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

[Clear]

JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEOLOGY AND THE PERSON CREATED AT RESURRECTION

nPeace responded : “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.”

Hi @nPeace :

I am trying to find a term that will differentiate the original person or personality that existed 4000 years ago and who died and whose body decomposed from the person or personality that, (in Jehovahs Witness theology) is re-created and placed into a resurrected body. I still cannot tell if your theology believes the second creation of the person is exactly like the first (i.e. a duplicate personality) or if there is a difference (a different personality).

Is the re-created personality who is resurrected, exactly like the prior personality that existed 4000 years prior or is the re-created personality different?


nPeace said : “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.”

Actually, a duplicate is an EXACT copy in this case. And I am asking if the re-created personality is an EXACT copy of the person or personality that existed 4000 years prior or is the re-created personality different?

This does not have to be a difficult discussion.

Either the original is exactly like (i.e. a duplicate) the re-creation, or they are different. Which is it?

Clear

 

[nPeace]

JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEOLOGY AND THE PERSON CREATED AT RESURRECTION

nPeace responded : “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.”

Hi @nPeace :

I am trying to find a term that will differentiate the original person or personality that existed 4000 years ago and who died and whose body decomposed from the person or personality that, (in Jehovahs Witness theology) is re-created and placed into a resurrected body. I still cannot tell if your theology believes the second creation of the person is exactly like the first (i.e. a duplicate personality) or if there is a difference (a different personality).

Is the re-created personality who is resurrected, exactly like the prior personality that existed 4000 years prior or is the re-created personality different?


nPeace said : “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.”

Actually, a duplicate is an EXACT copy in this case. And I am asking if the re-created personality is an EXACT copy of the person or personality that existed 4000 years prior or is the re-created personality different?

This does not have to be a difficult discussion.

Either the original is exactly like (i.e. a duplicate) the re-creation, or they are different. Which is it?

Clear

person or personality??? So a person is personality Clear? How so?

 

[Clear]

Hi @nPeace


REGARDING THE RE-CREATION OF A PERSON IN THE RESURRECTION (IN JEHOVAH WITNESS THEOLOGY)


nPeace asked : “person or personality??? So a person is personality Clear?” (post #82)

I do not think so.

The dictionary meanings make a distinction between these two nouns.

In the context of my question to the Jehovahs Witnesses,

A “Person” is an individual human being.
and
A “Personality” is the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual human beings distinctive character.



THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS UNANSWERED AFTER MORE THAN 80 POSTS.

My question, STILL, is : “Is the re-created personality who is resurrected, exactly like the prior personality that existed 4000 years prior or is the re-created personality different?
Either the original is exactly like (i.e. a duplicate) the re-creation, or they are different. Which is it?” (Clear)

nPeace, We are now at post #83 and still we have no clear answer to this simple question that I have asked repeatedly. This inefficiency in getting any specific answer on this question is one of the reasons I thought to abandon seeking this information in this thread as I said in post #22.



Clear said in post #22 : “It feels like these questions may be uncomfortable for some reason and I apologize to any Jehovahs Witness that I may have offended by asking them for or pursuing specific clarification. I do NOT want to cause frustration or consternation or discord.
I will see if I can search out these specific answers through another means.

Please, please, accept my thanks for any input from anyone who has tried to clarify my questions.”


nPeace replied to Clear (in post #32) : “Please, as Deeje said, feel free to ask anything.
We do appreciate that you are asking, and none of us, including Deeje, is offended.”


Now, more than 50 posts later, this specific question is not clearly answered. This is very inefficient and I am not sure I understand why.

If none of the Jehovahs Witnesses know the answer to this question, or if this is an area of speculation and no firm, clear, doctrine exists on this point. That is fine.

However, now is the time to say it before we spend more time and effort on this specific question. I don’t see why we should spend more time and effort to gain information that will, ultimately, not be given.


I honestly appreciate those who have given clear, logical responses and for their insights.

Thank you so much.

Clear
ειδρειακω

 

[nPeace]

Hi @nPeace


REGARDING THE RE-CREATION OF A PERSON IN THE RESURRECTION (IN JEHOVAH WITNESS THEOLOGY)


nPeace asked : “person or personality??? So a person is personality Clear?” (post #82)

I do not think so.

The dictionary meanings make a distinction between these two nouns.

In the context of my question to the Jehovahs Witnesses,

A “Person” is an individual human being.
and
A “Personality” is the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual human beings distinctive character.



THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS UNANSWERED AFTER MORE THAN 80 POSTS.

My question, STILL, is : “Is the re-created personality who is resurrected, exactly like the prior personality that existed 4000 years prior or is the re-created personality different?
Either the original is exactly like (i.e. a duplicate) the re-creation, or they are different. Which is it?” (Clear)

nPeace, We are now at post #83 and still we have no clear answer to this simple question that I have asked repeatedly. This inefficiency in getting any specific answer on this question is one of the reasons I thought to abandon seeking this information in this thread as I said in post #22.



Clear said in post #22 : “It feels like these questions may be uncomfortable for some reason and I apologize to any Jehovahs Witness that I may have offended by asking them for or pursuing specific clarification. I do NOT want to cause frustration or consternation or discord.
I will see if I can search out these specific answers through another means.

Please, please, accept my thanks for any input from anyone who has tried to clarify my questions.”


nPeace replied to Clear (in post #32) : “Please, as Deeje said, feel free to ask anything.
We do appreciate that you are asking, and none of us, including Deeje, is offended.”


Now, more than 50 posts later, this specific question is not clearly answered. This is very inefficient and I am not sure I understand why.

If none of the Jehovahs Witnesses know the answer to this question, or if this is an area of speculation and no firm, clear, doctrine exists on this point. That is fine.

However, now is the time to say it before we spend more time and effort on this specific question. I don’t see why we should spend more time and effort to gain information that will, ultimately, not be given.


I honestly appreciate those who have given clear, logical responses and for their insights.

Thank you so much.

Clear
ειδρειακω

Clear, with all due respect, please do not blame people for your failing to understand what is clearly stated to you. Thank you.

Now that you acknowledged the difference between person, and personality, please review your questions, and see why they are detached from what we said to you, and redundant.

...............................................................................................................................................................................

Do you see it?
Repeating... The person - dies. The personality does not. (I explained how) Therefore, the personality does not need to be recreated. The person becomes complete when the personality, character, inner self, get a new body - the one God gives the resurrected person.

Perhaps Clear, answering questions asked of you by others, may also help you understand things.
Referring to post #70...
The Bible says, the soul dies.
Do you agree the person - the soul - dies?
That's a question. You never answered, Clear.

Referring to post #32...
I'll separated the sentences, so as to "speak" at a slower pace.
If I may try to emphasize what Deeje said.
The soul is the person.

Our characteristics, personality, which is developed throughout our life, is part of that person.

Our desires, motives, heart driven thoughts and intentions are a part of our person.

When a person dies, these remain with God. They are in his "memory bank"
Thus, he is the God of the living, and man can kill the body, but can never kill the soul - the person. (a) Yet the soul dies. (b c)

I said all this to you Clear, along with explaining inthe PM. Why is it not clear, when you can tell me that.... Quote A “Person” is an individual human being.
and
A “Personality” is the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual human beings distinctive character. Unquote.

Do you recall what I said to you in post #57?
"You" die when the spirit - what keeps you alive and breathing - leaves your body. Because the person, which is the whole being - soul, dies.

In death, the person is gone. They perished. The brain is dead - gone, and so are their thoughts. Hence you are nothing. Nonexistent. "You" cease to exist.

"You" are really not the molecular structure. Nor are you some internal entity - some immortal being.

What make you "You", is your personality, characteristics... (See the rest of that post for clarity)

A person has personality, and characteristics. That's what makes an individual.

In order to exist as a person though, you need... as a human, a body, and spirit. To exist as a spirit, "You" need a spirit body - a body higher than a physical being.

Clear, how can you say we have not explained clearly?
That's why I have to wonder if you are listening. It's either that you are not, or you won't understand for some reason - other than another person's fault.

We can get no clearer than this, and you just confirmed that a dictionary which primary school children use, shows the distinction between the person, and the personality.

So to ask about recreating the personality, after it was explained to you in a very elementary form, says what Clear? It's not the JWs fault.
Please put the blame where it rightly belongs.

