, their nature, their purpose in coming to earth, their existence in a world of spirits after the body dies and while awaiting resurrection.

Thanks. This is very informative, showing that the Jews believed in an immortal spirit. To me this line of reasoning you point out sounds very similar to muslim theology. Man was previously with God as a spirit and then came down to earth as a test to return to God at a later stage. This makes sense to me because then it allows for people to overcome their faults through learning and effort.

This line of reasoning though is not consistent with the concept of original sin, as the whole point of needing Jesus for salvation is that his death redeems man from sin, as man cannot escape sin through his own efforts as he has a sinful nature. Included in the JW theology we are talking about, sin had other effects, some which are negated at the start of 1000 years, since for man to live that long they would need to be altered in their imperfect state. Then there is the idea of the rapture in which Christians are taken up immediately to heaven, which JW's believe happen to the anointed who die in the latter years, even though they do not call it a rapture for branding purposes.

Also you are quoting Jewish thought, which doesn't have a concept of original sin, so doesn't have the Christian baggage complicating matters.

I like your insight regarding the lack of purpose of a world of suffering if there is no retained memory and/or if God could have simply created perfect individuals in the first place.

I was chatting to a Christian friend about this thread you made and he raised some interesting points as well regarding being recreated from gods memory:

- The first person that was naughty doesn't get punished. I would disagree with him here because if the original isn't resurrected then those that died actually do not receive a reward, but their copies do, and they suffer the punishment anyway. God lied to them as they wouldn't be resurrected. A lying god with false proimises.

- Ultimately, what is the point of the Bible and existence now, if your clone gets to fix himself?

 

[Clear]

Hi @Israel Khan

Israel Khan said : “This is very informative, showing that the Jews believed in an immortal spirit. To me this line of reasoning you point out sounds very similar to muslim theology. Man was previously with God as a spirit and then came down to earth as a test to return to God at a later stage. This makes sense to me because then it allows for people to overcome their faults through learning and effort.”

Your observation regarding muslim theology is historically, very astute.

Historically, the three major Abrahamic religions all agreed regarding some of the specific occurrences in pre-creation time periods. (though orthodox Judaism prohibits speaking about it)
For example, one major crossroads tradition that ancient Islamic, Judaic, and Christian historical literature agree on regards the origin and development of the controversies surrounding the Fall of the angel Lucifer and why and how he became an enemy to God and the spirit who became Adam. Modern Judeo-Christianity no longer has much specific tradition or knowledge of how an angel in power became an enemy to God.

I also think your observation about how mortality is also a “test” of sort that allows spirits to be sieved into those who want and are willing to ultimately learn the moral and social “laws” upon which a social heaven is to be created and sustained. And mostly, as part of a process to prepare them to live that sort of existence.


Israel Khan said : “This line of reasoning though is not consistent with the concept of original sin, as the whole point of needing Jesus for salvation is that his death redeems man from sin, as man cannot escape sin through his own efforts as he has a sinful nature. “

I agree with your specific point regarding those later Christianities that adopted the doctrine of original sin.

In the earlier Christian literature, before this doctrine was created, became popular and was adopted by much of Christianity, it was more simple since they did not accept the doctrine that actual “sin” was transmitted to others.

That is, in that early Christian tradition, all individuals were responsible ONLY for their own sins and not for Adams choices.

Thus Baruch said to those who blamed Adam for the evil men do : " Adam is, therefore not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us has become our own Adam.” apo Baruch 54:17-19

The later adoption of “original sin” causes all sorts of philosophical problems.
While Jesus’ redemption was a payment, it was not seen as a payment for a devil who holds man hostage and who “ransoms” mankind.


Israel Khan said : “- Ultimately, what is the point of the Bible and existence now, if your clone gets to fix himself?”

Again, I agree that the adoption of any doctrine where the original person is not the one who is either punished or rewarded creates injustice and illogic in the theology. I believe ancient christianity is more logical and more intuitive than modern religious movements generally.

Good journey to you Israel Khan


Clear
ειτζειτωω

 

[nPeace]

Hi @nPeace

nPeace said : "Because "You" the person, however, is not destroyed by God - that is, erased from his memory - his book of remembrance, "You" are living to God... even though you have died." (post #57)

You and I have discussed this in our private conversations.

When you say that we are "alive" in memory, you are speaking metaphorically.
The actual person is not, literally alive. Their bodies are not literally alive.
"Memory" of a person is NOT the person itself.

You got that correct. Good.

The fact that God and the rest of us "remember" the dead person does not literally mean they are "living". It simply means we remember them when they were alive. If God keeps a memory of the persons body, the decomposed body is not literally alive, but it is literally "dead".

You got that one too. Good.

The early Judeo-Christians did not view the resurrection as metaphorically true, but as literally true.

I did not say the resurrection is 'metaphorically true'. Is that what you understood? That is incorrect.

For example, after Jesus died, the resurrected Jesus appeared to the apostles and many others. These were not metaphorical appearances, but actual, literal occurrences.

Of course.

When Matt 27:52-53 witnesses that "The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.…" this is not a metaphorical statement in early Judeo-Christianity. It is a written witness to a literal occurrence.

We understand that scripture differently.
I like this rendering, since, not only is it in harmony with the rest of the scriptures, but it also makes sense.
(Matthew 27:52, 53) 52 And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised up 53 (and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered into the holy city), and they became visible to many people.

I conclude that if many of the followers of Christ - which is none - were raised to life, and entered the holy city, there would have been a mass conversion of Jews more numerous that the day of Pentecost 33 CE. Many of the Romans too would have become disciples... even if in secret.
Besides that the resurrection of the saints could not occur until Jesus was raised up, since he was the one appointed to give these ones life.
Then too, they were not firstfruits from the dead. Christ was.
So scripture agrees that your understanding of that scripture is a mistaken one... along with the millions who believe that, as well.

nPeace said : "I have to say though Clear, that I can appreciate @Deeje's, frustration when you keep saying God makes a duplicate.
If you keep saying that, even though we don't believe it, it is frustrating. It's frustrating to me, because it is as though you want to make your belief ours." (post #57)

Jehovahs Witnesses do not get to change the dictionary definitions to make their statements more palatable.
If you claim something is an "exact reproduction" then you need to tell us why an "exact reproduction" or and "exact re-creation" is not an exact "duplicate".

