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

[nPeace]

Hi @nPeaceIn Jehovahs Witness theology, the original personality died with the brain and a personality that is remembered by God is placed into a resurrected body.

What???
So you did not get it as I thought then Clear.
Will you consider what Deeje said then? If you repeat what you believe, even after it has been repeatedly explained to you... r e p e a t e d l y, would that not be frustrating, annoying, disturbing, really feeling like being driven to insanity....
Clear, put yourself in our shoes. How would you feel, if I asked you a question, and after answering me, I repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, drill you with the same question, with my beliefs injected as your answer? Tell me please, how would you feel? Be honest.
That is what you are doing.
If you insist, then I see what reason do you see for carrying on... Is it a conversation, or are you trying to tell JWs what to believe?
If you already know what we believe, which obviously you don't, why ask?

Hi @nPeaceThis 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.

It seems to me, you are trying to preach Clear. Are you a "pastor"?
I also think you are trying to tell us what we believe. are you a Jehovah's Witness?
Nowhere did we say, man has no independent will, amd nothing we said could ever make that an automatic conclusion. So where did that come from Clear? I say your ideas. What do you say?

Hi @nPeaceIn 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?

Since apparently you do not seem to have understood anything we have told you (or is it you do, but you want to tell us what to believe?), answering another question, with your mind set on your own understanding, rather than our beliefs, would be meaningless, and take us nowhere but where you want to go with your own ideas.

However, if you want to go there.. Let's go.

(Romans 6:6) . . .For we know that our old personality was nailed to the stake along with him in order for our sinful body to be made powerless, so that we should no longer go on being slaves to sin.

(Ephesians 4:22-24) 22 You were taught to put away the old personality that conforms to your former course of conduct and that is being corrupted according to its deceptive desires. 23 And you should continue to be made new in your dominant mental attitude, 24 and should put on the new personality that was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty.

1. Where did our old personality originate? 2. Where did the new one come from? 3. Is the new one a duplicate; a clone...?
(1)
Genesis 1:
26 Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness,. . .
27 And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.
(Genesis 5:1) This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day that God created Adam, he made him in the likeness of God.

(Romans 5:12) That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned. . .
(Psalm 51:5) Look! I was born guilty of error, And my mother conceived me in sin.
(Ecclesiastes 7:20) For there is no righteous man on earth who always does good and never sins.
(Romans 3:23) For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

(Romans 7:14-20) 14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand what I am doing. For I do not practice what I wish, but I do what I hate. 16 However, if I do what I do not wish, I agree that the Law is fine. 17 But now I am no longer the one doing it, but it is the sin that resides in me. 18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwells nothing good; for I have the desire to do what is fine but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good that I wish, but the bad that I do not wish is what I practice. 20 If, then, I do what I do not wish, I am no longer the one carrying it out, but it is the sin dwelling in me.

You were taught to put away the old personality that conforms to your former course of conduct ...that is being corrupted according to its deceptive desires.... continue to be made new in your dominant mental attitude, and... put on the new personality that was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty.

Recall the earlier references from the JWs publications.

(Jeremiah 17:9, 10) 9 The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it? 10 I, Jehovah, am searching the heart, Examining the innermost thoughts,. . .

Did you get the answer to where our personality originates? That is the teaching of JWs... from the Bible, you see.


(2)
(Colossians 3:9, 10) 9 Do not lie to one another. Strip off the old personality with its practices, 10 and clothe yourselves with the new personality, which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the One who created it,

You were taught to put away the old personality...

Did you get the answer as to where the new personality comes from?
Just in case you did not... Through accurate knowledge, taken in through the mind, and taught by Christ, the application of that knowledge creates within, a new heart, which is really being created by God, since holy spirit is involved.
*** nwtsty 2 Corinthians Study Notes—Chapter 4 ***
“The man we are inside” refers to our inner spiritual nature, character, and strength. The phrase is related to “the new personality” that Christians put on. (Colossians 3:9, 10)

That's the teaching of JWs, from the scriptures.

(3)
(Romans 7:22-24) 22 I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within, 23 but I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body. 24 Miserable man that I am!. . .

The new personality refers to a change of heart - the inner person.
It does not refer to some clone, or duplicate, which God makes, and gives a person.
That is why, the sin is still a part of the person, but it does not dominate their thinking, because the heart is being renewed.
You were taught to put away the old personality that conforms to your former course of conduct ...that is being corrupted according to its deceptive desires.... continue to be made new in your dominant mental attitude, and... put on the new personality that was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty.

These "evil" inclinations, we spoke of earlier, will be with us, until they are completely gone, at the end of Jesus' thousand year reign.
This is the belief of JWs from their use of the Bible.
No clone. No duplicate.

 

[nPeace]

Hi @nPeace
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".

Deeje is not ignorant, of course. We both are aware of what you are doing.
It's just that I am the kind of person that will take you to hell and back... if that's what you ask for.

Hi @nPeaceHowever, 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 clone instead of the original person.

If you want to listen to Brian2, and Khan, please feel free to do so, but please do not think that preaching to us is going to do anything for your arguments.

Hi @nPeaceIf a religion is not logical or rational, then such things may not matter.

Thank you. So what are you going to do about it Clear?

Hi @nPeacethanks so much for any clarification you can offer on these questions

Clarification? Uh. Clear... What did we clarify for you, for the last 90 posts?

Hi @nPeaceClear
ειφυσιφυω

Once again, you did not answer another question.
You are welcomed for my patience.

 

[Deeje]

 

[Clear]

Yes, @nPeace, thank you for any patience you render



REGARDING THE QUESTION : "DOES THE SOUL DIE"

nPeace said : “My question is a simple one. It does not depend on conditions.”
nPeace said : “I did not ask under what circumstances the soul dies.”

You asked about the “soul”, which, for Jehovahs Witness, is the body and breath as I understand it.
In this context, the soul dies (of old age, disease, etc.)

IF we are asking the same question from an early Christian, the soul consisted of a spirit inside man and a body.
In early Christiantiy, the spirit which was placed into Adams body does not normally die with his body, ever.


However, you then clarified with more context.
nPeace asked : “Can the soul die?” –
I think it can

nPeace asked : Can the soul be destroyed? –
I think it can

nPeace asked : Does the soul die? –
If we are speaking of the Christian model where the “soul” is the spirit and the body together, then I think the body dies (of old age, disease, etc.) but the spirit within mankind does not normally “die”. However, I think it “can die” or “can be destroyed”.


THE TENDENCY TO VIEW HISTORICAL TEXTS FROM OUR MODERN, PERSONAL CONTEXT
I think the difficulty for Jehovahs Witnesses is the same for all most individuals.
We tend to view ancient texts from our own context rather than from the context of the ancient writers who wrote them.
The problem is that the texts do not mean the same thing to us that they meant to the ancient.
Historical Context is profoundly important.

For example, if we simply quote a few texts where the text speaks of spirits such as


Ps. 16:10 (or Acts 2:27, 31) where the psalmist rejoices that God “thou wilt not leave my spirit in hell”
James 4:5 spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy
Job 14:22 his spirit within him shall mourn
Ps. 22:29 none can keep alive his own spirit
Matt. 10:28 fear him which is able to destroy both spirit and body
James 1:21 engrafted word, which is able to save your spirit
1 Pet. 1:22 ye have purified your spirit in obeying
Ezek. 11:19 (36:26–27; 37:14) I will put a new spirit within you
Luke 24:39 spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me
Acts 7:59 Stephen ... saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit
Acts 23:8 Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit
Rom. 8:16 spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit
1 Cor. 6:20 glorify God in your body, and in your spirit

While Christians having competing models tend to offer “dueling quotes” with their own personal interpretation, this sort of behavior still will not tell us what the original writer meant by their writings..

For example, Ecclesiates 12:7

Regarding the death of the person Ecclesiates said : Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (Ecclesiates 12:7) “και επιστρεψη ο χους επι την γεν ως και το πνευμα επιστρεψη προς τον θεον ος εδωκεν αυτο”

This scripture has a different meaning to the early Christian of the earliest time periods than it does to the Jehovahs Witness movement of the 1800s.

