Resurrection of the mentally incapacitated in Jehovahs Witness resurrection theory

[Bree]

I would suggest that that is impossible to define.
As in the past, we choose what ever meets our criterion and expectations.

It is said that the new testament bible books were chosen as to their authorship connection to the Apostles.
However it has since be shown that none of them have a proven connection and most if not all were written by others.

All the actual Authors were men. and all the selectors were men. neither God nor Jesus were involved in the writing or choices. Some books like Revelation have been both in and out of the canon.
And not all churches subscribe to the same canon or number of books.

There has never been a consistent way to define or choose "Holy Writings"

Have you ever noticed that, while reading the bible, the writer often makes references to other bible books or quotes verses from other books?

If you've noticed that, then one thing you might consider is why those writers never quote from apocryphal sources. There is something to be said about that.

I think we need to trust that the 12 apostles, whom Jesus assigned, were capable of ensuring inspired writings became the basis for the new Christian congregations. Those writings were the 4 gospels, the letters of Paul, Acts and the smaller books written by those who were from among that group such as James and Jude etc.

Jesus gave these men instructions and holy spirit. Those books of the 'original' canon are all we need because they were holy spirit inspired. Apocryphal books are nothing except interesting from an historical perspective but i really dont think they can be classed in with the original christian scriptures.

 

[David Davidovich]

Have you ever noticed that, while reading the bible, the writer often makes references to other bible books or quotes verses from other books?

If you've noticed that, then one thing you might consider is why those writers never quote from apocryphal sources. There is something to be said about that.

Sorry, Bree, but that's not true...

However, as already mentioned, it’s said that instead of quoting [the literal Enoch...(my insertion)] Enoch-the-seventh-from-Adam, Jude is actually quoting from the Book of Enoch. Here’s the section from the book of Enoch that is said to be quoted by Jude:​

1 Enoch 1:91 Behold, he comes with the myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all flesh for all the wicked deeds that they have done, and the proud and hard words that wicked sinners spoke against him.
​

That’s pretty much spot on. There’s just no getting around it – the text is very, very similar indeed. To say that one isn’t quoting the other is a real stretch.​

click here: Does Jude quote Enoch? - Biblical Historical Context

 

[Eli G]

Did Jude believe that the book known today as "The Book of Enoch" was written by Enoch? What do we know about that book?

So: was Jude quoting from "The Book of Enoch" or was he quoting from Enoch? How did he know what Enoch said?

 

[Bree]

Sorry, Bree, but that's not true...

However, as already mentioned, it’s said that instead of quoting [the literal Enoch...(my insertion)] Enoch-the-seventh-from-Adam, Jude is actually quoting from the Book of Enoch. Here’s the section from the book of Enoch that is said to be quoted by Jude:​

1 Enoch 1:91 Behold, he comes with the myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all flesh for all the wicked deeds that they have done, and the proud and hard words that wicked sinners spoke against him.
​

That’s pretty much spot on. There’s just no getting around it – the text is very, very similar indeed. To say that one isn’t quoting the other is a real stretch.​

click here: Does Jude quote Enoch? - Biblical Historical Context

I dont think that provides conclusive proof that Jude quoted from the apochrypal book of enoch.

That account about enoch would have been well known to people of the Jewish faith and there is evidence that they had oral stories handed down from generation to generation. The story about Enoch may have included such a statement as a judgement against the wicked. There is another example of Paul naming the two egyption priests from the days of Moses yet those names are not mentioned in the bible.

So its really circumstantial and Jude could have got the information from other sources,.... perhaps the writer of the book got the information from the same source as jude.

 

[David Davidovich]

Did Jude believe that the book known today as "The Book of Enoch" was written by Enoch? What do we know about that book?

So: was Jude quoting from "The Book of Enoch" or was he quoting from Enoch? How did he know what Enoch said?

I just explained that in my previous post.

 

[David Davidovich]

I dont think that provides conclusive proof that Jude quoted from the apochrypal book of enoch.

That account about enoch would have been well known to people of the Jewish faith and there is evidence that they had oral stories handed down from generation to generation. The story about Enoch may have included such a statement as a judgement against the wicked.

The oral stories about Enoch may have included such a statement? So, what exactly do you know about the apocrypha Book of Enoch? And what exactly do you know about the content of the oral stories handed down about Enoch from generation to generation? Or is that just speculation on your part? Because anyone could say that the information in the Book of Enoch may have come from the content in Jewish oral traditions in order to defend their viewpoint.

There is another example of Paul naming the two egyption priests from the days of Moses yet those names are not mentioned in the bible.

So its really circumstantial and Jude could have got the information from other sources,.... perhaps the writer of the book got the information from the same source as jude.

So, you are suggesting that Jude may have gotten his information from the same place that the writer of the Book of Enoch got his information? Sorry, but that sounds like a stretch to me.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Have you ever noticed that, while reading the bible, the writer often makes references to other bible books or quotes verses from other books?