If you don't understand even after this, then please explain what you do understand.
However, there is nothing more I can explain. I would only be repeating myself over and over, and that's no help to you, or I.

 

[Clear]

Hi @nPeace


IN JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEOLOGY, WHEN A PERSON DIES 4000 YEARS AGO, NOTHING BUT MEMORY OF THEM REMAINS.


THE QUESTION IS : DOES THE PERSON RE-CREATED AT RESURRECTION HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME PERSONALITY THEY HAD WHEN THEY DIED OR IS THERE A DIFFERENCE


nPeace said : “Clear, with all due respect, please do not blame people for your failing to understand what is clearly stated to you. Thank you.

Now that you acknowledged the difference between person, and personality, please review your questions, and see why they are detached from what we said to you, and redundant.

Do you see it?
nPeace said : Repeating... The person - dies. The personality does not. (I explained how) Therefore, the personality does not need to be recreated. The person becomes complete when the personality, character, inner self, get a new body - the one God gives the resurrected person.” (post #84)

In these statements, what I see is this :
1) You stated I fail to understand.
2) You explained Gods memory of the person who died means (to you) that the original personality didn’t die.
3) You explain that this personality is placed into a new body at the resurrection.

I do not see the answer to my specific question.
If you read your statements, Can you explain how any of your statements this answers the question I asked regarding whether the person is EXACTLY THE SAME OR IS DIFFERENT than the original person who lived 4000 years ago?

Is the personality the same or different? I assume it is the same, including the evil tendencies, for example, the J.W. Deeje says that “Those who did "vile things", Jesus said will still be resurrected as they were,…” (post #49)

This seems to mean that the person that God creates to resurrect will still retain all moral flaws they had when they died. They will still be as obstinant, still have incorrect beliefs, still be oppressive, still be liars, still be angry and as recalcitrant as they were when they lived. This seems to indicate the resurrected person will be an EXACT duplicate of the person that existed before, moral flaws and all.


nPeace said : “Referring to post #32...
I'll separated the sentences, so as to "speak" at a slower pace.
If I may try to emphasize what Deeje said.
The soul is the person.

Our characteristics, personality, which is developed throughout our life, is part of that person.

Our desires, motives, heart driven thoughts and intentions are a part of our person.

When a person dies, these remain with God. They are in his "memory bank"
Thus, he is the God of the living, and man can kill the body, but can never kill the soul - the person. (a) Yet the soul dies. (b c)” (post #84)

In these sentences you :
1) describe the component parts of a person and
2) that God remembers their personality.

If you read your statements, Can you explain how any of your statements this answers the question I asked regarding whether the person is EXACTLY THE SAME OR IS DIFFERENT than the original person who lived 4000 years ago?

Is the personality the same or different?



nPeace said : “I said all this to you Clear, along with explaining inthe PM. Why is it not clear, when you can tell me that.... Quote A “Person” is an individual human being.
and
A “Personality” is the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual human beings distinctive character. Unquote.

Do you recall what I said to you in post #57?
"You" die when the spirit - what keeps you alive and breathing - leaves your body. Because the person, which is the whole being - soul, dies.´ (post #84)

In these sentences, you
1) Tell me yourdefinition of death, that “the whole being” dies except the personality (intelligence, characteristics, emotions, preferences, memories, desires, intentions, motives, moral charateristics, etc), which you say lives on. (“in God’s memory”).

If you read your statements, Can you explain how any of your statements this answers the question I asked regarding whether the person is EXACTLY THE SAME OR IS DIFFERENT than the original person who lived 4000 years ago?

Is the personality the same or different?



nPeace said : “In death, the person is gone. They perished. The brain is dead - gone, and so are their thoughts. Hence you are nothing. Nonexistent. "You" cease to exist.

"You" are really not the molecular structure. Nor are you some internal entity - some immortal being.

What make you "You", is your personality, characteristics... (See the rest of that post for clarity)

A person has personality, and characteristics. That's what makes an individual.

In order to exist as a person though, you need... as a human, a body, and spirit. To exist as a spirit, "You" need a spirit body - a body higher than a physical being.” (post #84)

In these sentences you :
1) Tell us that the physical body dies, except the personality (intelligence, characteristics, emotions, preferences, memories, desires, intentions, motives, moral charateristics, etc), which you say lives on. (“in God’s memory”).

If you read your statements, Can you explain how any of your statements this answers the question I asked regarding whether the person is EXACTLY THE SAME OR IS DIFFERENT than the original person who lived 4000 years ago?

Is the personality the same or different?




nPeace said : “Clear, how can you say we have not explained clearly?” (post #84)

Because NONE of your post answers the question you were actually asked. It seems like you are repeating "talking points" but not able to see the very specific question I need confirmation to.
Let me give you another example :



nPeace said : “That's why I have to wonder if you are listening. It's either that you are not, or you won't understand for some reason - other than another person's fault.

We can get no clearer than this, and you just confirmed that a dictionary which primary school children use, shows the distinction between the person, and the personality.

So to ask about recreating the personality, after it was explained to you in a very elementary form, says what Clear? It's not the JWs fault.
Please put the blame where it rightly belongs.

If you don't understand even after this, then please explain what you do understand.
However, there is nothing more I can explain. I would only be repeating myself over and over, and that's no help to you, or I. “ (post #84)

These sentences
1) Wonder if I am listening or won't understand
2) Explain you can be no clearer
3) Seem to agree with the dictionary definition of person and personality
4) Tell me the "recreating the personality" question is not the JWs fault.
5) Ask me to explain what I do not understand.


If you read your statements, Can you explain how any of your statements this answers the question I asked regarding whether the person is EXACTLY THE SAME OR IS DIFFERENT than the original person who lived 4000 years ago?

Is the personality the same or different?


nPeace, I wish you could see your responses from the standpoint of an investigator that is asking a very specific question.


I think you are implying that the personality that God placed into the new body at resurrection is EXACTLY the same in Jehovahs Witness theology, including all evil tendencies and weaknesses as well. This is my impression since I’ve asked this question in post #12.

Is this correct?



Is there any other non-Jehovahs Witness Reader that sees the specific answer to this very specific question I am asking inside nPeaces' last post?

Clear
ειφιτζτωω

 

[nPeace]

Hi @nPeace


IN JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEOLOGY, WHEN A PERSON DIES 4000 YEARS AGO, NOTHING BUT MEMORY OF THEM REMAINS.


THE QUESTION IS : DOES THE PERSON RE-CREATED AT RESURRECTION HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME PERSONALITY THEY HAD WHEN THEY DIED OR IS THERE A DIFFERENCE


nPeace said : “Clear, with all due respect, please do not blame people for your failing to understand what is clearly stated to you. Thank you.

Now that you acknowledged the difference between person, and personality, please review your questions, and see why they are detached from what we said to you, and redundant.

Do you see it?
nPeace said : Repeating... The person - dies. The personality does not. (I explained how) Therefore, the personality does not need to be recreated. The person becomes complete when the personality, character, inner self, get a new body - the one God gives the resurrected person.” (post #84)

In these statements, what I see is this :
1) You stated I fail to understand.
2) You explained Gods memory of the person who died means (to you) that the original personality didn’t die.
3) You explain that this personality is placed into a new body at the resurrection.

I do not see the answer to my specific question.
If you read your statements, Can you explain how any of your statements this answers the question I asked regarding whether the person is EXACTLY THE SAME OR IS DIFFERENT than the original person who lived 4000 years ago?

Is the personality the same or different? I assume it is the same, including the evil tendencies, for example, the J.W. Deeje says that “Those who did "vile things", Jesus said will still be resurrected as they were,…” (post #49)

This seems to mean that the person that God creates to resurrect will still retain all moral flaws they had when they died. They will still be as obstinant, still have incorrect beliefs, still be oppressive, still be liars, still be angry and as recalcitrant as they were when they lived. This seems to indicate the resurrected person will be an EXACT duplicate of the person that existed before, moral flaws and all.


Clear
ειφιτζτωω

Bravo.
I'm so glad you finally got it Clear. Well done! (I'm ignoring the duplicate you can't seem to get out of your head. If you want to hold on to that, it's up to you. Just remember though, it's your thoughts, and idea, not the JWs)
I don't think you have any idea how happy I am, that you finally got that.

Yes. That's right. With all the tendencies toward evil.
Is that bad? Why so?