Deeje said : “Returning the "spirit" (breath) to a resurrected human is what Ecclesiastes means.” (post #91)

But this is not what the scripture says.
It says the spirit returns to God, NOT to a “resurrected human”.

However, the early Christians did not need to reinterpret Ecclesiates.
To the early Judeo-Christians Ecclesiates 12:7 meant just what it says : At death, “the [returns] to the earth" and "the spirit shall return unto God who gave it”. (Ecclesiastes 12:7)



NEITHER J.W. LITERATURE SUCH AS WATCHTOWER NOR EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE ARE SCRIPTURE, BUT BOTH EXPLAIN THEIR THEOLOGY

While much of the early literature written by Judeo-Christians is not scripture (just as the Jehovahs Witness literature “Watch Tower” et al is not scripture), still the early Jewish and Christian literature can tell us what such scripture meant TO THEM.

While Jehovahs Witness tradition is not historical, there is much literature that describes Christian interpretation about what happened when a righteous person died and the spirit left the body? That is, there are multiple versions of Ecclesiates that confirms the doctrine and clarifies its meaning.

“9 And then the spirit of our blessed brother leaves the body in which it had settled; and with joy far removed from mourning it approaches and comes to the holy angels and ascends up to God with joy. History of the Rechabites 15:9-10; “

And while we are looking at that holy and spotless spirit, the holy angels carry it away and salute it, and thus it ascends and goes up from us in glory....1b And when the highest order of cherubim and seraphim receive it, they rise to the gate of the holy Trinity. Then the Son of God receives that spirit from their hands and brings it (forward) so that it may worship the father....7a And then God sends that spirit to a stately mansion (to await) the day of resurrection for (the rest of our) community. History of the Rechabites 16:1; 1b,7;

Other early texts are quite consistent in their description of this early tradition

“78 Now, concerning death, the teaching is: When the decisive decree has gone forth from the Most High that a man shall die, as the spirit leaves the body to return again to him who gave it, first of all it adores the glory of the Most High. 79 And if it is one of those who have shown scorn and have not kept the way of the Most High, and who have despised his Law, and who have hated those who fear God – 80 such spirits shall not enter into habitations, but shall immediately wander about in torments....” Fourth Book of Ezra 7; 75-87;

Greek Apocalypse of Ezra is also consistent in its description, When the prophet Ezra asks God about this point, God tells Ezra : “… fear not death. For that which is from me, that is the soul, departs for heaven. That which is from the earth, that is the body, departs for the earth from which it was taken.” The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 6:26 & 7:1-4;

Since the spirit was seen as the source of intelligence and action, much of the early literature has to do with the relationship of the spirit to the body.

For example, the Jewish literature relates the story of how both body and spirit are related to much of the evils done by mankind. In a story of a blind man and a lame man who steal fruit by the lame, riding upon the shoulders of the blind (thus both are involved in the stealing of fruit from a tree – a sin which neither can, of themselves, accomplish alone). The body is likened unto the blind man and the spirit likened unto the lame. The story concerns which of the two is to be punished for sin.

“The body says, ‘The spirit sinned, for from the day it separated from me, behold, I have been lying like a silent stone in the grave.’ Also the spirit can say, ‘The body sinned, for from the day I separated from it, behold I have been flying in the air like a bird.”....So the Holy One, blessed be he, brings the spirits and placing it in the body, he also judges them as one. For it is said, ‘He will call to the heavens from above and to the earth, so he might judge his people.’ ‘He will call the the heavens from above’ – this to the spirit. ‘And the earth so he might judge his people’ The apocryphon of Exekiel Frag one quotes this explanation that comes from the babylonia talmud, Sanhedrin 91a,b;

Thus the historical Judeo-Christian model of an intelligent, cognisant spirit placed in body of Adam (and all mankind) which lives upon death of the body and is resurrected into a new and different body at resurrection is different than the model created by the Jehovahs Witnesses. The early Christian model was just as consistent with their interpretation of scriptures as the Jehovahs Witness model and importantly, the early Christians did not need to change the scriptures to create their theology.

We are both describing different interpretations of the same text of Ecclesiates 12:7.
For example, Clement was a colleague of the apostles Peter and Paul who wrote early Christian literature, explaining the doctrines Peter and Paul taught him.
Why is the Jehovahs Witness interpretation to have priority over such doctrines connected with the spirit over such early literature.


Clear
εισετζσεω

 

[Deeje]

For example, if we simply quote a few texts where the text speaks of spirits such as

Ps. 16:10 (or Acts 2:27, 31) where the psalmist rejoices that God “thou wilt not leave my spirit in hell”
James 4:5 spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy
Job 14:22 his spirit within him shall mourn
Ps. 22:29 none can keep alive his own spirit
Matt. 10:28 fear him which is able to destroy both spirit and body
James 1:21 engrafted word, which is able to save your spirit
1 Pet. 1:22 ye have purified your spirit in obeying
Ezek. 11:19 (36:26–27; 37:14) I will put a new spirit within you
Luke 24:39 spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me
Acts 7:59 Stephen ... saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit
Acts 23:8 Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit
Rom. 8:16 spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit
1 Cor. 6:20 glorify God in your body, and in your spirit

While Christians having competing models tend to offer “dueling quotes” with their own personal interpretation, this sort of behavior still will not tell us what the original writer meant by their writings..

When the Bible speaks of the "spirit"...it isn't just one meaning as is indicated in all of these scriptures.

"The Hebrew word ruʹach and the Greek word pneuʹma, often translated “spirit,” have a number of meanings. All of them refer to that which is invisible to human sight and gives evidence of force in motion. The Hebrew and Greek words are used with reference to (1) wind, (2) the active life-force in earthly creatures, (3) the impelling force that issues from a person’s figurative heart and causes him to say and do things in a certain way, (4) inspired expressions originating from an invisible source, (5) spirit persons, and (6) God’s active force, or holy spirit.—Exodus 35:21; Psalm 104:29; Matthew 12:43; Luke 11:13." (Insight Volumes https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001077302)

More...
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005156

Whatever 'competing models' there may be, understanding the beliefs of the one who wrote the scripture reveals what he meant according to his beliefs at the time....not according to the beliefs that were corrupted over time. Jesus told us that the Pharisees were "from their father the devil" because they taught lies. He also told us that "weeds" would be planted in the same field as the "wheat" and that initially one would not be able to tell the difference until well into the growing period, which by that time it was impossible to eradicate them without pulling up the wheat along with them....that had to wait for the "harvest time".
So Christianity too would be corrupted in exactly the same way.
We can tell you exactly what the beliefs were of the writer at the time of writing....but you apparently have no idea.

The ancient Jews did not believe what modern Jews do about the soul and spirit, and the first Christians did not believe what Christendom believes about them....the same liar influenced both in a similar way. It was to reinforce his first lie...that 'you surely will not die'....thereby eliminating the penalty for their disobedience.

They did not physically die in that "day"...did they? But their lives changed dramatically from that day onward. They basically lost everything good that God had given them, so they were in no doubt that God was not pleased with them. And seeing as how "a thousand years is like one day" to God, (2 Peter 3:8) no human has ever lived to 1,000 years old. So God was telling the truth in his own view...and the devil wasn't....but his lies live on in the minds of those he can deceive. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

Your usual apocryphal inclusions are nigh on to meaningless in this discussion. They are not scripture and we do not see them as having any relevance because scripture tells us all that we need to know. If God had wanted them in his word, he would have included them.....Additions just create confusion as you have so aptly demonstrated.

 

[Deeje]

Regarding the death of the person Ecclesiates said : Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (Ecclesiates 12:7) “και επιστρεψη ο χους επι την γεν ως και το πνευμα επιστρεψη προς τον θεον ος εδωκεν αυτο”

This scripture has a different meaning to the early Christian of the earliest time periods than it does to the Jehovahs Witness movement of the 1800s.

Deeje said : “Returning the "spirit" (breath) to a resurrected human is what Ecclesiastes means.” (post #91)

But this is not what the scripture says.
It says the spirit returns to God, NOT to a “resurrected human”.