You cannot do this by the claim that an original thing or person that is annihilated and no longer exists can later exist without re-creation (which means a thing or person is "created again")
The re-creation is not the original thing or person, it is a re-creation.

Can you explain the difference between exact copy or exact re-production or exact re-creation and exact duplicate in a LOGICAL and RATIONAL terms without bending the rules of language or lapsing into metaphorical use?

I certainly will yield to your claim that an "exact reproduction,copy,re-creation, etc." is not a "duplicate" if you can demonstrate your claim.

It doesn't work to simply become frustrated and say readers "just don't understand".

What is wrong with any of the descriptions :
Exact copy
Exact duplicate
Exact re-production
Exact re-creation
etc.

Can you explain this to readers in a logical and rational way?

What words would you prefer to use instead of the words I have offered?


Clear
νετζδρω

Excuse me? Those are not my words. Nor will you find them in any Watchtower.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

1) IF SOMETHING IS "RE-CREATED", WHY IS THAT NOT A DUPLICATE IF THE TWO ARE THE IDENTICAL?
@Deeje did not like the use of the word "duplicate" to the "re-creation" of an original.

However, IF nothing of that original person who died anciently exists (other than memories of the dead), then some sort of re-production or duplicate must be made IF a a person is to be resurrected in the place of the one who died.
AND, if the re-created, resurrected person is to be the same as the original, then it must be an exact re-production.

What is wrong with calling this “re-creation” or “re-production” or “exact copy” of the person, a “duplicate”?
What term would you prefer we use for this new “re-creation” of the original individual?


nPeace said : "I have to say though Clear, that I can appreciate @Deeje's, frustration when you keep saying God makes a duplicate.
If you keep saying that, even though we don't believe it, it is frustrating. It's frustrating to me, because it is as though you want to make your belief ours." (post #57)
Clear replied : "I certainly will yield to your claim that an "exact reproduction,copy,re-creation, etc." is not a "duplicate" if you can demonstrate your claim.
(post #59)
nPeace responded : "Excuse me? Those are not my words. Nor will you find them in any Watchtower. (post #66

I had understood from Deejes' remarks that the original person who died and the re-creation of that person were exactly alike (i.e. "duplicates")
Are you now clarifying that the “re-creation” of the prior personality is not the same?
If the person God creates to resurrect is not the same, other than the new body, what is difference between the re-creation of the person who died and the original person who died (other than the body)?



2) ASKING ABOUT LITERAL CONDITIONS AND ANSWERING ABOUT METAPHORICAL CONDITIONS CAUSES CONFUSION

nPeace said : "Because "You" the person, however, is not destroyed by God - that is, erased from his memory - his book of remembrance, "You" are living to God... even though you have died." (post #57)
Clear responsed : "When you say that we are "alive" in memory, you are speaking metaphorically. The actual person is not, literally alive…."Memory" of a person is NOT the person itself.
nPeace answered : "You got that correct." Good. (Post #66)

It makes for an inefficient conversation if you answer about metaphorical conditions when asked about literal conditions.
Other than memories of the ancient dead, I assume then that nothing of those individuals after their death and decomposition remains in Jehovah Witness theology. Is this correct?




3) HOW METAPHORICALLY "ALIVE" IS A DIFFERENT THEOLOGY THAN LITERALY "ALIVE"

Regarding Luke 20:37-38 That the dead are raised even Moses showed at the Bush when he calls the Lord, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. For God is not a God of [the] dead but of [the] living for all live to him."

While the Jehovahs Witness interpret this text metaphorically because the person who dies still exists as a memory, the Earliest Christians tell us they interpret this text literally because the persons body dies but the person themselves continues to live as a living spirit.

I think this is one original point @Brian2, @Israel Khan, et al have been trying to clarify.

This is simply another difference between the earliest Christian religion we have literature for and their interpretation of scripture and the Modern Jehovahs Witness religions interpretation of scripture.



4) THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WITNESS THAT GODS' PROMISE OF RESURRRECTION IS LITERALLY TRUE

Clear said : "The early Judeo-Christians did not view the resurrection as metaphorically true, but as literally true.
For example, after Jesus died, the resurrected Jesus appeared to the apostles and many others. These were not metaphorical appearances, but actual, literal occurrences.
When Matt 27:52-53 witnesses that "The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.…" this is not a metaphorical statement in early Judeo-Christianity. It is a written witness to a literal occurrence.
nPeace replied : "I did not say the resurrection is 'metaphorically true'. Is that what you understood? That is incorrect.(post #66)

I wanted to make it very clear that early Judeo-Christianity tells us in their literature that the original person lived on as a spirit and THAT person rises again (re-surrection – a rising again). This is not a metaphorical "living" after dying and before resurrection. It is not simply living in anothers memory. It is literal.

This is a distinction to the Jehovahs Witness theology where the original personality is gone and only lives metaphorically (as a memory) and a re-production or re-creation of the original personality is given a body. This is not the original person rising again, but a second creation rising for the first time.

These are nuances that @Brian2, @Israel Khan, and I were asking about.
They simply represent differences between your movement and ancient Christianity.
This observation itself does not mean your religion is superior or inferior to that of the early Christians. It is merely one of the differences.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

5) CORRUPTING SACRED TEXT TO SUPPORT THEOLOGY

Clear said ; " When Matt 27:52-53 witnesses that "The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.…" this is not a metaphorical statement in early Judeo-Christianity. It is a written witness to a literal occurrence.

nPeace responded : "I like this rendering, since, not only is it in harmony with the rest of the scriptures, but it also makes sense. (Matthew 27:52, 53) 52 And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised up 53 (and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered into the holy city), and they became visible to many people. (post #66)


I understand why you would like that “rendering”.
It comes from the bible created by the Jehovahs Witness movement.
It was “rendered” that way to support the Jehovahs Witness Doctrine.
It is also a completely corrupt translationn and a blatant departure of the authentic New Testament source text.
That is to say, it is not “biblical”.