Think of this... When a psychopath dies, what does he die with? When a thieving youth dies, what does he die with? A gang member? Rapist? Murderer? The list is long.
When the crooked religious Jews died, they all died with sinful tendencies.
Abraham was not perfect. David was sinful. All of them were.

Now think of this.
When a rapist in prison calls to God, does God say, "I got no time for you."?
When that gang member starts to study the Bible, and make changes in his life, and repent, does sinful tendencies varnish... So that when he dies, he is sinless?
No Clear. You know that, I hope.

This is where accurate knowledge of the truth is so vital.
The resurrection, is for "both the righteous and the unrighteous". (Acts 24:15)
They, and the great multitude who "come out of the great tribulation" (Revelation 7:14), are all sinful - with sinful tendencies.
What lies ahead of them?
(Revelation 20:1-3) 1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 He seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for 1,000 years. 3 And he hurled him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not mislead the nations anymore until the 1,000 years were ended. After this he must be released for a little while.

What great news for those who will be alive, and who will come back to life.
On earth, they will have 1,000 years without Satan around.
What will that mean?

Think about it Clear.
A person who is walking with God now, has so much to fight against - so many things that whip up sinful thoughts and actions . There is this wicked world, ruled by Satan, Satan himself, and our own weaknesses.
However, imagine walking with God for 1,000 years... without Satan around. His wicked world gone.
Would that walk not be easier? Would growing in love - becoming perfect in love, not be an ongoing process that will bring us to that goal - perfection?

This is the opportunity Adam lost - to become like Jesus, who spent eons with the father, and came to know him, love him, and imitate him... perfectly.
This is the purpose of the thousand years - to remove our sinfulness.
I know from experience that the more you walk in what is right, and avoid what is bad, you lose the tendencies and desires for bad practices. The saying "practice makes perfect" is fitting.

So by the time everyone reaches the end of the thousand years, they would have been cleansed of sin, by the high priest and the 144,000 under-priests.
However, notice.... (Revelation 20:7, 8) . . .Now as soon as the 1,000 years have ended, Satan will be released from his prison, and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth,. . .

Like Adam, all will face a test, and since we still have free will , or choice, we can decide, like Adam did, to go against God, or we can decide like Jesus did, to stick with God.
At the end of the day, whatever choice each makes, the results will be as described...

(Revelation 20:15) . . .whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire.
(Revelation 21:1-4) 1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. 2 I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

Everyone alive after the thousand years, will have no sinful thoughts or tendencies.
They will not sin against their God, because they have made the choice, like Jesus, to do only what pleases the father - because they love him, with all the heart.

This is the way JWs understand the resurrection as described in the Bible.
I think that was quite simply explained. Did you understand it?
Is there something you would like clarified here?

Thank you for inquiring.

 

[Deeje]

Bravo.
I'm so glad you finally got it Clear. Well done! (I'm ignoring the duplicate you can't seem to get out of your head. If you want to hold on to that, it's up to you. Just remember though, it's your thoughts, and idea, not the JWs)
I don't think you have any idea how happy I am, that you finally got that.

Yes. That's right. With all the tendencies toward evil.
Is that bad? Why so?

Think of this... When a psychopath dies, what does he die with? When a thieving youth dies, what does he die with? A gang member? Rapist? Murderer? The list is long.
When the crooked religious Jews died, they all died with sinful tendencies.
Abraham was not perfect. David was sinful. All of them were.

Now think of this.
When a rapist in prison calls to God, does God say, "I got no time for you."?
When that gang member starts to study the Bible, and make changes in his life, and repent, does sinful tendencies varnish... So that when he dies, he is sinless?
No Clear. You know that, I hope.

This is where accurate knowledge of the truth is so vital.
The resurrection, is for "both the righteous and the unrighteous". (Acts 24:15)
They, and the great multitude who "come out of the great tribulation" (Revelation 7:14), are all sinful - with sinful tendencies.
What lies ahead of them?
(Revelation 20:1-3) 1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 He seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for 1,000 years. 3 And he hurled him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not mislead the nations anymore until the 1,000 years were ended. After this he must be released for a little while.

What great news for those who will be alive, and who will come back to life.
On earth, they will have 1,000 years without Satan around.
What will that mean?

Think about it Clear.
A person who is walking with God now, has so much to fight against - so many things that whip up sinful thoughts and actions . There is this wicked world, ruled by Satan, Satan himself, and our own weaknesses.
However, imagine walking with God for 1,000 years... without Satan around. His wicked world gone.
Would that walk not be easier? Would growing in love - becoming perfect in love, not be an ongoing process that will bring us to that goal - perfection?

This is the opportunity Adam lost - to become like Jesus, who spent eons with the father, and came to know him, love him, and imitate him... perfectly.
This is the purpose of the thousand years - to remove our sinfulness.
I know from experience that the more you walk in what is right, and avoid what is bad, you lose the tendencies and desires for bad practices. The saying "practice makes perfect" is fitting.

So by the time everyone reaches the end of the thousand years, they would have been cleansed of sin, by the high priest and the 144,000 under-priests.
However, notice.... (Revelation 20:7, 8) . . .Now as soon as the 1,000 years have ended, Satan will be released from his prison, and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth,. . .

Like Adam, all will face a test, and since we still have free will , or choice, we can decide, like Adam did, to go against God, or we can decide like Jesus did, to stick with God.
At the end of the day, whatever choice each makes, the results will be as described...

(Revelation 20:15) . . .whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire.
(Revelation 21:1-4) 1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. 2 I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

Everyone alive after the thousand years, will have no sinful thoughts or tendencies.
They will not sin against their God, because they have made the choice, like Jesus, to do only what pleases the father - because they love him, with all the heart.

This is the way JWs understand the resurrection as described in the Bible.
I think that was quite simply explained. Did you understand it?
Is there something you would like clarified here?

Thank you for inquiring.

Great post my brother.....beautifully explained.

 

[Deeje]

IN JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEOLOGY, WHEN A PERSON DIES 4000 YEARS AGO, NOTHING BUT MEMORY OF THEM REMAINS.

When someone got eaten by a shark or an alligator 4000 years ago, nothing remains.....and no one remembers them except God.

What did Solomon write...?
"There is hope for whoever is among the living, because a live dog is better off than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 9:4-6)

Why is a live dog better off than a dead lion?
If the dead know nothing and have no emotions, not even love, then how can they be alive somewhere?

Solomon goes on in V 10...
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going."

What kind of activity are those in their graves capable of? "Sheol" here is the "grave" and its the place where ALL of us go. It is the same place where Jesus calls the dead from.....their tombs. (John 5:28-29) Both the "righteous and unrighteous" are called from the same place. (Acts 24:15) This is what the Jews believed...not in immortality of the soul, but in a literal physical resurrection....Jesus was a Jew.

Remember Lazarus who had been dead for four days when Jesus raised him from his tomb. Where did Jesus say that Lazarus was?

"After he said these things, he added: “Lazʹa·rus our friend has fallen asleep, but I am traveling there to awaken him.” 12 The disciples then said to him: “Lord, if he is sleeping, he will get well.” 13 Jesus, however, had spoken about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. 14 Then Jesus said to them plainly: “Lazʹa·rus has died, 15 and I rejoice for your sake that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” (John 11:11-15)

Jesus said Lazarus was "asleep" in his tomb, because he had not gone anywhere. He had no recollection of being somewhere else. And if he had gone to some 'spiritual holding tank' where he was conscious, would he not have said something about such an amazing experience? And if he was in a better place, why would Jesus bring him back to this life, only to die again later?

Why would Jesus say that he was glad that he was not there to cure is friend?........so that he could demonstrate the resurrection.....not just to tell them about the resurrection, but to show them.

There is a scripture in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 that seems to fit this ongoing dialogue where things are told to people like yourself, plainly and simply, but there is some kind of blockage in getting the message through.....

If only you would depend on actual scripture for your beliefs instead of the copious apocryphal works that you seem to rely on (that never made it into scripture) I'm sure you would be a whole lot less confused.

But that is just my opinion.

 

[Clear]

NPeace said : “I'm so glad you finally got it Clear.

Well done! (I'm ignoring the duplicate you can't seem to get out of your head. If you want to hold on to that, it's up to you. Just remember though, it's your thoughts, and idea, not the JWs)” Post #85

Thank you @nPeace

When I spoke of a “duplicate”, I was speaking of reality of an exact copy of a personality being made.