However, the early Christians did not need to reinterpret Ecclesiates.
To the early Judeo-Christians Ecclesiates 12:7 meant just what it says : At death, “the [returns] to the earth" and "the spirit shall return unto God who gave it”. (Ecclesiastes 12:7)

Of course it 'returns to the true God who gave it".....He cannot return a soul to life if he does not give them back their breath. (spirit) He recreates their body and re-implants all their memories and personality traits...restoring everything that identifies "who" they are. You are still you, no matter if God has given you a new body. And if "you" get to live the life that God first intended for all humanity, in paradise on earth with no suffering, sickness, aging or death, will you complain?......Don't answer that because you strike me as being somewhat of a serial complainer....

What was it that turned the dead 'soul' Adam into a "living soul"? Where does it say that God "gave" Adam a "soul"? It says that Adam "became a living soul" when God starting him breathing. That is the "spirit" that animates all living things.

Animals as well as humans are "souls" who experience the same death as we do...they stop breathing and all their organs shut down. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20) Animals were never promised everlasting life...only humans were.

The only way for dead humans to live again was to resurrect them...that is what the ancient Jews believed and that is what Jesus also taught his disciples. What was Martha's response to Jesus who came to resurrect her brother Lazarus? Where did Jesus say Lazarus was? Why will no one address this clear point?

Read John 11:11-14....
"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".

John 11:20-23....
"When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went to meet him; but Mary kept sitting at home. 21 Martha then said to Jesus: “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 Yet even now I know that whatever you ask God for, God will give you.” 23 Jesus said to her: “Your brother will rise.” 24 Martha said to him: “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.”

What did Martha mean? "The resurrection on the last day" was an ancient Jewish belief, not a modern one.
Where did Lazarus come back from? Was he called from the spirit realm or from his tomb?
Where does Jesus call all the dead from in that "resurrection on the last day"...

John 5:28-29...
"Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment."

The righteous and the unrighteous are called from the same place...their graves. He can call them all out because they are all still there.

 

[Clear]

Hi @nPeace

1) THE QUESTION AS TO THE LOCUS OF PERSONALITY AND WILL IN JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEOLOGY

Clear said : “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. (post #92)


nPeace said : “It seems to me, you are trying to preach Clear. Are you a "pastor"? I also think you are trying to tell us what we believe. are you a Jehovah's Witness? Nowhere did we say, man has no independent will, amd nothing we said could ever make that an automatic conclusion. So where did that come from Clear? I say your ideas. What do you say?


Your conclusions are strange.
Preaching?

Telling you what you believe?

You are confused. But be at peace and you can start by assuming people who investigate your theology have motives that are just as pure as yours.

Then, Read my statements again and think about the logical sequence of why I said them.

1) I first asked about the locus of personality in Jehovahs Witness theology.

2) Then Deeje characterized such questions as "nit-picking questions that in the big scheme of things, doesn't really matter". (#97)

3) I made these statements to help explain WHY such questions have theological importance (i.e. “why they matter”).

The statements explain that IF man is an independent being, then God has no responsibility for the choices man makes.
However, IF mankinds choices are influenced by God, then God has some responsibility for their choices to the degree he influences their choices.

So, the questions still remain :
In Jehovahs Witness th eology,
1) Who is responsible for the moral characteristics placed into the man Adam that God created?
2) Regarding the person who was very evil but died 4000 years ago. In Jehovahs Witness theology, you explained God remembers this evil person and re-creates him at resurrection.
Does God also re-create the evil in the man?





Hi @Deeje

2) REGARDING ECCLESIATES 12:7

Clear said : Regarding the death of the person Ecclesiates said : Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (Ecclesiates 12:7) “και επιστρεψη ο χους επι την γεν ως και το πνευμα επιστρεψη προς τον θεον ος εδωκεν αυτο”

This scripture has a different meaning to the early Christian of the earliest time periods than it does to the Jehovahs Witness movement of the 1800s.

Deeje said : “Returning the "spirit" (breath) to a resurrected human is what Ecclesiastes means.” (post #91 different thread)

Clear responded : "But this is not what the scripture says.
It says the spirit returns to God, NOT to a “resurrected human”.
However, the early Christians did not need to reinterpret Ecclesiates.
To the early Judeo-Christians Ecclesiates 12:7 meant just what it says : At death, “the [returns] to the earth" and "the spirit shall return unto God who gave it”. (Ecclesiastes 12:7)

Deeje responded : When the Bible speaks of the "spirit"...it isn't just one meaning as is indicated in all of these scriptures. (post #105)




Deeje, Your quote from JW.org is a “party line”, a “cut and paste” that has little historical coherence to the actual usage of the word for spirit as actually used anciently.
You are not a historian.

For example :
While it is true that רוה (ruacha’) means “breath”, it does NOT ONLY mean breath and Breath is not its’ primary meaning in Hebrew usage in these texts you and I have discussed before. In ancient usage, the presence of spirit indicates characteristics associated with intelligence and emotion and LIFE.

For example in Hiph. Form, it means “to smell”. With ב it is a “smell with pleasure”, thus it’s connection with the emotion of enjoyment and delight in a thing. It can be a metaphor for vanity and folly in things that breathe (e.g. mankind). In our historical application to scripture in this specific case, it means spirit (also soul). It is the “spirit” or “mind” or “heart” or “disposition” that most often characterizes the presence of a ruacha in such cases.

For examples, depending upon it’s adjective, it can mean patience (קצר רוה ruacha Kotzer), impatience (נבה רוה ruacha ne’ba), Proud of spirit(רוה קשה ruacha koshae), it can mean sorrowful of spirit, anger or wrath of spirit etc. In ALL of these cases, it is not the breath in our lungs that has emotions and intelligence. The breath in our lungs is neither patient nor impatient; our breath is neither proud or humble, neither sorrowful nor happy, angry or wrathful. Rather it is the intelligent spirit within man that is the seat of intelligence and emotions and animation of the body that is being described.

a) breath of life : An unusual meaning in our context
In a way similar to Hebrew, Koine Greek CAN use “pneuma” (gk. Πνευμα) for breath. In contextual historical usage, it refers to the spirit.
For example, in Papyri Oxy VI 904.7 (of v a.d.) A man Flavius does use the term in saying his “breath of life is in danger” της σωτηριας πνευμα δυστυχιν με…”.
But this is NOT the typical usage.
Πνεω is often used in early texts to “breath” or “blow” (as opposed to πνευμο).

b) The spirit : the normal meaning in our context
In Papyri Leid W.xxiii.2 of (2-3 a.d.) a book speaking of the creation of “spirit, fire and darkness” uses “περιεχει γεννησιν πνευματος, πυρος και σκοτο(ου)σ”
He is not speaking of the breath of the lungs.

An ancient prayer for vengeance from Rheneia, Syil 816 speaks of “the Lord of spirits and all flesh” (the actual Greek sentence reads ...τον κυριον των πνευματων και πασης σαρκος...).

In Papyri Oxy VIII. 1151 (of 5 a.d.) a Christian speaks of warding off bad spirits, saying “Fly (go away!) evil spirit! Christ pursues thee; the Son of God and Holy spirit have outstripped thee” (φευγε, πν(ευμ)α μεμισυ(η)μενον...).

A Christian amulet of 5-6 a.d. in Papyri Land 6:10 speaks “προς παν ακαταρτον πν[ευ]μα” (with/before ALL unclean spirits) in language similar to the earliest Christian gospels.
In all of these instances, the usage is not speaking of unclean breath, or firey breath or the Lord of Breaths. It is speaking of the spirit within mankind.

In fact, It would be VERY, VERY difficult to apply πνευματικος to refer to “breathingness” instead of it’s normal usage of “spirtualness” or “spiritual”.



EXAMPLES OF HISTORICAL SCRIPTURAL USE OF HEBREW “RUACHA” AND GREEK “PNEUMA”

The forgoing rules of use of Greek ‘pneuma’ (πνευμα) or Hebrew ‘ruacha’ (רוח), apply to ancient biblical descriptions whether a sprit is good OR bad. It doesn't matter..