THE NEW WORLD "TRANSLATION" OF MATTHEW 27:53 AS APOSTASY FROM THE ORIGINAL TEXT

The verse you offered from the Jehovah Witness version of the New Testament is not at all an authentic translation of ANY version of the Greek New Testament source texts.
Instead, it seems to be a commentary inserted by Franz, presumably to support Jehovahs Witness theology.
.

The authentic bible version says “… the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and, coming out of the tombs after his rising (Jesus), went into the holy city and appeared to many."

The corrupt version from the NW Text reads : “and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered into the holy city and they became visible to many people”

In the original version, the subject (“they”) is the bodies of the saints, while the apostate Jehovahs Witness version changes the subject by adding the words “and people coming out from among the tombs”. This is an obvious corruption of the text.

The original Greek does NOT read as the Jehovahs Witnesses have changed it to read and there is no greek variant in NA-28 or GN-4 or any other source I have that lists a variant that says what the Jehovahs Witness movement changed the text to mean.


MAKING ONES' THEOLOGY CONFORM TO THE BIBLICAL TEXT RATHER THAN MAKING THE BIBLICAL TEXT CONFORM TO ONES' THEOLOGY


nPeace. Jehovahs Witnesses cannot simply claim that their doctrines and interpretations “come from the bible” if they simply change authentic biblical text to conform to their theology rather than making their theology correspond to the biblical text.

It is such changes that I am referring to when I said that “These Earliest Christians would have been completely disgusted at the dismissal by the Jehovahs Witnesses of their christian testimony of the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and replacement by the Jehovahs Witnesses by a doctrine that has a resurrection only after Armageddon.

The early Christians would have been incredulous that the texts they held sacred would have been changed by a later Christianity who re-interpreted and changed their written witnesses to support their own system of doctrines.” (Clear in post #122 - different thread)


These and other reasons are why the early Christianities predicted that apostasy would occur and that these examples provided by the Jehovahs Witness movement are examples of that apostasy.



a) ORIGINAL MATTHEW 27:52 AS A SACRED WITNESS TO THE FULFILLMENT OF AN ANCIENT AND SACRED PROMISE BY GOD

In the earliest Christian Literature, the witness of Matthew 27:52, that “…many bodies of the saints which slept arose and, coming out of the tombs after his rising, went into the holy city, and appeared to many” was a profound and sacred witness to the reality of the promise of resurrection.

Matthew 27:52 was a profound witness that God would fulfill the sacred promises mankind, that after death, individuals would live again.

To the early Christians, the original and authentic text was sacred and it was improper to inappropriately add to or take away anything from those words.

The Jehovahs Witness, YoursTrue, described such corruptions of text as “ammendments”.
However, an “amendment” is a minor change to improve a text.
This is NOT what Franz did when he changed this original text in creating the Jehovahs Witness bible.

The modification of this sacred text by Jehovahs Witnesses adds words and change the basic context of the text.
This is NOT a minor change to the sacred text.


b) The nature of the changes made to this text by the Jehovah's Witness modifications to sacred text.
The modification of the biblical text by Jehovahs Witnesses removes the reference to resurrection.
This modification denies the sentence it’s value as a profound witness of the resurrection.
This modification removes evidence of fulfillment of a promise God made to mankind (resurrection).
In modifying this text, Franz created a different text which is not supported by nor even exists in any Greek source text (of thousands that exist). NONE of the greek texts support this modification.

I think this is why the early Christian movement would have seen the Jehovahs’ Witness modifications to this text as apostasy.

Similar to your description, the Jehovahs Witness YoursTrue also described such corruptions and changes to the text as a “Clarification”.
However, a Clarification is to make something LESS confused and MORE clear, and MORE comprehensible.

The Jehovahs Witness modification to the bibles’ text in this instance does NOT clarify, but obscures the original meaning.
It makes their text LESS clearly a witness to the resurrection.
It makes their text LESS clearly a witness to the fulfillment of Gods promise to mankind.

There are important reasons why we are not to make inappropriate and inaccurate modifications to an authentic biblical text.

My purpose in asking the questions was to simply understand the differences between ancient Christianity in it's earliest form described by the earliest literature and the Jehovahs Witness religion created in the modern era. I was not, initially trying to demonstrate the differences. This is why this thread started out in the Jehovahs Witness thread (though I do not know why it was changed to this Q&A area...).


I honestly hope your spiritual journey is wonderful nPeace.

Clear
ειτζσιδρω

 

[nPeace]

@Clear if the word re-creation is confusing you, perhaps this will help.
*** it-1 pp. 546-547 Creation ***
Re-Creation. To his apostles Jesus also spoke of a “re-creation” and associated it with the time “when the Son of man sits down upon his glorious throne.” (Mt 19:28; Lu 22:28-30) The Greek word translated “re-creation” is pa·lin·ge·ne·siʹa, which is composed of elements that mean “again; anew; once more” and “birth; origin.” Philo used the term with reference to the reconstitution of the world after the Flood. Josephus used it regarding the reestablishment of Israel after the exile. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel, says that the use of pa·lin·ge·ne·siʹa at Matthew 19:28 “is in full agreement with that of Philo and Josephus.” (Translated by G. Bromiley, 1964, Vol. I, p. 688) So the reference is not to a new creation but to a regeneration, or a renewal, by means of which Jehovah’s purpose for the earth is fully accomplished. - See TRIBE (“Judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel”).

 

[nPeace]

@Clear if you don't understand what I wrote in the PM, I don't know what more I can say.
Death is not metaphorical. Nor is the resurrection.
You did not respond to the PM, so I will leave it here for if or when you are ready to do so.

I believe what the Bible says.
The Bible says, the soul dies.
Do you agree the person - the soul - dies?

The Bible says, there will be a resurrection of the dead
What is a resurrection?
Resurrect - restore (a dead person) to life - a raising up.
Do you agree the dead will be raised to life?