I was not yet tied into your concept in your Private Message of a person being “alive” metaphorically, inside a persons' memory or inside Gods’ memory.



METAPHICALLY “LIVING” IN MEMORY VERSUS LITERAL “LIVING” IN REAL LIFE.

Your PM that explains you are speaking of a person living metaphorically in the memory of God.

The insistence by J.W. theology that the person actually LIVED within the memory of God was, obviously, illogical and irrational.

However, when you place it into the category of metaphor, then almost any doctrine can make some sort of sense. Thanks.

Now that I understand your version of Jehovahs Witness theology regarding the personality that is placed into the re-created body at resurrection.



WHERE IS THE LOCUS OF PERSONALITY IN JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEOLOGY?

To Clarify further : Speaking of the this original, evil person, who lived 4000 years ago and died and whose body has decomposed. When the original person was alive in their original body, where is the locus of the persons personality inside Jehovahs Witness theology?

Is the personality, character, moral, emotions, cognition, etc, inside the persons body (i.e. the brain, etc.)?.

I assume in the Jehovahs Witness theology, it is not the memory that God has of them that is the locus of independent character, but that the person has their own character, independent of God and God simply has a memory of that persons Character.

Is this correct?


Thanks for any clarification you can offer.





@Deeje said : “If only you would depend on actual scripture for your beliefs instead of the copious apocryphal works that you seem to rely on (that never made it into scripture) I'm sure you would be a whole lot less confused. But that is just my opinion.

Is that the best ad hominem you can come up with? : That I do not depend on scripture for my beliefs?

This sort of religious posturing with it's assumed superiority and silly claim that "I follow the scriptures and other people don't" seems so off putting to so many readers. This is also part of the reason I sought Private Mail answer from Jehovahs Witnesses rather than try to wade through your posturing.

I understand that it is difficult to talk dispassionately about something one cares about. I honestly do.

However, one problem with an inability to remain dispassionate regarding data is that it distracts us from the data itself and from logic and rational thinking that allows for understanding.

I also understand the gulf between us regarding the study of authentic, original Christian doctrines and practices and comparisons to the later Christian movements. I am interested in original, historical Christianity while you have no such historical interest.

While I am interested in what the earliest and most original and most authentic Christianity was like, you are not interested in that study because you think you already have it inside your religion and your method of interpretation which originated in the 1800s.

IF I did not care about what the earliest Christians such as Clement (an actual colleague of the apostles Peter and Paul) thought, and if I did not read the early letters and lectionaries, and hymns, and synagogal prayers, sacred literature and pseudoepigraphs from the earliest periods, their source language and the earliest forms of what became the bible you now read, I would know no more than you do about original Christianity.

While you say you have no interest in religious history, I do.

If you were less passionate and instead, thought more logically, you would realize that you don’t actually know what my very specific beliefs on this specific subject are and your ad hominems would be more accurate.

I was never your enemy Deeje. We just believe differently. .

While I have a bit of interest in how the Jehovahs Witness movement started and how they developed their own interpretations and system of beliefs, I think the earliest forms of Christianity with their doctrines tend to be more logical and rational, more intuitive and have less errors in them.

I do not see any advantage of your doctrines and your interpretations over the doctrines and interpretations of the earliest Christian and their religious movement and I do find it interesting in comparing your religion to the earliest Christian movement and their religion.


In any Case Deeje and nPeace and all others, I hope your own spiritual journeys are insightful and wonderful and joyful

Clear
ειφιδρακω

 

[nPeace]

Great post my brother.....beautifully explained.

Thanks Deeje.
We couldn't do that void of Matthew 24:45. We would probably otherwise be taking Clear's side, or others on here.

 

[nPeace]

@Clear.
original person?
Can you please explain what you mean by original person. Why do you say original?
Along with that, can you please take this time to do two very important things for me.
1. Please can you explain what is duplicated (You have used that a lot).
2. Do you agree that, according to the scriptures, the soul dies, or not?

Thank you.

 

[Clear]

Hi @nPeace

nPeace asked : original person?
Can you please explain what you mean by original person. Why do you say original?
Along with that, can you please take this time to do two very important things for me.
1. Please can you explain what is duplicated (You have used that a lot).
2. Do you agree that, according to the scriptures, the soul dies, or not?


When I spoke of the "original person" who was terribly evil, I mean that in Jehovahs Witness theology, there can exist an evil person who lived 4000 years ago and who had an evil personality/characteristics and had a body that died and whose body disintegrated. Nothing is left except God has a memory of this evil person.

In your version of Jehovahs Witness theology, this memory of the evil Person which God has, is used to place the same set of evil characteristics into a new and different body created at the resurrection.
In your version of Jehovahs Witness theology, the evil characteristics placed into the body are exactly the same as the evil characteristics that existed in the original body that died and disintegrated 4000 years earlier.


Clear asked in post #89 : "To Clarify further : Speaking of the this original, evil person, who lived 4000 years ago and died and whose body has decomposed. When the original person was alive in their original body, where is the locus of the persons personality inside Jehovahs Witness theology?

Is the personality, character, moral, emotions, cognition, etc, inside the persons body (i.e. the brain, etc.)?.

I assume in the Jehovahs Witness theology, it is not the memory that God has of them that is the locus of independent character, but that the person has their own character, independent of God and God simply has a memory of that persons Character.



The reason I asked WHETHER, in Jehovahs Witness theology, the personality/characteristics of the person exist INSIDE the person or ONLY in Gods memory or BOTH in the individuals AND in Gods memory is to discuss the locus of responsibility for evil done by this person.

IF the personality or set of Characteristics of a person exist independently of Gods' memory (i.e. outside of Gods' memory and exist inside the persons brain), then the personality / Characteristics placed into the second body (i.e. that body which is created at the resurrection) are a duplicate copy from a source outside of the body (i.e. the set comes from Gods memory in this case).

IF the personality or set of Characteristics of a person do not exist independently of Gods memory (i.e. their personality is ONLY in Gods' memory), then the original personality or set of Characteristics of a person are never destroyed in the first place, only the body dies and decomposes. In this case, the body is somewhat of an avatar and the different body (the resurrected body) has EXACTLY the original personality associated with it.


When you ask "according to the scriptures, the soul dies", can you give me a reference to the scripture you are referring to?


Clear
ειφινεφιω

 

[Deeje]

Is that the best ad hominem you can come up with? : That I do not depend on scripture for my beliefs?

From what you have posted to me numerous times, you quote 'pseudo-apocryphal scripture' way more than you quote canonical scripture. That being the case, the two are not compatible IMO, and if you studied actual scripture as much as you study what you call "historical Christianity" I don't believe that there would be the confusion you seem to demonstrate in every post.

This sort of religious posturing with it's assumed superiority and silly claim that "I follow the scriptures and other people don't" seems so off putting to so many readers.

What readers are being put off by my telling the truth?.......you....and who else? If you want to talk about "Christianity" in its original form, then you have to speak of Jesus and the apostolic period only. The wolves of apostasy were nipping at the heels of the apostles even in the closing years of the first century. Paul said that the apostles were the only thing restraining those weeds from taking over the "church".(Matthew 7:15-20)

At 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8....Paul wrote....
"However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason . . . .Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. . . . And now you know what is acting as a restraint, so that he will be revealed in his own due time. 7 True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way."

The last apostle John, passed away at the end of that first century after completing the writings that finalized the canon of Christian scripture, so what came after that was a steady decline into the clever counterfeit that was planted by the devil. Jesus' parable of the "wheat and the weeds" is exactly what that is all about.

What you refer to as "historical" is very sad history indeed.....the road to apostasy is paved with men's God-dishonoring ideas, introduced over a long period of time so that the ones who come later, don't know the difference.

I understand that it is difficult to talk dispassionately about something one cares about. I honestly do.

I don't think you understand at all.....I was quite dispassionate in talking about our beliefs as clearly as you asked for them, but my frustration came when you continued to ask the same things over and over......is it like the definition of insanity?...you know, asking the same question over and over and expecting a different answer?
I have a feeling that you have no idea how frustrating any dialogue is with you. Your pedanticness is sometimes just pure nit picking...like the Pharisees wanting every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed when there was no necessity for it.

However, one problem with an inability to remain dispassionate regarding data is that it distracts us from the data itself and from logic and rational thinking that allows for understanding.

You believe that you are rational and logical in your approach to these discussions? Who told you that?
Was it just me who got frustrated with you?