For example : Mark 5:2 “And when he had come out of the boat, there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit”

HEBREW : The use of Ruacha (spirit) is as follows : verse 2 says a man with an evil/unclean spirit met them, in Hebrew this can be rendered “ןהנה-איש אשר-רוח טמאה “

Notice the words “ruacha tum’ah” (evil or bad spirit) in Mark 5:2, does NOT mean the man had “Bad breath”, but rather it expresses that an evil spirit was in the man and that was the cause of the mans ills and NOT that he had "evil breath" or "bad breath".

GREEK : The Greek of Mark 5:2 confirms the same usage of “spirit” in the Greek version. The man met them with an “unclean spirit” “εν πνευματι ακαθαρτω”.

Again, the context is not that the man had “bad breath”, but πνευματι/ רוח/spirit all refer to a spirit inside of the man in this specific case. (I might as well point out, that there are NO known significant greek manuscript variants that do not use πνευματι ακαθαρτω listed in GN-4 lists for this verse. zero, zip, nada).

HEBREW : Another example is a hebrew of Mark 9:17, which speaks of a “dumb spirit” אשר-רוח אלם (‘[which] spirit [is] dumb”) that was in a mans’ son. And then in In vs 25 Jesus says “dumb and deaf spirit…” (… רוח אלם וחרש…).

In NEITHER instances, is he referring to the Sons Breath making him unable to speak or hear, but rather, he is speaking of the spirit within him that is causing his problem.

GREEK : Similarly the Greek in Mark 9:1 and vs 25, the son “has a “dumb/speechless spirit” that renders him speechless. “Εχοντα πνευμα αλαλον”. In verse 25 Jesus “rebukes the unclean spirit” (τω πνευματι τω ακαθαρτω).

Using the same rules of use of language, Jesus is NOT rebuking “bad breath” that is in the son but instead, Jesus is rebuking an “unclean spirit” in the lad.
When Jesus says “You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again!”. It makes clear that the spirit was INSIDE the boy.


THIS is how the word “spirit” was used anciently. It is not simply the “cut and paste” version you offered from JW.org. History and understanding it is not done by cut and paste from JW.org.


Clear
εισεσετωω

 

[Deeje]

Deeje, Your quote from JW.org is a “party line”, a “cut and paste” that has little historical coherence to the actual usage of the word for spirit as actually used anciently.
You are not a historian.

Why do I need to be a historian when I can avail myself of their education at the click of a mouse? One does not have to be a historian to study the Bible. Bible history is easily accessed on the internet. And the education provided by my brotherhood is vast and thorough. If the "cut and paste" from our literature is not accurate then I expected that you would be able to prove it...but all I got was reams of irrelevant stuff that I assume you intended to back up what you said.....none of it did because you confuse the teachings of the 'wheat' with the teachings of the 'weeds'. If you cannot tell the difference then no wonder you are lost.

From my own studies, what you provided was way off the mark....because you continue to assume that you and your 'education' are correct and that there is no way that you can be incorrect. Who can tell you otherwise? Only Jesus himself, so I guess we should let him. Heaven knows we have tried....

Let me ask you if any of Jesus' apostles were historians? Did they have recognized scriptural education in order to be chosen for their mission by Jesus? If Jesus had wanted educated men, he would have chosen educated men....do you know why he didn't?

As it turns out, an education would have been an encumbrance to Jesus' disciples because the education provided by the accepted institutions of religious learning were not teaching Jews to worship God acceptably.
Jesus said they were "teaching the commands of men as doctrines". (Matthew 15:7-9)

He also said...“I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved."

What is a formal "education" worth to God? Not much apparently....especially when all we need is God's word and the right guidance. Do you imagine that you can provide it? I would submit that most people are bamboozled by your posts because they really don't explain anything simply. You are such a legalist that most would be confused by too much, irrelevant detail.

Christendom has fallen into the same trap of thinking that 'formal education' is what makes one knowledgeable. Not these days its not. When you post copious stuff that is not even close to what the "first Christians" believed...you mistakenly refer to what the "early Christians" came to believe. Those "early Christians" deviated from what the "first Christians" were taught by Christ....and Jesus actually foretold it. When you quote from apocryphal works you betray that very fact....that you can't tell the difference.

THIS is how the word “spirit” was used anciently. It is not simply the “cut and paste” version you offered from JW.org. History and understanding it is not done by cut and paste from JW.org.

Please show us how this.....
"The Hebrew word ruʹach and the Greek word pneuʹma, often translated “spirit,” have a number of meanings. All of them refer to that which is invisible to human sight and gives evidence of force in motion. The Hebrew and Greek words are used with reference to (1) wind, (2) the active life-force in earthly creatures, (3) the impelling force that issues from a person’s figurative heart and causes him to say and do things in a certain way, (4) inspired expressions originating from an invisible source, (5) spirit persons, and (6) God’s active force, or holy spirit.—Exodus 35:21; Psalm 104:29; Matthew 12:43; Luke 11:13." (Insight Volumes https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001077302).....is in error.

Then read your response again and see that all of these explanations pertaining to the word "spirit" apply to the scriptures you used in various ways.....there is not just one meaning to the word.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, @nPeace, thank you for any patience you render


REGARDING THE QUESTION : "DOES THE SOUL DIE"

nPeace said : “My question is a simple one. It does not depend on conditions.”
nPeace said : “I did not ask under what circumstances the soul dies.”

You asked about the “soul”, which, for Jehovahs Witness, is the body and breath as I understand it.
In this context, the soul dies (of old age, disease, etc.)

Not exactly.
A person may express it as simple as that, but one can go away with a misunderstanding.

To simply say breath and body, would not be necessarily clear (it's a very simple way of expressing it but can be misunderstood), since a "body" - more accurately, a person (understanding required), without breath is still a soul - a dead soul, or dead person.
So it's important, I think, to understand how the term soul is used, and what JWs believe about it.

*** nwt p. 1712 Glossary of Bible Terms ***
Soul.
The traditional rendering of the Hebrew word neʹphesh and the Greek word psy·kheʹ.
In examining the way these terms are used in the Bible, it becomes evident that they basically refer to (1) people, (2) animals, or (3) the life that a person or an animal has. (Ge 1:20; 2:7; Nu 31:28; 1Pe 3:20; also ftns.) In contrast to the way that the term “soul” is used in many religious contexts, the Bible shows that both neʹphesh and psy·kheʹ, in connection with earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

*** nwt p. 1723 A2 Features of This Revision ***
Depending on the context, those words may refer (1) to a person, (2) to the life of a person, (3) to living creatures, (4) to the desires and appetite of a person or, in some cases, (5) even to dead individuals.
For example, Numbers 6:6 - He should not approach a dead person [נֶ֥פֶשׁ - soul] during all the days he remains separated to Jehovah. . .

Strong's Concordance
nephesh: a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion
Original Word: נֶפֶשׁ
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: nephesh
Phonetic Spelling: (neh'-fesh)
Definition: a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion

Here we see, that the definition is not restricted to one, but the context will determine how it is rendered.
It's important to note that the Jehovah's Witnesses have not deviated from the original use of the Hebrew and Greek renderings of the term soul.

IF we are asking the same question from an early Christian, the soul consisted of a spirit inside man and a body.

Spirit inside man, and a body?
Please reference your sources. I am not going to take your word as Gospel
Man is just one living creature. There are billions of living creatures, which have spirit animating, or keeping their body alive and breathing.
The Jews, of whom the first Christians were, all believed what the writer of the Torah said, and what the wisest man of his time said, in the Tanakh.

(Genesis 2:7) And Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person [Or “soul.”].

(Ecclesiastes 3:19-21) 19 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. 20 All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust. 21 Who really knows whether the spirit of humans ascends upward, and whether the spirit of animals descends down to the earth?

So the early Christians believed and understood these things. I said this to you early. Let me refresh your memory.
Quote
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.
Unquote
What problem do you have with that Clear?

In early Christiantiy, the spirit which was placed into Adams body does not normally die with his body, ever.

Does the Bible say the spirit is a living being, that it has to die? Where does it say that.
The spirit is the force of life, or the life force, that sustains breathing in the creature. It is not some living thing that dies.
So it goes back to God, in the sense explained. The simple fact is that the source of that spirit is God. So it remains with him to give the spirit, that makes one - the soul - the person, alive.