Where are the dead?
The Bible says, man returns to the dust of the earth.
What survives?
The Bible says, "If [God] takes away their spirit, they die and return to the dust." (Psalm 104:29)

Solomon said, "They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust. Who really knows whether the spirit of humans ascends upward, and whether the spirit of animals descends down to the earth?" (Ecclesiastes 3:20, 21)

The Bible says. "the dust returns to the earth, just as it was, and the spirit returns to the true God who gave it." (Ecclesiastes 12:7)

I believe Solomon understood that the spirit which keeps fleshly creatures alive, descending or ascending pertains to it being left in God's hands, to give that creature life again... or not.
The spirit returns to God, in that he is responsible for giving life ... to the non-living - those who never lived, and those who died... if he wills.

Solomon understood what that spirit is. It sustains life, in fleshly beings. He said...
"... for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust." (Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20)

Hence nothing survives the death of the person.

How can that be, you ask?
The scriptures say, "do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (Matthew 10:28)

How can man not kill the soul, when he can take the life of someone?
How can God destroy the soul?
Where is our life after death?
Where does God restore our life from?

Seems to me, these questions should have an answer that harmonizes with scripture.
I understand the scriptures to be saying our life in "in God's hands" - that is , any hope of being restored to life, rests with God, if we are not forgotten by him.

What do you believe? Do you think a person's life goes somewhere, and it has all the memories stored somewhere other than a brain, and do you think it is alive, and therefore does not need to be raised to life?
What is your belief on life, and death?

 

[nPeace]

@Clear what does your text say?
Does it say many bodies were raised up?
If so, can you explain how the bodies were able to get into the temple. Thanks

 

[Samael_Khan]

POST ONE OF TWO

1) IF SOMETHING IS "RE-CREATED", WHY IS THAT NOT A DUPLICATE IF THE TWO ARE THE IDENTICAL?
@Deeje did not like the use of the word "duplicate" to the "re-creation" of an original.

However, IF nothing of that original person who died anciently exists (other than memories of the dead), then some sort of re-production or duplicate must be made IF a a person is to be resurrected in the place of the one who died.
AND, if the re-created, resurrected person is to be the same as the original, then it must be an exact re-production.

What is wrong with calling this “re-creation” or “re-production” or “exact copy” of the person, a “duplicate”?
What term would you prefer we use for this new “re-creation” of the original individual?


nPeace said : "I have to say though Clear, that I can appreciate @Deeje's, frustration when you keep saying God makes a duplicate.
If you keep saying that, even though we don't believe it, it is frustrating. It's frustrating to me, because it is as though you want to make your belief ours." (post #57)
Clear replied : "I certainly will yield to your claim that an "exact reproduction,copy,re-creation, etc." is not a "duplicate" if you can demonstrate your claim.
(post #59)
nPeace responded : "Excuse me? Those are not my words. Nor will you find them in any Watchtower. (post #66

I had understood from Deejes' remarks that the original person who died and the re-creation of that person were exactly alike (i.e. "duplicates")
Are you now clarifying that the “re-creation” of the prior personality is not the same?
If the person God creates to resurrect is not the same, other than the new body, what is difference between the re-creation of the person who died and the original person who died (other than the body)?



2) ASKING ABOUT LITERAL CONDITIONS AND ANSWERING ABOUT METAPHORICAL CONDITIONS CAUSES CONFUSION

nPeace said : "Because "You" the person, however, is not destroyed by God - that is, erased from his memory - his book of remembrance, "You" are living to God... even though you have died." (post #57)
Clear responsed : "When you say that we are "alive" in memory, you are speaking metaphorically. The actual person is not, literally alive…."Memory" of a person is NOT the person itself.
nPeace answered : "You got that correct." Good. (Post #66)

It makes for an inefficient conversation if you answer about metaphorical conditions when asked about literal conditions.
Other than memories of the ancient dead, I assume then that nothing of those individuals after their death and decomposition remains in Jehovah Witness theology. Is this correct?




3) HOW METAPHORICALLY "ALIVE" IS A DIFFERENT THEOLOGY THAN LITERALY "ALIVE"

Regarding Luke 20:37-38 That the dead are raised even Moses showed at the Bush when he calls the Lord, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. For God is not a God of [the] dead but of [the] living for all live to him."

While the Jehovahs Witness interpret this text metaphorically because the person who dies still exists as a memory, the Earliest Christians tell us they interpret this text literally because the persons body dies but the person themselves continues to live as a living spirit.

I think this is one original point @Brian2, @Israel Khan, et al have been trying to clarify.

This is simply another difference between the earliest Christian religion we have literature for and their interpretation of scripture and the Modern Jehovahs Witness religions interpretation of scripture.



4) THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WITNESS THAT GODS' PROMISE OF RESURRRECTION IS LITERALLY TRUE

Clear said : "The early Judeo-Christians did not view the resurrection as metaphorically true, but as literally true.
For example, after Jesus died, the resurrected Jesus appeared to the apostles and many others. These were not metaphorical appearances, but actual, literal occurrences.
When Matt 27:52-53 witnesses that "The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.…" this is not a metaphorical statement in early Judeo-Christianity. It is a written witness to a literal occurrence.
nPeace replied : "I did not say the resurrection is 'metaphorically true'. Is that what you understood? That is incorrect.(post #66)

I wanted to make it very clear that early Judeo-Christianity tells us in their literature that the original person lived on as a spirit and THAT person rises again (re-surrection – a rising again). This is not a metaphorical "living" after dying and before resurrection. It is not simply living in anothers memory. It is literal.

This is a distinction to the Jehovahs Witness theology where the original personality is gone and only lives metaphorically (as a memory) and a re-production or re-creation of the original personality is given a body. This is not the original person rising again, but a second creation rising for the first time.

These are nuances that @Brian2, @Israel Khan, and I were asking about.
They simply represent differences between your movement and ancient Christianity.
This observation itself does not mean your religion is superior or inferior to that of the early Christians. It is merely one of the differences.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

FYI

Jehovahs' Witnesses believe that immediately after the last apostles died that Christianity gradually became corrupted, ie, false teachings krept into the congregation, which the NT does warn of. So in their view, the true teachings of Christianity can only really be detected by examining the Bible itself. They interpret that a certain way and whoever came after who contradicts what they perceive the NT to be saying is teaching a corrupt teaching. So, appealing to early Christian texts that came after the NT, or teachings that came from the Jews, only works if it supports their interpretation, but is fruitless if it is in conflict with their interpretation as conflicting interpretations and beliefs can be dismissed.