I also understand the gulf between us regarding the study of authentic, original Christian doctrines and practices and comparisons to the later Christian movements. I am interested in original, historical Christianity while you have no such historical interest.

I believe that you are conflating the 'wheat and the weeds' as if the weeds are a continuation of what Jesus and the apostles began...that could not be further from the truth according to our study of the scriptures. Its why we stick to the Bible and leave out all the rest, like God did. Only the accepted canon is "inspired"...and for good reason. Nothing else is "the word of God".

While I am interested in what the earliest and most original and most authentic Christianity was like, you are not interested in that study because you think you already have it inside your religion and your method of interpretation which originated in the 1800s.

If that was the case, you would know when things started to go 'belly-up'. The very same thing that happened in Judaism, happened in Christianity as Jesus told the religious leaders of his day...."you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: 8 ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”

What we see today masquerading as "Christianity" is the counterfeit sown by the devil....the very same entity who led the Israelites astray. What did Jesus say about them....?
"You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie."

The 'father of the lie' has not stopped telling them...and people like yourself, although sincere, have fallen for the same old tricks he has used for millennia. The Christianity you speak of was corrupted in the early centuries and that corruption gained momentum until the time of Constantine....and the rest as they say....is history...wicked, God dishonoring history.

IF I did not care about what the earliest Christians such as Clement (an actual colleague of the apostles Peter and Paul) thought, and if I did not read the early letters and lectionaries, and hymns, and synagogal prayers, sacred literature and pseudoepigraphs from the earliest periods, their source language and the earliest forms of what became the bible you now read, I would know no more than you do about original Christianity.

If you rely on those things to inform you about original Christianity, then that is tantamount to asking Judas what he believed original Christianity was.

While you say you have no interest in religious history, I do.

I have a great deal of interest in religious history...but it tells a vastly different story to what you believe it does.
Did the "weeds" never arise and force Christianity to be infiltrated with fake doctrines and practices? How does Christendom, with her vile and tragic history, ever portend to be a continuation of what Christ began?

I was never your enemy Deeje. We just believe differently. .

I don't believe I have ever treated you as an enemy Clear.....I have responded to you on many occasions in the hope of dispelling the myths that you cling to, but to no avail.

While I have a bit of interest in how the Jehovahs Witness movement started and how they developed their own interpretations and system of beliefs, I think the earliest forms of Christianity with their doctrines tend to be more logical and rational, more intuitive and have less errors in them.

And therein lies the chasm.....what followed the Christianity of the first century was a steady decline into nothing that resembles that which Christ began. By the fourth century, Roman Catholicism took Christianity completely off the rails, turning it into a sad fusion between weak Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship.....they still persist to this day in those teachings that could never have infiltrated if the early Christians has simply stuck to what Christ taught them....but the traditions of men, once again won out. The devil does not change his tactics...because they work.

Can I ask you what you think "Babylon the great" is and why God told his people to "get out of her" if they didn't want the same punishment as she will merit? (Revelation 18:4-5) Can you also tell me how God's people got into "Babylon the great" in the first place? Original Babylon is the clue....

I do not see any advantage of your doctrines and your interpretations over the doctrines and interpretations of the earliest Christian and their religious movement and I do find interesting in comparing your religion to the earliest Christian movement and their religion.

I have to say the same to you. I was raised in Christendom, but did not have the stomach to stay there.

 

[nPeace]

Hi @nPeace

nPeace asked : original person?
Can you please explain what you mean by original person. Why do you say original?
Along with that, can you please take this time to do two very important things for me.
1. Please can you explain what is duplicated (You have used that a lot).
2. Do you agree that, according to the scriptures, the soul dies, or not?


When I spoke of the "original person" who was terribly evil, I mean that in Jehovahs Witness theology, there can exist an evil person who lived 4000 years ago and who had an evil personality/characteristics and had a body that died and whose body disintegrated. Nothing is left except God has a memory of this evil person.

In your version of Jehovahs Witness theology, this memory of the evil Person which God has, is used to place the same set of evil characteristics into a new and different body created at the resurrection.
In your version of Jehovahs Witness theology, the evil characteristics placed into the body are exactly the same as the evil characteristics that existed in the original body that died and disintegrated 4000 years earlier.
I think at this point, it would be good to look at personality under a "magnifying glass".

Thank you for being so clear Clear.

An example... or two, at this point might help answer this for you.
(1 Kings 14:12, 13) 12 “Now rise up; go to your house. When you set foot in the city, the child will die. 13 All Israel will mourn him and bury him, for he alone of Jeroboam’s family will be laid in a grave, because he is the only one of the house of Jeroboam in whom Jehovah the God of Israel has found something good.

Where did Jehovah find "this good"? Abijah's actions, or Abijah's heart - his innermost self; what he really was at heart - on the inside?
The scripture answer us clearly, I am sure you agree.
(1 Chronicles 28:9) “And you, Solomon my son, know the God of your father and serve him with a complete heart and with a delightful soul, for Jehovah searches through all hearts, and he discerns every inclination of the thoughts.. . .

Of course, good actions follow a good heart. True?
Not aways though... and we know this well.
Sometimes, there are influences, and other factors that lead to evil actions (we know the reason for that, I hope, because that's a whole new subject - Romans 7)

So here is a second example.
(2 Chronicles 19:1-3) 1 Then King Jehoshaphat of Judah returned safely to his own house in Jerusalem. 2 Jehu the son of Hanani the visionary went out to meet him and said to King Jehoshaphat: “Is it the wicked you should be helping, and is it those who hate Jehovah you should love? Because of this the indignation of Jehovah is against you. 3 Nevertheless, there are good things that have been found in you, because you cleared out the sacred poles from the land and you have prepared your heart to search for the true God.”

If you noticed, Jehovah mentioned Jehoshaphat's good actions, but was that the focus? If it were, bad actions could easily erase the good, but Jehovah looked at the heart - Jehoshaphat''s heart was set on the true God.

So with that in mind, when we look at verse 9 of 1 Chronicles 28, again, recall it says Jehovah discerns the inclination of the thoughts.
Did you notice... not the thoughts. Yes, we can get evil thoughts. I get them sometimes, but the thought are not the heart - the inner person.
The thoughts are not the personality and character.
The inclinations, the motives, what you truly are, is the personality.

Therefore, when the evil person died 4000 years ago, his thoughts perished. They are completely gone.
We may look at what he did, nd only what he did, but Jehovah is seeing more. He sees Jack. Not the ripper.

So among Jehovah's people, you might hear them say, We may even welcome Hitler back in the resurrection. :Smiley:
That's why it's easier for JWs to forgive their enemies and those who hate them - those who put them in prison and torture them.
We don't hate them. No, we don't hate Putin.
The actions don always reflect the heart.

I hope you understand. Again I simplified it, as much as possible.
We do not see an evil heart. We can't. Only God sees the heart, and knows it.
That's why resurrection is up to him, and not us, even if we could resurrect.
So No. The personality is not evil. The character may be totally different to what we see. The inclinations of the heart may be better than more than half the people who give tithes every week, and plant their knees in front the alter each Sunday.

Clear asked in post #89 : "To Clarify further : Speaking of the this original, evil person, who lived 4000 years ago and died and whose body has decomposed. When the original person was alive in their original body, where is the locus of the persons personality inside Jehovahs Witness theology?

Is the personality, character, moral, emotions, cognition, etc, inside the persons body (i.e. the brain, etc.)?.

I assume in the Jehovahs Witness theology, it is not the memory that God has of them that is the locus of independent character, but that the person has their own character, independent of God and God simply has a memory of that persons Character.


The reason I asked WHETHER, in Jehovahs Witness theology, the personality/characteristics of the person exist INSIDE the person or ONLY in Gods memory or BOTH in the individuals AND in Gods memory is to discuss the locus of responsibility for evil done by this person.

IF the personality or set of Characteristics of a person exist independently of Gods' memory (i.e. outside of Gods' memory and exist inside the persons brain), then the personality / Characteristics placed into the second body (i.e. that body which is created at the resurrection) are a duplicate copy from a source outside of the body (i.e. the set comes from Gods memory in this case).

IF the personality or set of Characteristics of a person do not exist independently of Gods memory (i.e. their personality is ONLY in Gods' memory), then the original personality or set of Characteristics of a person are never destroyed in the first place, only the body dies and decomposes. In this case, the body is somewhat of an avatar and the different body (the resurrected body) has EXACTLY the original personality associated with it.