(Psalm 104:29, 30)
29 If you take away their spirit, they expire, And back to their dust they go. 30 If you send forth your spirit, they are created; And you make the face of the ground new.

This is such a basic simple truth that the Jew and early Christians believed.
Why is it so difficult for you to grasp Clear? Could it be you are not really following the first century Christian teachings?

However, you then clarified with more context.
nPeace asked : “Can the soul die?” –
I think it can

nPeace asked : Can the soul be destroyed? –
I think it can

You think? In other words you are not sure if you believe the Bible is correct, when it says, it can, and will?
I'm just interested in knowing how you feel about this.
When someone asked a question to Jesus and the apostles, can you imagine them saying, "I think"?
They did not rely on their own thinking. The relied on God's word, which all of them trusted, and believed to be the truth.

nPeace asked : Does the soul die? –
If we are speaking of the Christian model where the “soul” is the spirit and the body together, then I think the body dies (of old age, disease, etc.) but the spirit within mankind does not normally “die”. However, I think it “can die” or “can be destroyed”.

Christian model? Which one? The early Christian teachings, or the apostate Christian "model", as you put it.? Sounds like we are doing science now.

THE TENDENCY TO VIEW HISTORICAL TEXTS FROM OUR MODERN, PERSONAL CONTEXT
I think the difficulty for Jehovahs Witnesses is the same for all most individuals.

Difficulty? Difficulty? Seriously Clear? What difficulty do you see.
Throughout this thread, the difficulty has been with you not understanding, and trying to pin ideas on the scriptural text. There is no difficulty with the JWs.

We tend to view ancient texts from our own context rather than from the context of the ancient writers who wrote them.

Thank you for that. Well said. I agree with you.
I did not break up your post with any sinister intent, but I separated the above statements, so that it more accurately reflects the truth.
Let's allow the proof to be seen. What is the context that JWs have gone against? Please state clearly and with references? Thank you.

The problem is that the texts do not mean the same thing to us that they meant to the ancient.
Historical Context is profoundly important.

Yes, and I did show that several times. So that leads me to this question.
You said the soul can die and be destroyed. Therefore, the sould cannot be immortal. Do you disagree, or do you think the soul is immortal?

 

[nPeace]

For example, if we simply quote a few texts where the text speaks of spirits such as


Ps. 16:10 (or Acts 2:27, 31) where the psalmist rejoices that God “thou wilt not leave my spirit in hell”
James 4:5 spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy
Job 14:22 his spirit within him shall mourn
Ps. 22:29 none can keep alive his own spirit
Matt. 10:28 fear him which is able to destroy both spirit and body
James 1:21 engrafted word, which is able to save your spirit
1 Pet. 1:22 ye have purified your spirit in obeying
Ezek. 11:19 (36:26–27; 37:14) I will put a new spirit within you
Luke 24:39 spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me
Acts 7:59 Stephen ... saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit
Acts 23:8 Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit
Rom. 8:16 spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit
1 Cor. 6:20 glorify God in your body, and in your spirit

While Christians having competing models tend to offer “dueling quotes” with their own personal interpretation, this sort of behavior still will not tell us what the original writer meant by their writings..

Can you please tell me which translation you used, when you referred to Psalms 16:10, and Acts 2:27, 31.
Whereas the words used are nephesh in Psalms, and psuché in Acts, you substituted those words with spirit. Why?

Strong's Concordance
psuché: breath, the soul
Original Word: ψυχή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: psuché
Phonetic Spelling: (psoo-khay')
Definition: breath, the soul
Usage: (a) the vital breath, breath of life, (b) the human soul, (c) the soul as the seat of affections and will, (d) the self, (e) a human person, an individual.

HELPS Word-studies
5590 psyxḗ (from psyxō, "to breathe, blow" which is the root of the English words "psyche," "psychology") – soul (psyche); a person's distinct identity (unique personhood), i.e. individual personality.

5590 (psyxē) corresponds exactly to the OT 5315 /phágō ("soul"). The soul is the direct aftermath of God breathing (blowing) His gift of life into a person, making them an ensouled being.

See Strong's Concordance on Nephesh above, or here.
Since the writer of Acts is quoting Psalms, what i the correct rendering?

For example, Ecclesiates 12:7

Regarding the death of the person Ecclesiates said : Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (Ecclesiates 12:7) “και επιστρεψη ο χους επι την γεν ως και το πνευμα επιστρεψη προς τον θεον ος εδωκεν αυτο”

This scripture has a different meaning to the early Christian of the earliest time periods than it does to the Jehovahs Witness movement of the 1800s.

That is such a bland statement. I could say Clear is really not a woman, and leave it there, but that's a bland statement. Anyone can say anything. A person can say JW is a cult, and leave it there.

These are called empty baseless claims, which can be dismissed as just stupid talk, and nonsensical accusations. Would you not agree Clear?
So rather than make these kind of baseless remarks, can you please back it up with some reliable basis?
How do JWs disagree with the scripture in Ecclesiastes 12:7 and the early Christian of the earliest time periods?

Deeje said : “Returning the "spirit" (breath) to a resurrected human is what Ecclesiastes means.” (post #91)

But this is not what the scripture says.
It says the spirit returns to God, NOT to a “resurrected human”.

Clearly Clear, you misunderstood Deeje... again.
Returning the spirit to the person is not the process of death, but the process of resurrection... as stated in Psalm 104:29, 30, which was quoted above.
Are you sure you are listening carefully, Clear. Why is it, I can read that, and see what it clearly says, and you read it more than once, and quoted it, and can't see what it says?
Clear. I think you may need to clear your mind of your ideas when you are conversing, and listen to what persons are saying. That way, there may be less misunderstanding.
Are you associated with Baptist, or Nazarene, by any chance, or some form of the Pentecostal movement?

However, the early Christians did not need to reinterpret Ecclesiates.
To the early Judeo-Christians Ecclesiates 12:7 meant just what it says : At death, “the [returns] to the earth" and "the spirit shall return unto God who gave it”. (Ecclesiastes 12:7)

I totally agree with you on this. Totally. I was telling someone that there is no need to interpret the Bible, except when it comes to prophecy, and perhaps a few expressions that needs explaining.
To give one example, in Genesis, when God said, I do regret that I have made them, one might read that literally as God was sorry he made man. However, when we take a number of thing into consideration from the context, we get an understanding that God regretted how they turned out.
If God regretted that he made man, he would have destroyed Noah and his 7 family members... along with all the animals. he didn't.
The same is true where the scriptures read that God hardened Pharaoh's heart.
the context shows that Pharaoh was hardening his heart, so that helps us understand that God allowed Pharaoh's heart to be hard.

Interpreting the text, by using their own ideas, is what causes the problem.
Letting the scripture give the interpretation, or explanation, which is what JWs do, then we are letting the scriptures speak.
This is what I agree with.

NEITHER J.W. LITERATURE SUCH AS WATCHTOWER NOR EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE ARE SCRIPTURE, BUT BOTH EXPLAIN THEIR THEOLOGY

While much of the early literature written by Judeo-Christians is not scripture (just as the Jehovahs Witness literature “Watch Tower” et al is not scripture), still the early Jewish and Christian literature can tell us what such scripture meant TO THEM.

While Jehovahs Witness tradition is not historical, there is much literature that describes Christian interpretation about what happened when a righteous person died and the spirit left the body? That is, there are multiple versions of Ecclesiates that confirms the doctrine and clarifies its meaning.

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

Thus the historical Judeo-Christian model of an intelligent, cognisant spirit placed in body of Adam (and all mankind) which lives upon death of the body and is resurrected into a new and different body at resurrection is different than the model created by the Jehovahs Witnesses. The early Christian model was just as consistent with their interpretation of scriptures as the Jehovahs Witness model and importantly, the early Christians did not need to change the scriptures to create their theology.

We are both describing different interpretations of the same text of Ecclesiates 12:7.
For example, Clement was a colleague of the apostles Peter and Paul who wrote early Christian literature, explaining the doctrines Peter and Paul taught him.
Why is the Jehovahs Witness interpretation to have priority over such doctrines connected with the spirit over such early literature.