 

[Samael_Khan]

@Clear if the word re-creation is confusing you, perhaps this will help.
*** it-1 pp. 546-547 Creation ***
Re-Creation. To his apostles Jesus also spoke of a “re-creation” and associated it with the time “when the Son of man sits down upon his glorious throne.” (Mt 19:28; Lu 22:28-30) The Greek word translated “re-creation” is pa·lin·ge·ne·siʹa, which is composed of elements that mean “again; anew; once more” and “birth; origin.” Philo used the term with reference to the reconstitution of the world after the Flood. Josephus used it regarding the reestablishment of Israel after the exile. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel, says that the use of pa·lin·ge·ne·siʹa at Matthew 19:28 “is in full agreement with that of Philo and Josephus.” (Translated by G. Bromiley, 1964, Vol. I, p. 688) So the reference is not to a new creation but to a regeneration, or a renewal, by means of which Jehovah’s purpose for the earth is fully accomplished. - See TRIBE (“Judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel”).

I just looked this up. Palingenesis has multiple meanings.

Palingenesis - Wikipedia

In references to times the word is used in the bible:

Palingenesis – What is it? (compellingtruth.org)

"In the Bible, palingenesis is described by Jesus in John 3 when He tells Nicodemus that only those who are born again can see heaven. Peter refers to the idea in 1 Peter 1:3: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." Also see 1 Peter 1:23, Titus 3:5, 1 Corinthians 6:11, and Revelation 7:14 for references to regeneration and renewal."

In John 3, palingenesis is used for those who get born again from flesh to spirit.

All of these instances are referring to being "born again" or being "washed clean". It generally refers to a "new birth", which gels with what you mentioned about Israel.

The question then is, what is the nature of this "renewal" from a biblical perspective.

 

[Samael_Khan]

@Clear if you don't understand what I wrote in the PM, I don't know what more I can say.
Death is not metaphorical. Nor is the resurrection.
You did not respond to the PM, so I will leave it here for if or when you are ready to do so.

I believe what the Bible says.
The Bible says, the soul dies.
Do you agree the person - the soul - dies?

The Bible says, there will be a resurrection of the dead
What is a resurrection?
Resurrect - restore (a dead person) to life - a raising up.
Do you agree the dead will be raised to life?

Where are the dead?
The Bible says, man returns to the dust of the earth.
What survives?
The Bible says, "If [God] takes away their spirit, they die and return to the dust." (Psalm 104:29)

Solomon said, "They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust. Who really knows whether the spirit of humans ascends upward, and whether the spirit of animals descends down to the earth?" (Ecclesiastes 3:20, 21)

The Bible says. "the dust returns to the earth, just as it was, and the spirit returns to the true God who gave it." (Ecclesiastes 12:7)

I believe Solomon understood that the spirit which keeps fleshly creatures alive, descending or ascending pertains to it being left in God's hands, to give that creature life again... or not.
The spirit returns to God, in that he is responsible for giving life ... to the non-living - those who never lived, and those who died... if he wills.

Solomon understood what that spirit is. It sustains life, in fleshly beings. He said...
"... for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust." (Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20)

Hence nothing survives the death of the person.

How can that be, you ask?
The scriptures say, "do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (Matthew 10:28)

How can man not kill the soul, when he can take the life of someone?
How can God destroy the soul?
Where is our life after death?
Where does God restore our life from?

Seems to me, these questions should have an answer that harmonizes with scripture.
I understand the scriptures to be saying our life in "in God's hands" - that is , any hope of being restored to life, rests with God, if we are not forgotten by him.

What do you believe? Do you think a person's life goes somewhere, and it has all the memories stored somewhere other than a brain, and do you think it is alive, and therefore does not need to be raised to life?
What is your belief on life, and death?

The objection in this thread is about god keeping the identity of people in his memory and not keeping their actual souls. That point is discussed independent to what the Bible says as it implies certain things.

Would you agree with the below?

1.The regeneration of something would be the restoring of something that already exists.

2.If you say that the personality doesn't survives the death of a person then you would agree that all that god retains is the memory of an individuals personality.

3.If all that god retains is the memory of an individuals personality then what he does when he resurrects people is that he uses that information to create exactly what is in his memory.

4.If nothing survives a person at death, and god creates the same individual from memory, then they are being duplicated, as the memory is a copy of the information of what lived before. The original personality was destroyed upon death.

 

[Clear]

Hi @nPeace

CLEAR SAID : 1) IF SOMETHING IS "RE-CREATED", WHY IS THAT NOT A DUPLICATE IF THE TWO ARE THE IDENTICAL?
@Deeje did not like the use of the word "duplicate" to the "re-creation" of an original....(...)
What is wrong with calling this “re-creation” or “re-production” or “exact copy” of the person, a “duplicate”?
What term would you prefer we use for this new “re-creation” of the original individual?
NPEACE SAID : "I have to say though Clear, that I can appreciate @Deeje's, frustration when you keep saying God makes a duplicate.
If you keep saying that, even though we don't believe it, it is frustrating. It's frustrating to me, because it is as though you want to make your belief ours." (post #57)
CLEAR REPLIED : "I certainly will yield to your claim that an "exact reproduction,copy,re-creation, etc." is not a "duplicate" if you can demonstrate your claim.
(post #59)
NPEACE RESPONDED : "Excuse me? Those are not my words. Nor will you find them in any Watchtower. (post #66

I had understood from Deejes' remarks that the original person who died and the re-creation of that person were exactly alike (i.e. "duplicates")
Are you now clarifying that the “re-creation” of the prior personality is not the same?
If the person God creates to resurrect is not the same, other than the new body, what is difference between the re-creation of the person who died and the original person who died (other than the body)?