? Uh. @Deeje, do you understand this?

When you ask "according to the scriptures, the soul dies", can you give me a reference to the scripture you are referring to?

I mentioned them to you in this post Clear.

Clear
ειφινεφιω

Is that language Greek for your name, or something else.
Thank you.

 

[nPeace]

From what you have posted to me numerous times, you quote 'pseudo-apocryphal scripture' way more than you quote canonical scripture. That being the case, the two are not compatible IMO, and if you studied actual scripture as much as you study what you call "historical Christianity" I don't believe that there would be the confusion you seem to demonstrate in every post.



What readers are being put off by my telling the truth?.......you....and who else? If you want to talk about "Christianity" in its original form, then you have to speak of Jesus and the apostolic period only. The wolves of apostasy were nipping at the heels of the apostles even in the closing years of the first century. Paul said that the apostles were the only thing restraining those weeds from taking over the "church".(Matthew 7:15-20)

At 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8....Paul wrote....
"However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason . . . .Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. . . . And now you know what is acting as a restraint, so that he will be revealed in his own due time. 7 True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way."

The last apostle John, passed away at the end of that first century after completing the writings that finalized the canon of Christian scripture, so what came after that was a steady decline into the clever counterfeit that was planted by the devil. Jesus' parable of the "wheat and the weeds" is exactly what that is all about.

What you refer to as "historical" is very sad history indeed.....the road to apostasy is paved with men's God-dishonoring ideas, introduced over a long period of time so that the ones who come later, don't know the difference.



I don't think you understand at all.....I was quite dispassionate in talking about our beliefs as clearly as you asked for them, but my frustration came when you continued to ask the same things over and over......is it like the definition of insanity?...you know, asking the same question over and over and expecting a different answer?
I have a feeling that you have no idea how frustrating any dialogue is with you. Your pedanticness is sometimes just pure nit picking...like the Pharisees wanting every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed when there was no necessity for it.



You believe that you are rational and logical in your approach to these discussions? Who told you that?
Was it just me who got frustrated with you?



I believe that you are conflating the 'wheat and the weeds' as if the weeds are a continuation of what Jesus and the apostles began...that could not be further from the truth according to our study of the scriptures. Its why we stick to the Bible and leave out all the rest, like God did. Only the accepted canon is "inspired"...and for good reason. Nothing else is "the word of God".



If that was the case, you would know when things started to go 'belly-up'. The very same thing that happened in Judaism, happened in Christianity as Jesus told the religious leaders of his day...."you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: 8 ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”

What we see today masquerading as "Christianity" is the counterfeit sown by the devil....the very same entity who led the Israelites astray. What did Jesus say about them....?
"You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie."

The 'father of the lie' has not stopped telling them...and people like yourself, although sincere, have fallen for the same old tricks he has used for millennia. The Christianity you speak of was corrupted in the early centuries and that corruption gained momentum until the time of Constantine....and the rest as they say....is history...wicked, God dishonoring history.



If you rely on those things to inform you about original Christianity, then that is tantamount to asking Judas what he believed original Christianity was.



I have a great deal of interest in religious history...but it tells a vastly different story to what you believe it does.
Did the "weeds" never arise and force Christianity to be infiltrated with fake doctrines and practices? How does Christendom, with her vile and tragic history, ever portend to be a continuation of what Christ began?



I don't believe I have ever treated you as an enemy Clear.....I have responded to you on many occasions in the hope of dispelling the myths that you cling to, but to no avail.


And therein lies the chasm.....what followed the Christianity of the first century was a steady decline into nothing that resembles that which Christ began. By the fourth century, Roman Catholicism took Christianity completely off the rails, turning it into a sad fusion between weak Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship.....they still persist to this day in those teachings that could never have infiltrated if the early Christians has simply stuck to what Christ taught them....but the traditions of men, once again won out. The devil does not change his tactics...because they work.

Can I ask you what you think "Babylon the great" is and why God told his people to "get out of her" if they didn't want the same punishment as she will merit? (Revelation 18:4-5) Can you also tell me how God's people got into "Babylon the great" in the first place? Original Babylon is the clue....



I have to say the same to you. I was raised in Christendom, but did not have the stomach to stay there.

Deeje... Let me compose myself...

I tell you... You really hurt my belly at times.

I can just picture you at a social gathering. Some must have their kerchiefs out, drying their eyes. You are so funny, and natural with it too.

It's true there are many sincere ones, lost in confusing, but hard to tell who is.
Evidently there are also many who use their freedom as an excuse for badness. That is, they choose to believe what they want because they know they won't be instantly struck with some plague, or death.

Yes. Clear does seem sincere. Let's hope she is. Either way, God knows. Would be great indeed, if she did see the truth though.

 

[Deeje]

? Uh. @Deeje, do you understand this?

Not really....its just another one of those nit-picking questions that in the big scheme of things, doesn't really matter.

I have faith that God knows what he's doing because its all his choice anyhooo. He doesn't tell us all these details that some are so keen to know, so perhaps a direct hotline to God might help...?

 

[Clear]

Hi @nPeace

nPeace asked : "Do you agree that, according to the scriptures, the soul dies, or not?” Post #91"
Clear asked : "When you ask "according to the scriptures, the soul dies", can you give me a reference to the scripture you are referring to? (post #93)

The reason I asked for a reference is that your statement seemed to be a generic, generalized application as to whether “the soul dies” without any conditions or context associated with it.

You did not give me a specific scriptural reference that stated “the soul dies”.
I also assume your question was asked from the context of Jehovahs Witness religion (who were not the writers of the text but place their meaning on the text) rather than the context of the Ancient Judeo-Christian religion (i.e. Jews who WERE the writers of the text and the later Christians who had their own meaning they placed into the text).


In "answer" You then referred to Matthew 10:28 that says : “(Matthew 10:28) And 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.”
This text does not tell us that "the soul dies" but instead refers to the ability of God to destroy the soul.
While I do believe God CAN destroy both the soul and the body, I do not know under which circumstances he WILL destroy the soul.

(Ezekiel 18:4) For all souls are mine in the manner of the soul of the father so also the soul of the son they are mine. The sinning soul shall die."
Similarly, this scripture is not a generic statement that “the soul dies” (which is what you actually asked).
Instead the text is a statement is a present active form that refers to the soul that is sinning (or continues sinning), which will, at some point, in the future, die. This does not refer to souls that do not continue sinning.

None of them refer to the specific but generic statement “the soul dies”.
Do you have a reference that actually says “the soul dies” as a generic statement or does my present answer work to help you make your point?




REGARDING THE LOCUS (LOCATION) OF PERSONALITY, COGNITION, EMOTIONS, ETC.

What I am asking regarding the location of the personality in Jehovah Witness Theology is this :

In ancient Judeo-Christianity they taught that god created a body for Adam and then placed a spirit into that Body.
And that spirit was the location of intelligence, cognition, emotions, will, etc.
In their belief, the Body died and the spirit or personality still lived to God in a literal sense. In the resurrection the same spirit is placed into a resurrected body.
There is no change in locus of personality or responsibility for actions.


In Jehovahs Witness Theology, I think the physical brain is the location of intelligence, cognition, emotions, etc. (at least this is what they have told me in the past) and all of these things which make up a personality, died with the brain and, as you say God remembers them and so the personality lived in a metaphorical sense.
In Jehovahs Witness theology, the original personality died with the brain and a personality that is remembered by God is placed into a resurrected body.
This may change the locus of responsibility for actions.



The importance of the location of and independence of intelligence and Will

In a religious model where man has no independent will and intelligence and understanding of his own, but does what God made him to do, then God shares responsibility for evil than man does.

In a religious model where man has independent will, sufficient intelligence and understanding of his own, then man may be responsible for his own moral choices.

I am trying to determine where the will of man originates inside of Jehovahs Witness theology as compared to the Earliest Christian movement and their theology.


In Jehovahs Witness theology, Is the personality that was placed in Adam, an ex-nihilo creation by God (i.e. God created it out of nothing) or did the “dust” God used to create Adam have any contribution to Adams personality?



THE INABILITY TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF CERTAIN QUESTIONS
While I agree with Deeje that, If one is ignorant of or apathetical to the implications of such questions, they may be seen as "nit-picking questions that in the big scheme of things, doesn't really matter".