Clear
εισετζσεω

You are making claims Clear, about the JWs. Claims that are false, based on your own theology.
What you are doing may be likened to a situation where a man is taken into an interrogation room. The man is questioned. Notes are taken by the interrogators.
After the conversations, the notes reflect nothing the captor said, but the interrogators present the notes saying "This is what the prisoner said, in his own words."
Then they all say, he is guilty... of something he never did, or said.
JWs teach what the scriptures said at Ecclesiastes 12:7 - The spirit goes back to God who gave it.
(Psalm 104:29, 30) 29 If you take away their spirit, they expire, And back to their dust they go. 30 If you send forth your spirit, they are created; And you make the face of the ground new.

According to the scriptures, the spirit is not a living being. It is God's spirit that he gives for man to live. Without that spirit from God, man cannot live. So once that spirit leaves the body, it goes back to God - goes back to God Clear. Goes back to God. Are you getting it Clear. Goes back to God, does not mean take a trip; travel - like on a plane trip to a destination, but goes back to God - like property goes back to the owner who mortgaged it.
The spirit belongs to God. he gave it, that the man live. It returns, or goes back to whom it belongs to - God.
That's not too hard to understand Clear. Is it.
These are basic teachings. The youth among JWs teach these things to their school teachers, and their neighbors. They understand it. It's a simple teaching. Nothing complicated about it Clear.

 

[nPeace]

Hi @nPeace

1) THE QUESTION AS TO THE LOCUS OF PERSONALITY AND WILL IN JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEOLOGY

Clear said : “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. (post #92)


nPeace said : “It seems to me, you are trying to preach Clear. Are you a "pastor"? I also think you are trying to tell us what we believe. are you a Jehovah's Witness? Nowhere did we say, man has no independent will, amd nothing we said could ever make that an automatic conclusion. So where did that come from Clear? I say your ideas. What do you say?


Your conclusions are strange.
Preaching?

Telling you what you believe?

You are confused. But be at peace and you can start by assuming people who investigate your theology have motives that are just as pure as yours.

Then, Read my statements again and think about the logical sequence of why I said them.

1) I first asked about the locus of personality in Jehovahs Witness theology.

2) Then Deeje characterized such questions as "nit-picking questions that in the big scheme of things, doesn't really matter". (#97)

3) I made these statements to help explain WHY such questions have theological importance (i.e. “why they matter”).

The statements explain that IF man is an independent being, then God has no responsibility for the choices man makes.
However, IF mankinds choices are influenced by God, then God has some responsibility for their choices to the degree he influences their choices.

So, the questions still remain :
In Jehovahs Witness th eology,
1) Who is responsible for the moral characteristics placed into the man Adam that God created?
2) Regarding the person who was very evil but died 4000 years ago. In Jehovahs Witness theology, you explained God remembers this evil person and re-creates him at resurrection.
Does God also re-create the evil in the man?


Clear
εισεσετωω

This is a totally different question Clear, and it is unrelated to what you wanted to know about.
I have no problem you wanting to know other things. We gladly welcome that, but to be reasonable, one must consider if something is of any benefit or meaningful.
I don't think answering this question is either. Why? You are not clear on the previous answers given. So if you are seeking to build on those, with this question, but you have a wrong concept, due to the fact that instead of using what we are explaining, you use your ideas, or maybe the ideas you get from other people who may have been JWs, or just on the borders of the organization, then anything said now apparently will be taken in the same way the previous answers were.
If you are interested in what we are saying here, then show it by letting us know you understand what we said, and I will certainly be happy to answer any additional questions.

To be sure it's not just me, @Deeje do you find that Clear has accepted the answers we have given her as JWs' teachings, and has she demonstrated that she clearly understands, or does it seem to you she is conflating what we explain by her own, or other ideas? What are your thoughts?

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @Deeje

LIVING A MORAL LIFE VERSUS UNDERSTANDING AND TEACHING HISTORICAL DOCTRINES

Clear said : Deeje, Your quote from JW.org is a “party line”, a “cut and paste” that has little historical coherence to the actual usage of the word for spirit as actually used anciently. You are not a historian.
Deeje responded : "Why do I need to be a historian when I can avail myself of their education at the click of a mouse?'


First of all, I think you made some good points regarding the lack of education in Jesus apostles and the fact that education has little to do with a moral and good life.
I agree with you that It does not take an education to understand and live the rule of “do unto others that which you would have them do unto you”.
It takes no education to “love one another as I have loved you”.
None of these principles require any historical awareness.

However, if you are going to offer historical statements about the meaning of words anciently, then this requires that you KNOW the historical meaning of words anciently.

In this case a “cut and paste” historical education is insufficient because the cut and paste from JW.org did not represent historically complete information but was more a statement to support their theology.

Education is not a bad thing. For example, Frederick Franz, the main creator of the New Testament that was adopted for use by the Jehovahs Witnesses, did not have any formal education in Koine Greek. None. Zero. Zip.

I think that if Franz had some education in koine Greek, he would not have made as many mistakes in the bible he created for the Jehovahs Witnesses. As it is, many of the quotes that are offered from the New World Testament are not really “biblical”.


Also, Christianity is a historical religion with historical roots. The problem with lack of historical context is manifest in cut and paste statements that do not cohere with real historical Christianity.

For example, the 3rd c.e. document gospel of phillip explains the meaning of “pneuma” that was given to Adam, saying : ““The soul of Adam came into being by means of a breath, which is a synonym for spirit. " ("synonym for a spirit" IS how the the actual ancient text read)

In this HISTORICAL context then, all of the vast early Judeo-Christian historical literature can make perfect sense and becomes historically coherent. If one assumes the Jehovah Witness definition for Pneuma from the 1800s (as it relates to Adam) is correct, then none of vast amount of early Judeo-Christian literature is historically coherent and this is part of the reason that Jehovahs Witness theology cannot survive in a historical world but must remain in the world of interpretation of some modern version of scripture.


For example, the earliest Jewish, Christian and Islamic Literature from the earliest periods of the adamic traditions, all agree that there was a spirit that was placed into Adam and this spirit was the locus of intelligence and emotion and of independent will.

So, I think you are correct that moral choice and wisdom are independent of most specific educational endeavors, but in this case, when we quote Ecclesiates 12:7 we have entered into the world of historical literature written by another people and long ago. When we make claims as to what it meant to the original writer, we have entered into the world of historical data and knowledge of historical data becomes important.




DUELING INTERPRETATIONS CAN BE SETTLED BY HISTORICAL INQUIRY

For example : Eccl. 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

I might interpret this to mean that upon death of the body, the spirit in man shall return unto God, who gave it (i.e. where it was before.)

You interpret this historical text differently.

“Returning the "spirit" (breath) to a resurrected human is what Ecclesiastes means.” (Deeje, post #91 different thread)


The historical question is what the sentence meant and how it was understood anciently and originally. (i.e. "Historically")

One can simply look at the early secular Papyri (i.e. non-religious literature) and see what the words meant in everyday language. Such sources are important because the Christians did not invent their own special religious language but instead, used the Koine or common language of the time and place they were in.

If I want to know how the ancient Christians interpreted it, I can read their own comments regarding the matter or what they read that gives a clearer picture of how they interpreted such things. This is the value of historical data, or at least having some historical data before coming to a historical conclusion.

Therefore, fear not death. For that which is from me, that is the soul [spirit], departs for heaven. That which is from the earth, that is the body, departs for the earth from which it was taken.” (The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 6:26 & 7:1-4) It is the often the additional data that makes clear and confirms

In the popular Apocalypse of Sedrach God sends for the soul of the Prophet Sedrach. God says, “Go, take the soul of my beloved Sedrach, and put it in Paradise.” The messenger says to Sedrach, “give me that which our Father deposited in the womb of your mother in your holy dwelling place since you were born.”.... give me your most desired soul [spirit]. The apocalypse of Sedrach 9:1-2 and 5

The apocalyptic literature of the Jews and Early Christians are by their very definition, full of reference to visions of heaven and spirits there. In the apocalypse of Abraham, he see’s the vision of heaven and the souls there :

“And I saw there a great crowd of men and women and children, half of them on the right side of the portrayal, and half of them on the left side of the portrayal. Ch 22 1 “And I said, “Eternal, Mighty One! What is this picture of creation?”......Why are the people in this picture on this side and on that?”.... “ And the angel explains regarding these spirits : “those on the right side of the picture are the people set apart for me of the people with azazel; these are the ones I have prepared to be born of you and to be called my people.” The Apocalypse of Abraham 21:1-7 and 22:1-5;

This is a typical description of spirits that existed before they were placed into bodies. The angel was explaining that some of these spirits who were not yet born, were destined to be Abrahams' descendants.