REGARDING THE HISTORICAL MEANING OF ΠΑΛΙΝΓΕΝΕΣΙΑ (PALINGENESIA) AS IT MAY (OR MAY NOT) RELATE TO JEHOVAHS WITNESS VERSION OF RE-CREATION
nPeace said : @Clear if the word re-creation is confusing you, perhaps this will help… Re-Creation. To his apostles Jesus also spoke of a “re-creation” and associated it with the time “when the Son of man sits down upon his glorious throne.” (Mt 19:28; Lu 22:28-30) The Greek word translated “re-creation” is pa·lin·ge·ne·siʹa, which is composed of elements that mean “again; anew; once more” and “birth; origin.”


Hi nPeace :

Thank you for the information. While I am somewhat familiar with this Greek word, your reference to it it doesn’t answer the question you were asked.

In Jehovahs Witness theology, Is the personality God creates at resurrection the same as the original (i.e. a duplicate of the original), or is the person God creates different than the original personality.

If the personality is different, then the original is not resurrected, but instead, a different personality is resurrected.
If the personality is the same as the original, then why do you object to the word “duplicate” for the personality that is resurrected?


You refer to παλινγενεσια (palingenesia) as a "rebirth" or "re-creation" but this not tell us how the Jehovahs Witnesses are using it.
For example, it is a compound word and anciently it was used in more than one context.
While the action implied by γενεσια (genesis) was an act of creation or production, adding παλιν (palin) did not merely mean a “re-creation” or “re-production” in ancient usage. It was context that determined what the compound meant.

For example, in Papyrus Tebt I. 58:52 (of iii b.c.) it meant a repetition of an action such as “I bid you again to be in attendance.” (παλιν προσεντελλομαι σοι προσεδρευσαι). In such a context the full compound meant “create again”.

However, the context that determined meaning of the compoud word was the word παλιν and how it was being used.
Originally it was a return to a prior state and later such as in approx b,c, 111 to 3rd c.e. it was often used as a repetition of something done previously (e.g. “creation” and “re-creation”). Two separate actions.

However, the historical context changes the meaning significantly.



THE DIFFERENT MEANINGS OFΠΑΛΙΝ (PALIN) IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS

For example, παλιν is not simply “again” but the nuance can make it a “progressive process” such as it is used in Papyri Oxy IV.742.9 (in 2 b.c.) when a bundle of reeds is delivered to one friend who then delivers to another friend. (παραδος δε τινι των Φιλων αριθμω αυτας ινα παλιν Φιλος ημειν παραδοι ασφαλως...). None of the individuals are receiving the reeds again, but all have handled them for the first time. Rather, they are sending them on to another as a progressive action.

Παλινγενεσια in this context means another creation or action that is performed inside a process of advancement. The reeds are in a state of further progression.
In this context παλινγενεσια is not a “re-creation”, but a “improved creation”. These are not the same thing.


In other contexts παλιν may refer to a condition which is the result of a prior action, (again, a progressive action and not a repetition).
For example, In Papyrus Oxy XIV 1676.24 (of iii a.d.) the person rejoices at anothers happiness but this causes frustration at not being with, or seeing the person who is happy. (χαιρω οτι καλως εχεις μεν καγω δε παλι καταξυομαι μη ορων σε...).

In this context παλινγενεσια means a creation or change of state because of or dependent upon an external action.

Such a use in an ongoing and progressive action or set of actions is frequently how παλιν is used.

For example, in New Testament Mark 15:12-13, The T.R. says “And Pilate again (παλιν) said unto them, “Then what shall I do with the Man whom you call the King of the Jews.” Vs 13 And they cried out again (παλιν), “Crucify him”.

Neither Pilate nor the Jews had repeated their speech “again”.
It was the first time either spoke the words of the sentence.
However, παλιν in this context is used as “further” or “thereupon”, etc. and did not mean “again” (despite the translation). It is a progression of speech, not a repetition or re-creation of speech.

In such usage, παλινγενεσια can mean a creation inside a process of creations.

For example Matthew 19:28 where Jesus says,

“…Truly I say to you, in the new (παλιν) world, when the Son of man shall sit on his throne…”

It is just as correct to translate it as

" ....“Truly I say to you, in the next (παλιν) world, when the Son of man shall sit on his throne…”

In this context, the "New" world is NOT the "old" world re-created. But it is a DIFFERENT world, with different conditions. It is a new and PROGRESSIVE creation.




nPeace said : "Philo used the term with reference to the reconstitution of the world after the Flood."

You are confused on this point.

When Philo used this term in Vita Moses (2.XII ), he was referring to Noahs descendents who “became the founders of a “new Generation” (παλινγενεσια).
Philo was not describing a re-creation of the prior generation (who were destroyed in the flood BECAUSE God did not approve of them.
Philo speaks of a NEW, and different Generation which he called “a second period of the world”, It was not the prior generation and the prior world with it’s evils that were simply “re-created”, it was an IMPROVED and DIFFERENT world.


The point here is that you are making a generalization about an ancient word and concept but it does not speak to the specifics of Jehovahs Witness theology nor clarify the question you were actually asked.


In Jehovahs Witness Theology, is the person God creates at the resurrection exactly like the original person that died 4000 years earlier, or is there something different about them (other than the resurrected body).


IF the person who is created 4000 years later is exactly LIKE the first one, then why do you oppose using the word “duplicate” for the person who is created exactly like the first one was.

IF the person who is created 4000 years later is NOT exactly like the first one, then what are the differences placed into this second creation in Jehovahs Witness theology?



Clear
ειειδρτωω

 

[Clear]

FYI

Jehovahs' Witnesses believe that immediately after the last apostles died that Christianity gradually became corrupted, ie, false teachings krept into the congregation, which the NT does warn of. So in their view, the true teachings of Christianity can only really be detected by examining the Bible itself. They interpret that a certain way and whoever came after who contradicts what they perceive the NT to be saying is teaching a corrupt teaching. So, appealing to early Christian texts that came after the NT, or teachings that came from the Jews, only works if it supports their interpretation, but is fruitless if it is in conflict with their interpretation as conflicting interpretations and beliefs can be dismissed.