However, however they have importance in their logical implications for those who study religion for it's reasonableness and coherence and logic. @Israel Khan and @Brian2 have already pointed out the problem with the creation of a copy or clone and then rewarding or punishing the copy instead of the original person.

If a religion is not logical or rational, then such things may not matter to it's adherents.


thanks so much for any clarification you can offer on these questions

Clear
ειφυσιφυω

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE IS NOT "PSEUDO-APOCRYPHAL SCRIPTURE"
Deeje said : “From what you have posted to me numerous times, you quote 'pseudo-apocryphal scripture' way more than you quote canonical scripture.” (post #93)
This is incorrect.
The early writings of Christians are not “pseudo-apocryphal scripture”, but their writings are similar to Jehovahs Witness writings and publications.
The texts in your own posts are weighted with person explanation more than quoted scriptures The early Christians are similar.
We only know what the early Christians believed because they did what you are doing. They wrote and explained their theology just as you are doing.


LIMITING THE DATA TO DISCUSS HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY IS, HISTORICALLY, NAIVE
Deeje said : “If you want to talk about "Christianity" in its original form, then you have to speak of Jesus and the apostolic period only. “
This is another naïve, historically incoherent statement. And, it is not even what Jehovahs Witnesses do.

For example, specific Jehovahs Witness theology regarding resurrection did not even exist in the apostolic period.
We have no literature that interprets the biblical text to support your interpretation until almost two millennia later.
We have no early biblical source text that are like the bible Frederick Franz created for the Jehovahs Witness movement in specific references. Zero, Zip. Nada.
Your interpretations simply did not exist as far as we can tell.




JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEOLOGY AS PART OF THE PREDICTED RELIGIOUS APOSTASY

Deeje said : "The wolves of apostasy were nipping at the heels of the apostles even in the closing years of the first century. Paul said that the apostles were the only thing restraining those weeds from taking over the "church".(Matthew 7:15-20)

While I had intended to learn about and discuss the Jehovahs Witness theology surrounding the resurrection, If you want to, we can talk about the Jehovahs Witness as part of the apostasy that was predicted in early Christian Literature.
However, perhaps we can discuss the Jehovahs Witness theology concerning resurrection as part of the predicted apostasy so as to at least relate to the O.P. on resurrection.


For example, while you claim ancient Christianity was part of an apostasy, readers must understand that the earliest Christianity we have literature for viewed and predicted the Jehovahs Witness schism of Christianity as part of the predicted apostasy.




EXAMPLES OF JEHOVAH WITNESS APOSTASY AS SEEN BY EARLY CHRISTIANITY

The early Christians would be aghast that Jehovah Witnesses abandoned the early Doctrine of the existence of a spirit being associated with the body and replaced that doctrine with that of an atheistic model of mankind having a purely physical nature.

The early Christians would have condemned your abandonment of the ancient concept of Hades/Sheol/world of spirits as a way station to which these spirits went after their bodies died and replaced that doctrine by the physical grave and annihilation of the person.,

The early Christians would have condemned the apostasy which produced your abandonment of the resurrection of this same spirit into a new body and the replacement of that doctrine by a doctrine where a clone or copy of the original person is resurrected instead of the original person.

While the Early Christians witness in Matthew 27:52, that after the resurrection of Jesus “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 and entered into the holy City and appeared to many. (Berean) 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.

To the early Christians (And to much of modern christianity as well), the Jehovahs Witnesses are part OF apostasy from true early Christian religion.



THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS MOVEMENT AND INTERPRETATIONS ARE NOT PART OF HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY.

Your religion cannot USE this early historical Christian literature regarding resurrection because yours is NOT a historical religion on these points of spirit and resurrection. None of the earliest Christian literature describes these Jehovahs Witness interpretations we are discussing.

These specific interpretations of spirit or resurrection that are used by the modern Jehovahs Witness movement simply did not exist in or apply to ANY of the earliest Judeo-Christian literature.

Surely readers see that you are making my point that the Jehovahs Witness religion is not in agreement with ancient Christianity regarding the doctrine of the spirit and resurrection.

Jehovahs Witness religion CANNOT enter the world of early Christian literature regarding these specific points, but they MUST remain outside of early Judeo-Christianity and it’s literature and instead must stay firmly inside the world of arguments about interpretation.





EXAMPLES OF JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEOLOGY AS PART OF THE APOSTASY PREDICTED BY ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY


a) MODIFICATIONS OF THE BIBLE THAN CHANGE THEIR ANCIENT WITNESS TO THE RESURRECTION

Clear said : While the Early Christians witness in Matthew 27:52, that after the resurrection of Jesus “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 and entered into the holy City and appeared to many. (Berean)
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. (post #122)
Deeje said : “This passage is not what it appears to be (post #124)”


Of course this original text IS just what it appears to be. That is the point.

The early Christians believed in this bible text and that it really WAS what it appeared to be.
To them, it really MEANT what it appeared to mean.
Their early doctrine was based on the actual text as it stood and they did not need to modify this text as the Jehovahs Witness Movement had to do.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO


MATTHEW 27:52-53 As an example of Jehovahs Witness method of re-interpretation and creation of doctrine

Matthew 27:52, says that, after the resurrection of Christ : “… the tombs were opened and 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."

The early Christians interpreted the text to mean just what the text says : “The bodies of the saints in the graves/tombs arose.

Deeje interpreted this to mean : “The bodies of the "saints" were thrown out of their graves by an earthquake. None of those were resurrected, they were still dead bodies. It was the people who saw them that reported what happened in the graveyard to the people in the city." (post #192 different thread)

The earliest Christians tell us in their early literature that they believed this text meant exactly what it says.
That is, in their literature, they tell us that the bodies of many of the saints actually “arose” in the same manner that Jesus “arose” and they “went into” Jerusalem (the Holy City) and appeared to many. (They were individuals who were resurrected with Christs resurrection...). Why not allow the original interpretation a priority over your "Dead Body Throwing Theory" interpretation?

The early literature contains stories of some of these resurrected individuals who spoke with people in Jerusalem. The early Christians and their movement, did not need to add, nor subtract information or words or concepts to the text that are not found in it.

Your “Body Throwing Theory” is yet another apostasy away from early Christian religion and from the text. While you USE a similar text to the early Christians, your INTERPRETATION is different. In speaking of early Christian literature, we are speaking of interpretations of text.




Deeje said : “The scripture is not specific as to who "they" were (post #124)

Of course the text is specific in its subject.
It refers to “the bodies of the saints” which arose.

YOU do not read Greek and so you do not have the right to tell us the sentence is not “specific” and you’ve told us you have no interest in early Christian history so YOU do not have the right to tell us what the historical meaning is.

The Greek text TELLS us who the subject “they” were. I have underlined and bolded who “they’ were in the text below and it is the “bodies” of the saints who had died and were inside their graves (tombs). There IS no other subject that rose in this sentence.

greek Και τα Μενμεα ανεωχθησαν και πολλα σωματα των κεκοιμημενων αγιων ηγερθη και εχελθοντες εκ των μνημειων μετα την εγερσιν αυτου εισηλθον εις την αγιαν πολιν και ενεφανισθησαν πολλοις.

Part of the problem is that Frederick Franz, who created your bible for the Jehovahs Witnesses did not have much historical training and had NO training in Koine Greek. NONE, Zero. He had no business creating a bible and certainly no business corrupting the authentic text to support a personal theology.



CHANGING THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE AS APOSTASY FROM ORIGINAL TEXT

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

This verse in the NWT is not at all an authentic translation of ANY version of the Greek New Testament. Instead, it seems to be a commentary by Franz or whoever created this paraphrase of the bible, presumably to support their theory of what was happening. I don’t think I’ve seen ever seen an actual “bible”, depart from the Greek so blatantly.

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 (Jerusalem), and appeared to many."

The apostate 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 adds the words “and people coming out from among the tombs”.

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
Deeje, You cannot simply claim that your doctrines and interpretations “come from the bible” if you are willing to change the authentic biblical text to conform to your theology. Making the bible say what you want it to say is creating a bible to correspond to your theology, rather than making your theology correspond to the bible.

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)


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.


So, Deeje, when you speak of apostasy of early Christianity, you must understand that early Christianity had good reason to describe your apostasy as well.

NONE of your examples explain why your interpretations should take priority over that of individuals who actually knew an original living apostle in the earliest Christianity we have records of.