And some of these book have clearer expositions of this doctrine of the ancient Jews and christians where spirits existed before they were placed into bodies at birth.

“At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, he decided to fashion all the souls which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men, and each soul was formed into the exact outline of the body she was destined to tenant. Scrutinizing each, he saw that among them some would fall into evil ways in the world. Each one in it’s due time the Holy One, be blessed, bade come to him, and then said: “Go now, descend into this that this place, into this and this body.” The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO
This same principle is true of other scriptures that speak of the spirit and its relationship to our bodies in ancient Judeo-Christian context.

If I simply quote Luke 23:46 where Jesus says, “into thy hands I commend my spirit” upon the death of his body. I might interpret this to mean that Jesus commends his spirit into the hands of God just as Ecclesiastes said the spirit returns to God.

However, If we want to know how the ancient Judeo-Christians themselves interpreted it, we may simply look at what THEY themselves said about the spirit.

R. Ishmael said : Metatron said to me : Come and I will show you the souls of the righteous who have already been created and have returned, and the souls of the righteous who have not yet been created. 3rd Enoch 43: 1-3.

Again, the Enochian literature illuminates and confirms that the soul [or spirit) is separate from the Body and it returns to God upon death, just as Ecclesiastes describes.

Though this time period and their meanings may be controversial for the modern theist who is discussing a historical meaning, this was NOT true of the ancients.

The ancient Judeo-Christiants possessed clear doctrines concerning this time period and their literature describes it clearly.

Their literature described not only the spirits leaving of the body upon death, but they possessed doctrines as to the placing of the spirit into the body. Speaking of the spirit that was going to be placed into a body at birth, napthali taught his sons :

“For just as a potter knows the pot, how much it holds, and brings clay for it accordingly, so also the Lord forms the body in correspondence to the spirit, and instills the spirit corresponding to the power of the body....And just as the potter knows the use of each vessel and to what it is suited, so also the Lord knows the body to what extent it will persist in goodness, and when it will be dominated by evil. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs- NAPTHALI 2:2-5;


Jewish Haggadah (associated with the Talmudic history) repeats the older legend in great clarity.

“The soul 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,...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 souls, saying, “Bring me the soul 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 soul, and she bows down when she appears in the presence of God, and prostrates herself before him. At that moment, God issues the command, “Enter this sperm.”

The soul is reluctant (perhaps scared) to enter the body and mortality, however God reminds this soul by saying :

“ Know, also, you will one day depart from the world below, and if you will observe God’s Torah, then will you be found worthy of sitting with these pious ones. But if not, you will be doomed to the other place.” The Haggadah (The Soul of Man)"

This doctrinal pattern is not just repeated in the ancient literature, but it is CONSISTENT in it’s repetition.

It is a consistent doctrine whether it’s sourced from ancient Jewish texts or from ancient christian texts. THIS is the framework by which THEY would look at the biblical texts.

As another example,

I may quote Gal. 5:17 where the “flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh” to show that we men have both flesh and spirit.

Just as before, if the reader lacks historical knowledge then they will still be still confronted by having to interpret the scripture according to their own bias and limited knowledge

Whereas the historian can seek for the comments of the early Christians themselves.

It so happens in this case, that there are MANY writings they have left us that tell us specifically and clearly that they did believe in the existence of a spirit that existed before man was born.

I can even look to the Talmud’s explanation of the relationship between the Body and the Spirit that was taught anciently :

“The body says, ‘The spirit sinned, for from the day it separated from me, behold, I have been lying like a silent stone in the grave.’ Also the spirit can say, ‘The body sinned, for from the day I separated from it, behold I have been flying in the air like a bird.”....So the Holy One, blessed be he, brings the spirits and placing it in the body, he also judges them as one. For it is said, ‘He will call to the heavens from above and to the earth, so he might judge his people.’ ‘He will call the the heavens from above’ – this to the spirit. ‘And the earth so he might judge his people’ The apocryphon of Exekiel Frag one quotes this explanation that comes from the version from the babylonia talmud, Sanhedrin 91a,b which I have referred to (there are multiple versions of this story)


While no one can prove the objective truth of where the spirit goes after the body dies, we can demonstrate conclusively, that the early Judeo-Christians believed and taught these things and they ARE in the bible and we can demonstrate what such words as “pneuma” meant to them and how such words were used by them.

However, if one can see the early Christian doctrines FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS, then one can better understand scriptures that refer to the spirit in man in the way THEY understood them. So while historical context is not particularly important in living a moral and good life, it becomes important if one is going to make historical statements regarding the meaning of such historical texts as

Ps. 16:10 (or Acts 2:27, 31) where the psalmist rejoices that God “thou wilt not leave my spirit in hell”
James 4:5 spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy
Job 14:22 his spirit within him shall mourn
Ps. 22:29 none can keep alive his own spirit
Matt. 10:28 fear him which is able to destroy both spirit and body
James 1:21 engrafted word, which is able to save your spirit
1 Pet. 1:22 ye have purified your spirit in obeying
Ezek. 11:19 (36:26–27; 37:14) I will put a new spirit within you
Luke 24:39 spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me
Acts 7:59 Stephen ... saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit
Acts 23:8 Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit
Rom. 8:16 spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit
1 Cor. 6:20 glorify God in your body, and in your spirit

In any case, whether you become interested in gaining historical knowledge or not Deeje, I hope your own spiritual journey is insightful and wonderful.

Clear
εισιδρτζω

 

[Deeje]

@Clear Again with the reams of irrelevant quotations. When you quote what is not scripture (apocryphal works or even the Talmud) you are demonstrating where your views originate. I have no real interest in those references because they are irrelevant to my views. Scripture is scripture for a reason......if you cannot use scripture to prove your case, then you prove it only to yourself.

As you may be aware, all that masquerades as “history” is not always accurate because it is man’s view of the past, not God’s. It is recorded through biased perspectives. White history of the treatment of “conquered” indigenous peoples the world over are grossly inaccurate from the indigenous person’s perspective. These could re-write history with a completely different story. So...who's perspective is the truth?

As my brother has so clearly demonstrated, using these scriptures that you have quoted alone, your interpretation of the way the ancients understood their own scripture is not what you assume, but was corrupted in later periods as Jesus clearly stated that it was, and would be in the future.....and which you apparently choose to ignore.

This is not just a difference of opinion, it is a life and death decision because the command in Revelation 18:4-5 means that we are either IN "Babylon the great" or we have heeded to command to "get out of her". Where are you?

 

[Deeje]

To be sure it's not just me, @Deeje do you find that Clear has accepted the answers we have given her as JWs' teachings, and has she demonstrated that she clearly understands, or does it seem to you she is conflating what we explain by her own, or other ideas? What are your thoughts?

Its like beating your head against a brick wall, isn't it?.....but completely understandable when you consider that, if our understanding is correct, and Clear is not "clear" at all in her understanding of scripture because of the distraction created by her chosen sources, I can see no possible benefit in continuing to create the headache.

Time to shake the dust off and hope that anyone who has been following this thread will see the "clear" separation of the "wheat" from the "weeds"......which would become obvious only at the harvest time. The reapers are standing at the ready waiting for their instructions......bring it on....we've done our best.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Deeje


THE EARLY CHRISTIAN PREDICTION OF MULTIPLE SCHIZMS AND APOSTASY FROM ORIGINAL RELIGION


Deeje,

Once you attempted to dismiss the Early Christians and their views by labelling them as “apostates”, surely you realized that there was going to be some contextual discordance.
While you call the early Christians “apostates”, you must see that they predicted YOUR schizm as apostates who changed their text, they predicted YOUR dismissal of their witnesses, and they eschewed YOUR new re-interpretation of their gospel as part OF that apostasy they predicted.