Hi Israel Khan

Thank you for the explanation.
I have encountered the Jehovahs Witness Claim that all prior Christianities that disagree with them are apostate.
However, the reverse is also true. The early Christians describe religions like the Jehovahs Witnesses as apostate.
That was the point I wanted to make as I expected nPeace to make that claim at some point. However, the claim goes both ways and affects both groups with equal validity.
Early Christianity and their literature seems, in my estimation, to be more rational and logical than most of the later religious movements such as the Jehovahs Witnesses.

Speaking of truth and errors, 1, 4, and 5Q Dead sea scrolls have a saying regarding truth and error : "God has appointed these spirits as equals until the last age, and set an everlasting enmity between their divisions. False deeds are thus an abomination to the truth, whereas all the ways of truth are for perversity equally a disgrace. Fierce dispute attends ever point of decision, for they can never agree. 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col 4 vs 15-26
The concept is that truth sees error as an abomination while error will see truth in the same bad light. Most christianities will view the other conflicting ones as "apostates".

Similarly, it was said that Judah taught his children “So understand my children, that two spirits await an opportunity with humanity: the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. 2 In between is the conscience of the mind which inclines as it will. The Things of truth and the things of error are written in the affections of man, each one of whom the Lord knows.” Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Judah 20:1-3

In any case, i hope your own journey is wonderful.

Clear
ειειδρτωω

 

[nPeace]

Hi @nPeace

CLEAR SAID : 1) IF SOMETHING IS "RE-CREATED", WHY IS THAT NOT A DUPLICATE IF THE TWO ARE THE IDENTICAL?
@Deeje did not like the use of the word "duplicate" to the "re-creation" of an original....(...)
What is wrong with calling this “re-creation” or “re-production” or “exact copy” of the person, a “duplicate”?
What term would you prefer we use for this new “re-creation” of the original individual?
NPEACE SAID : "I have to say though Clear, that I can appreciate @Deeje's, frustration when you keep saying God makes a duplicate.
If you keep saying that, even though we don't believe it, it is frustrating. It's frustrating to me, because it is as though you want to make your belief ours." (post #57)
CLEAR REPLIED : "I certainly will yield to your claim that an "exact reproduction,copy,re-creation, etc." is not a "duplicate" if you can demonstrate your claim.
(post #59)
NPEACE RESPONDED : "Excuse me? Those are not my words. Nor will you find them in any Watchtower. (post #66

I had understood from Deejes' remarks that the original person who died and the re-creation of that person were exactly alike (i.e. "duplicates")
Are you now clarifying that the “re-creation” of the prior personality is not the same?
If the person God creates to resurrect is not the same, other than the new body, what is difference between the re-creation of the person who died and the original person who died (other than the body)?


REGARDING THE HISTORICAL MEANING OF ΠΑΛΙΝΓΕΝΕΣΙΑ (PALINGENESIA) AS IT MAY (OR MAY NOT) RELATE TO JEHOVAHS WITNESS VERSION OF RE-CREATION
nPeace said : @Clear if the word re-creation is confusing you, perhaps this will help… Re-Creation. To his apostles Jesus also spoke of a “re-creation” and associated it with the time “when the Son of man sits down upon his glorious throne.” (Mt 19:28; Lu 22:28-30) The Greek word translated “re-creation” is pa·lin·ge·ne·siʹa, which is composed of elements that mean “again; anew; once more” and “birth; origin.”


Hi nPeace :

Thank you for the information. While I am somewhat familiar with this Greek word, your reference to it it doesn’t answer the question you were asked.

In Jehovahs Witness theology, Is the personality God creates at resurrection the same as the original (i.e. a duplicate of the original), or is the person God creates different than the original personality.

If the personality is different, then the original is not resurrected, but instead, a different personality is resurrected.
If the personality is the same as the original, then why do you object to the word “duplicate” for the personality that is resurrected?


You refer to παλινγενεσια (palingenesia) as a "rebirth" or "re-creation" but this not tell us how the Jehovahs Witnesses are using it.
For example, it is a compound word and anciently it was used in more than one context.
While the action implied by γενεσια (genesis) was an act of creation or production, adding παλιν (palin) did not merely mean a “re-creation” or “re-production” in ancient usage. It was context that determined what the compound meant.

For example, in Papyrus Tebt I. 58:52 (of iii b.c.) it meant a repetition of an action such as “I bid you again to be in attendance.” (παλιν προσεντελλομαι σοι προσεδρευσαι). In such a context it the full compound meant “create again”.

However, the context that determined meaning of the compoud word was the word παλιν and how it was being used.
Originally it was a return to a prior state and later such as in approx b,c, 111 to 3rd c.e. it was often used as a repetition of something done previously (e.g. “creation” and “re-creation”). Two separate actions.

However, the historical context changes the meaning significantly.



THE DIFFERENT MEANINGS OFΠΑΛΙΝ (PALIN) IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS

For example, παλιν is not simply “again” but the nuance can make it a “progressive process” such as it is used in Papyri Oxy IV.742.9 (in 2 b.c.) when a bundle of reeds is delivered to one friend who then delivers to another friend. (παραδος δε τινι των Φιλων αριθμω αυτας ινα παλιν Φιλος ημειν παραδοι ασφαλως...). None of the individuals are receiving the reeds again, but all have handled them for the first time. Rather, they are sending them on to another as a progressive action.

Παλινγενεσια in this context means another creation or action that is performed inside a process of advancement. The reeds are in a state of further progression.
In this context παλινγενεσια is not a “re-creation”, but a “improved creation”. These are not the same thing.


In other contexts παλιν may refer to a condition which is the result of a prior action, (again, a progressive action and not a repetition).
For example, In Papyrus Oxy XIV 1676.24 (of iii a.d.) the person rejoices at anothers happiness but this causes frustration at not being with, or seeing the person who is happy. (χαιρω οτι καλως εχεις μεν καγω δε παλι καταξυομαι μη ορων σε...).

In this context παλινγενεσια means a creation or change of state because of or dependent upon an external action.

Such a use in an ongoing and progressive action or set of actions is frequently how παλιν is used.

For example, in New Testament Mark 15:12-13, The T.R. says “And Pilate again (παλιν) said unto them, “Then what shall I do with the Man whom you call the King of the Jews.” Vs 13 And they cried out again (παλιν), “Crucify him”.