For example, Why should individuals accept YOUR interpretation as a priority over CLEMENT who was a colleague of the apostle Peter and who taught the Gospel with Paul and whom Paul says was among those who names are "in the book of life"?


Clear
ειφυνεδρω

 

[nPeace]

Hi @nPeace

nPeace asked : "Do you agree that, according to the scriptures, the soul dies, or not?” Post #91"
Clear asked : "When you ask "according to the scriptures, the soul dies", can you give me a reference to the scripture you are referring to? (post #93)

The reason I asked for a reference is that your statement seemed to be a generic, generalized application as to whether “the soul dies” without any conditions or context associated with it.

Whatever the case, you are right to ask for a reference.
My question is a simple one. It does not depend on conditions. Simply... Does the soul die or not? Is that too hard a question to answer Clear?

Hi @nPeaceYou did not give me a specific scriptural reference that stated “the soul dies”.

Oh yes I did Clear.

Hi @nPeaceI also assume your question was asked from the context of Jehovahs Witness religion (who were not the writers of the text but place their meaning on the text) rather than the context of the Ancient Judeo-Christian religion (i.e. Jews who WERE the writers of the text and the later Christians who had their own meaning they placed into the text).

No Clear. First it's not wise to assume when you can simpy ask the person you are conversing with... and second, your assumption is more than an assumption. It an accusation - a false one.
Do you realize that Clear?

Hi @nPeaceIn "answer" You then referred to Matthew 10:28 that says : “(Matthew 10:28) And 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.”
This text does not tell us that "the soul dies" but instead refers to the ability of God to destroy the soul.
While I do believe God CAN destroy both the soul and the body, I do not know under which circumstances he WILL destroy the soul.

I did not ask under what circumstances the soul dies. Why are you making that the question?
The question is, does the soul die?
Since you seem to not want to answer that, I will make an addition.
Can the soul die? Can the soul be destroyed? Does the soul die?

Hi @nPeace
(Ezekiel 18:4) For all souls are mine in the manner of the soul of the father so also the soul of the son they are mine. The sinning soul shall die."
Similarly, this scripture is not a generic statement that “the soul dies” (which is what you actually asked).
Instead the text is a statement is a present active form that refers to the soul that is sinning (or continues sinning), which will, at some point, in the future, die. This does not refer to souls that do not continue sinning.

So you agree the soul dies? Can I get a yes or no response please. Thank you.

Hi @nPeaceNone of them refer to the specific but generic statement “the soul dies”.
Do you have a reference that actually says “the soul dies” as a generic statement or does my present answer work to help you make your point?

Is God a loving person? Do you need a scripture to actually say "God is a loving person"? See what I mean @Deeje? Let's see how this goes.

Hi @nPeace
REGARDING THE LOCUS (LOCATION) OF PERSONALITY, COGNITION, EMOTIONS, ETC.

What I am asking regarding the location of the personality in Jehovah Witness Theology is this :

In ancient Judeo-Christianity they taught that god created a body for Adam and then placed a spirit into that Body.
And that spirit was the location of intelligence, cognition, emotions, will, etc.

Please provide the scripture that says that God placed a spirit that "was the location of intelligence, cognition, emotions, will, etc.", in Adam's body,

Hi @nPeaceIn their belief, the Body died and the spirit or personality still lived to God in a literal sense. In the resurrection the same spirit is placed into a resurrected body.

Please provide the scripture(s) that say "the spirit or personality still lived to God in a literal sense"... and please explain what you mean, "in a literal sense".

Hi @nPeaceThere is no change in locus of personality or responsibility for actions.

What are you saying. Please elaborate.

Hi @nPeace
In Jehovahs Witness Theology, I think the physical brain is the location of intelligence, cognition, emotions, etc. (at least this is what they have told me in the past) and all of these things which make up a personality, died with the brain and, as you say God remembers them and so the personality lived in a metaphorical sense.

I don't know whom you spoke to, but being I was not there, I cannot confirm what was said, or if there was a misunderstanding on your part Clear, because judging from our conversation, for the past... how many posts... more than 80, the possibility you did not understand what was being explained to you, is exceedingly great. However using the channel by which Jws are fed (Matthew 24:45) I don't know of any time where the faithful and discrete slave ever said our emotions stem from the brain. We do use our brain to understand knowledge and use intelligence, yes.

You don't think we make intelligent decisions with the mind? Please explain how we understand knowledge, and process it.
For example, say you are in a biology class, what do you use to understand ...

From as far back as I remember, the faithful slave said, basically the following...

*** nwtsty Ephesians Study Notes—Chapter 5 ***
In the Bible, the term “heart” when used in a figurative way generally refers to the inner person, including all thoughts, intentions, qualities, feelings, and emotions. (Compare Ps 103:1, 2, 22.)

*** it-1 pp. 1057-1058 Heart ***
The condition of our figurative heart is reflected in our disposition, our attitude, whether proud or humble. (Pr 16:5; Mt 11:29) Our feelings and emotions are also part of that inner man. These include love (De 6:5; 1Pe 1:22), joy (De 28:47; Joh 16:22), pain and sorrow (Ne 2:2; Ro 9:2), hate (Le 19:17). Thus the heart can be “anxious” (Isa 35:4), “pierced” by affliction (Ps 109:22), ‘melted’ by fear of distresses (De 20:8). In the Christian Greek Scriptures, when the mind is mentioned along with the heart, “mind” refers to the intellect while “heart” refers to the emotions, desires, and feelings of the inner person. For example, Jesus said: “You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.” (Mt 22:37) He thus showed that a person’s desires, feelings, and emotions must express his love for God, but he must also express that love by the way he uses his mental faculties, as by taking in knowledge of God and Christ.—Joh 17:3.

All such functions, capabilities, emotions, and qualities are ascribed, not to the literal heart organ, but to the figurative heart as representing the total inner personality.

*** it-2 p. 405 Mind ***
A person must love God with his whole heart (the desires, feelings, and emotions of the inner personality), his whole soul (his life and entire being), and his whole mind (his intellectual faculties). This latter phrase means that not only must God’s servants love with feelings, emotions, and strength but they must also apply their minds vigorously in order to take in knowledge of God and Christ (Joh 17:3)

*** w20 October p. 10 par. 12 How to Conduct a Bible Study That Leads to Baptism—Part One ***
12 What a student learns on a Bible study should appeal not just to his mind but also to his heart. Why? Our heart—which includes our desires, emotions, and feelings—motivates us to action. Jesus used logical reasoning that appealed to the mind. But people followed him because he also stirred their heart. (Luke 24:15, 27, 32)

*** ws12 4/15 p. 16 par. 4 Maintain a Complete Heart Toward Jehovah ***
Bible writers use the word “heart” to describe the entire person we are inside. It includes our desires, thoughts, personality, attitudes, abilities, motivations, and goals. (Read Deuteronomy 15:7; Proverbs 16:9; Acts 2:26.) But there are times when the word “heart” does not mean all these things. For example, Jesus said: “You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.” (Matthew 22:37) Here, the word “heart” refers to a person’s true emotions, desires, and feelings. Jesus mentioned heart, soul, and mind separately because he wanted to emphasize that we must show our love for God in our feelings as well as by the way we live our life and use our mind. (John 17:3; Ephesians 6:6) But when the word “heart” is mentioned by itself, it means the entire person we are inside.

However, perhaps you did not understand how these words are used in context.
Consider please...
*** w01 10/15 p. 18 par. 4 Acquire a Heart Agreeable to Jehovah ***
Accordingly, “heart” is often associated with motivation and emotions, whereas “mind” particularly has to do with intellect. This is how these terms are to be understood when they occur in the same context in the Scriptures. (Matthew 22:37; Philippians 4:7) But the heart and the mind are not mutually exclusive. For instance, Moses urged the Israelites: “You must call back to your heart [or, “must recall to your mind,” footnote] that Jehovah is the true God.” (Deuteronomy 4:39) To the scribes scheming against him, Jesus said: “Why are you thinking wicked things in your hearts?” (Matthew 9:4) “Understanding,” “knowledge,” and “reasoning” can also be associated with the heart. (1 Kings 3:12; Proverbs 15:14; Mark 2:6) The figurative heart, therefore, can also involve our intellect—our thoughts or our understanding.

So, what do you understand from this, before I move on?
I took note that you bolded, "In Jehovah's Witnesses theology."
That tells a lot clear. No. That is not Jehovah's Witnesses theology.