Of course their literature contains some uncomfortable historical push-back.



REGARDING THE ORIGINATION OF EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND THE ROLE OF THEIR VAST SUPPORTING LITERATURE

Deeje, (post #114) said : “When you quote what is not scripture (apocryphal works or even the Talmud) you are demonstrating where your views originate. “

This is another historically incoherent conclusion.

Of course the early Christians did not originate the ancient Gospel from the Talmud or from their early Literature.

In much the same manner that Jehovahs witnesses produce literature such as the Watch Tower magazine, pamphlets, internal memos, and so forth, the early Christians also produced similar types of literature which also served to explain and to witness to others about the ancient Gospel.


The Early Christians did much the same as you.
They read scripture such as Ecclesiates 12:7 which said regarding the death of the person : Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (Ecclesiates 12:7) “και επιστρεψη ο χους επι την γεν ως και το πνευμα επιστρεψη προς τον θεον ος εδωκεν αυτο”

Such doctrines originated in the main, from sacred literary traditions and subsequent literature supported the scriptures and the scriptural witness.


YOU, yourself have demonstrated the model of their behavior.

1) You read the scripture
2) You considered what the text means to you or to your religious movement . And then
3) You wrote down what the scripture means to you (or your movement).
You wrote :

“Returning the "spirit" (breath) to a resurrected human is what Ecclesiastes means.” (Deeje, post #91)

The early Christians simply did the same thing you and your movement are doing.

1) They read thee scripture.
2) They considered what the text meant to them or to the early Christian movement. And then
3) They wrote down what the scripture meant to them (or to the early Christian movement).
They said :

"When Ecclesiates says the spirit returns to God who gave it, it means that the spirit returns to God who gave it. (i.e. it means just what it says).

They said the scripture meant that at death, the body died and returned to the dust and the spirit within man returned to God where it originated.

And, they produced a LOT of literature that witnessed to their belief and said the same thing to many cultures in many ways.

So, when the early Christians wrote : “And then the spirit of our blessed brother leaves the body in which it had settled; and with joy far removed from mourning it approaches and comes to the holy angels and ascends up to God with joy. History of the Rechabites 15:9-10

They are simply witnessing to their interpretation of and belief in the scripture. This doesn’t replace scripture just as the Jehovahs Witness Watch Tower or their pamplets replace scripture. It explains and witnesses to the ancient Christian gospel and it’s interpretation and their teaching.

For example, when Ezra 7 says “Now, concerning death, the teaching is: When the decisive decree has gone forth from the Most High that a man shall die, as the spirit leaves the body to return again to him who gave it, first of all it adores the glory of the Most High. And if it is one of those who have shown scorn and have not kept the way of the Most High, and who have despised his Law, and who have hated those who fear God … such spirits shall not enter into habitations, but shall immediately wander about in torments....” (4th Ezra 75-87)

Such texts did not replace scripture, but instead, was their written witness that Ecclesiastes meant (to them), just what the scripture said and it explained the meaning of the scripture to them. Again, this is the same purpose for which the Jehovahs Witnesses create similar literature.

When the text relates the early tradition that has God tells Ezra : “… fear not death. For that which is from me, that is the soul, departs for heaven. That which is from the earth, that is the body, departs for the earth from which it was taken.” The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 6:26 & 7:1-4

This text is not replacing the same witness in Old Testament Ecclesiates 12:7, but it is yet another written witness that Ecclesiastes meant what it said and that (to them) it was a true doctrine.

Part of the reason that the early Judeo-Christians wrote down their witness to Ecclesiates 12:7 and many, many other doctrines, was that they could foresee a day when schizms would arise that denied these early doctrines and created systemic religions that no longer believed in these ancient doctrines.

This is why, when YOU brought up the concept of apostasy, historically, it was ironic to have to point out that those predictions applied to later Christian movements and that
your movement was among those that abandoned such early doctrines.

You cannot simply claim early Christians were all apostates without some historical push back.


Again, the early Christians testify and witness to the doctrine that mankind has a spirit within them and that at death, the body returns to the dust of the earth and that spirit returns to the God who gave it (Ecclesiates 12:7)

Here is another early Christian description of this process :

And while we are looking at that holy and spotless spirit, the holy angels carry it away and salute it, and thus it ascends and goes up from us in glory....1b And when the highest order of cherubim and seraphim receive it, they rise to the gate of the holy Trinity. Then the Son of God receives that spirit from their hands and brings it (forward) so that it may worship the father....7a And then God sends that spirit to a stately mansion (to await) the day of resurrection for (the rest of our) community. History of the Rechabites 16:1; 1b,7;


In ancient Judeo-Christian religion, Adam and all others had a spirit inside their body which was given them from God. In their religion, at death, the body returned to the earth and the spirit returned to God just as the text of Ecclesiastes 12:7 said to them.


I will be traveling tomorrow and won't be able to get to other points until I return tomorrow night or perhaps Sunday.

In any case, I hope you and nPeace have wonderful spiritual journeys in this life.


Clear
εισινεδρω

 

[nPeace]

Its like beating your head against a brick wall, isn't it?.....but completely understandable when you consider that, if our understanding is correct, and Clear is not "clear" at all in her understanding of scripture because of the distraction created by her chosen sources, I can see no possible benefit in continuing to create the headache.

Time to shake the dust off and hope that anyone who has been following this thread will see the "clear" separation of the "wheat" from the "weeds"......which would become obvious only at the harvest time. The reapers are standing at the ready waiting for their instructions......bring it on....we've done our best.

It's not so much the misunderstanding scripture that I am concerned about. We know that's the case with the vastly greater percent.
I am more concerned with if Clear is interested in the answers she gets to her questions. If a person is asking questions concerning the beliefs of another... getting the answer, but then telling the person that they believe things totally different from what the person said, that's strange to me.
It doesn't indicate that the person wants to know what the respondents believe.
So I would have to agree with you. There would be no benefit in such an exercise.

By the way, did you delete one of your posts?
I keep seeing Clear state this... “Returning the "spirit" (breath) to a resurrected human is what Ecclesiastes means.” (Deeje, post #91)

I see post #91, wich is my post, but I can't even find the quote in any of your posts in this thread.
I hope Clear is not quoting from another thread, since that's against the rules, but I am sure there is again, a misunderstanding.

So don't hurt your head.

 

[Deeje]

It's not so much the misunderstanding scripture that I am concerned about. We know that's the case with the vastly greater percent.
I am more concerned with if Clear is interested in the answers she gets to her questions. If a person is asking questions concerning the beliefs of another... getting the answer, but then telling the person that they believe things totally different from what the person said, that's strange to me.
It doesn't indicate that the person wants to know what the respondents believe.
So I would have to agree with you. There would be no benefit in such an exercise.

I see post #91, wich is my post, but I can't even find the quote in any of your posts in this thread.
I hope Clear is not quoting from another thread, since that's against the rules, but I am sure there is again, a misunderstanding.

So don't hurt your head.

Do you get the impression that it was a loaded question aimed at promoting her own view under the guise of an inquiry? I get the feeling that she is really not at all interested in what we believe....I guess we’ll just let Jesus do his job....not our problem....

She is entitled to her viewpoint, so let’s see if Jesus agrees with it?
Shaking the dust off.... moving on....

 

[nPeace]

Do you get the impression that it was a loaded question aimed at promoting her own view under the guise of an inquiry? I get the feeling that she is really not at all interested in what we believe....I guess we’ll just let Jesus do his job....not our problem....

She is entitled to her viewpoint, so let’s see if Jesus agrees with it?
Shaking the dust off.... moving on....

"I get the feeling that she is really not at all interested in what we believe"
Thanks for clarifying. That's exactly what I am seeing.

I'd better get abreast of you. I was following you, but I'm getting all the dust in my face.

Take care @Clear.
Whenever you have a change of heart about listening, just ping (PM).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Clear , hope you are well, my cousin.
I would not stick too closely to ancient Judaic views.
The reason is, they were not in agreement even with each other.

The Scriptures (in the Bible's canon) tell us this: the Pharisees believed in a Resurrection...the Sadducees didn't.

What does that tell us?