Neither Pilate nor the Jews had repeated their speech “again”.
It was the first time either spoke the words of the sentence.
However, παλιν in this context is used as “further” or “thereupon”, etc. and did not mean “again” (despite the translation). It is a progression of speech, not a repetition or re-creation of speech.

In such usage, παλινγενεσια can mean a creation inside a process of creations.

For example Matthew 19:28 where Jesus says,

“…Truly I say to you, in the new (παλιν) world, when the Son of man shall sit on his throne…”

It is just as correct to translate it as

" ....“Truly I say to you, in the next (παλιν) world, when the Son of man shall sit on his throne…”

In this context, the "New" world is NOT the "old" world re-created. But it is a DIFFERENT world, with different conditions. It is a new and PROGRESSIVE creation.




nPeace said : "Philo used the term with reference to the reconstitution of the world after the Flood."

You are confused on this point.

When Philo used this term in Vita Moses (2.XII ), he was referring to Noahs descendents who “became the founders of a “new Generation” (παλινγενεσια).
Philo was not describing a re-creation of the prior generation (who were destroyed in the flood BECAUSE God did not approve of them.
Philo speaks of a NEW, and different Generation which he called “a second period of the world”, It was not the prior generation and the prior world with it’s evils that were simply “re-created”, it was an IMPROVED and DIFFERENT world.


The point here is that you are making a generalization about an ancient word and concept but it does not speak to the specifics of Jehovahs Witness theology nor clarify the question you were actually asked.


In Jehovahs Witness Theology, is the person God creates at the resurrection exactly like the original person that died 4000 years earlier, or is there something different about them (other than the resurrected body).


IF the person who is created 4000 years later is exactly LIKE the first one, then why do you oppose using the word “duplicate” for the person who is created exactly like the first one was.

IF the person who is created 4000 years later is NOT exactly like the first one, then what are the differences placed into this second creation in Jehovahs Witness theology?



Clear
ειειδρτωω

prior personality? prior personality?? ??? Clear, are you listening, or preaching your ideas? Where did you get prior personality from? How did you arrive at a prior personality? Please clarify.

 

[nPeace]

If you use a computer program @Clear, you would know that a duplicate is a copy - a copy of one thing to another. Afterward, the original is either kept, or destroyed.
Please explain how that is similar, or the same as anything I said.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Hi Israel Khan

Thank you for the explanation.
I have encountered the Jehovahs Witness Claim that all prior Christianities that disagree with them are apostate.
However, the reverse is also true. The early Christians describe religions like the Jehovahs Witnesses as apostate.
That was the point I wanted to make as I expected nPeace to make that claim at some point. However, the claim goes both ways and affects both groups with equal validity.
Early Christianity and their literature seems, in my estimation, to be more rational and logical than most of the later religious movements such as the Jehovahs Witnesses.

Speaking of truth and errors, 1, 4, and 5Q Dead sea scrolls have a saying regarding truth and error : "God has appointed these spirits as equals until the last age, and set an everlasting enmity between their divisions. False deeds are thus an abomination to the truth, whereas all the ways of truth are for perversity equally a disgrace. Fierce dispute attends ever point of decision, for they can never agree. 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col 4 vs 15-26
The concept is that truth sees error as an abomination while error will see truth in the same bad light. Most christianities will view the other conflicting ones as "apostates".

Similarly, it was said that Judah taught his children “So understand my children, that two spirits await an opportunity with humanity: the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. 2 In between is the conscience of the mind which inclines as it will. The Things of truth and the things of error are written in the affections of man, each one of whom the Lord knows.” Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Judah 20:1-3

In any case, i hope your own journey is wonderful.

Clear
ειειδρτωω

I agree with this. So, in your view, how do we solve such an impasse?

 

[Clear]

Hi @Israel Khan


THE PROBLEM OF CHRISTIANITIES SEEING EACH OTHER AS “APOSTATES”.


ARGUING THEOLOGY VS ARGUING HISTORY

The fact that various Christianities see each other as having theological errors is obvious and problematic if it causes them to treat each other with contempt.

For this reason, I rarely argue a theological truth since, as you point out, it boils down to one belief against another belief. I might point out the philosophical or logical or rational points to a belief, but I think the various Christianities are often at an impasse regarding specific truths about metaphysical concepts.

For the most part, the points I make are historical. For example, If I make a claim that God exists, I cannot then prove that God exists to an atheist. However, If I make a claim that the ancient Christians believe God exists, then I have a tremendous amount of objective literary evidence to overcome a contrary claim.

Thus, my discussion with most Christians regards what early Judeo-Christians believed about the nature of man, the nature of God, God’s overall plan for mankind in having created this mortal experience, what we are to do while in mortality, why there is suffering and it’s purpose, the nature of death and the afterlife, the nature of resurrection of a future existence, etc.

While specific Christian movements often create a specific system of beliefs, they are often unaware that the earliest Judeo-Christians had a much more developed, more mature, more specific (and I think, more logical, rational and more intuitive) system of theology AND importantly, they wrote extensively regarding their beliefs.

For this reason, one can make specific historical claims regarding early a specific Judeo-Christian belief and there is no impasse if the literature supports a specific claim. If one makes a claim that this belief is TRUE, this moves it into a theological arena and into are area of impasse as it may be unproveable.

One historical point is that the earliest historical references made by individuals who were either eye-witnesses or closest to the actual occurrence, tend to be more credible (“tend to be” is the operative here….) than historical statements made by people nowadays who have no interest in history.

Thus, when one reads a letter from First Clement, who was a colleague of the apostle Peter and a co-worker with Paul (Paul mentions Clement in Phillipians 4:3), then Clements description of the Gospel taught him by the original apostles Peter and Paul tends to be a more credible version of what the early Christians taught then a conflicting version created by later Christian movements.

So, while specific theological claims such as the nature of resurrection may come to an impasse, a specific historical claim regarding what Early Christians believed about the nature of resurrection is much more tangible and has more objective literary historical evidence and may not come to the same impasse. I attempt NOT to debate things I don't have at least some data to support and so do not often come to an impasse that is related to lack of data.


I hope this makes sense.


Good journey Israel khan.


Clear
ειεινετζω