If you've noticed that, then one thing you might consider is why those writers never quote from apocryphal sources. There is something to be said about that.

I think we need to trust that the 12 apostles, whom Jesus assigned, were capable of ensuring inspired writings became the basis for the new Christian congregations. Those writings were the 4 gospels, the letters of Paul, Acts and the smaller books written by those who were from among that group such as James and Jude etc.

Jesus gave these men instructions and holy spirit. Those books of the 'original' canon are all we need because they were holy spirit inspired. Apocryphal books are nothing except interesting from an historical perspective but i really dont think they can be classed in with the original christian scriptures.

That is not correct, existing books even reference writings that do not exist any more.
Books from the Apocrypha are used in the regular cyclical readings of both the Catholic and Anglican churches. And other churches that share their liturgy.
The twelve Apostles had no part in the selection of the Bible Canon nor the liturgy. Neither was established till long after their death.

 

[Bree]

The oral stories about Enoch may have included such a statement? So, what exactly do you know about the apocrypha Book of Enoch? And what exactly do you know about the content of the oral stories handed down about Enoch from generation to generation? Or is that just speculation on your part? Because anyone could say that the information in the Book of Enoch may have come from the content in Jewish oral traditions in order to defend their viewpoint.

Yes, its reasonable to believe that the preaching of Enoch and his judgement was passed on orally. Noah was related to Enoch and was a contemporary. Noah was also a preacher and surely knew of what enoch had said and this information he would have passed onto his sons, one be Shem who was the forefather of the jewish people. There is nothing unusual about oral stories...its a human trait to tell our kids the stories of our forefathers

So, you are suggesting that Jude may have gotten his information from the same place that the writer of the Book of Enoch got his information? Sorry, but that sounds like a stretch to me.

just saying, brought up by jewish parents in a jewish society who all listen to the same stories from the past. Its not a stretch.

 

[Bree]

That is not correct, existing books even reference writings that do not exist any more.

As does the bible... When Moses was composing his writings, he got information from such sources too. .
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.+ 2 Male and female he created them.+

People have been writing accounts about their day since before the flood but it doesnt mean their writings are from God. Those writings are not inspired, but they are useful for people to get the facts and historical information from. But the book of Enoch was certainly not written pre flood...it didsnt exist until around the 3rd century bce so to claim it was written by Enoch is already a red flag that it is not a book inspired by God.....God does not and 'cannot' lie.

Books from the Apocrypha are used in the regular cyclical readings of both the Catholic and Anglican churches. And other churches that share their liturgy.
The twelve Apostles had no part in the selection of the Bible Canon nor the liturgy. Neither was established till long after their death.

That sounds really bad. Just sayin lol

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

As does the bible... When Moses was composing his writings, he got information from such sources too. .
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.+ 2 Male and female he created them.+

People have been writing accounts about their day since before the flood but it doesnt mean their writings are from God. Those writings are not inspired, but they are useful for people to get the facts and historical information from. But the book of Enoch was certainly not written pre flood...it didsnt exist until around the 3rd century bce so to claim it was written by Enoch is already a red flag that it is not a book inspired by God.....God does not and 'cannot' lie.



That sounds really bad. Just sayin lol

Why bad?

That is just the way it all happened. It is not thought that the twelve Apostles wrote anything. However it is fairly certain that Paul wrote at least some of the work attributed to him. In the same way only Some of the books of Moses were written by him.

Works like Revelation while attributed to a John have no actual provenance. It is the only book in the Bible that is apocalyptic.

There is no test as to determine which books and writings are inspired by God.

There is no reason to suppose that the writings of the late bronze age and earlier are any more inspired by God than new writings today.

 

[Eli G]

I just explained that in my previous post.

Why do you think not even Jews consider that book as part of the inspired Scriptures?

 

[Bree]

Why bad?

That is just the way it all happened. It is not thought that the twelve Apostles wrote anything. However it is fairly certain that Paul wrote at least some of the work attributed to him. In the same way only Some of the books of Moses were written by him.

The earliest church established the authenticity of the christian scriptures. . From as far back as Papias of Hierapolis (early second century C.E.) onward, testifies that Matthew wrote this Gospel of Matthew for one example.

The gospel of Mark (not an apostle) was most likely dictated to by the Apostle Peter whom Mark was very closely associated. Papias, Origen, and Tertullian all state that the source of Marks information came directly from the Apostle Peter.

The Gospel of Luke does not name its writer, but the earliest ancient authorities are agreed that he was the write by second-century writers such as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. And the Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 C.E.) names him as the writer.

The letters of Peter state in the opening words that he was the writer and Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian all quote the letter, naming Peter as writer.

The letters of John and Revelation were never in question by the earliest church. The letters of John are attested to in the Muratorian Fragment and by such early writers as Irenaeus, Polycarp, and Papias, all of the second century C.E. According to Eusebius (c. 260-342 C.E.), the authenticity of First John was never questioned.

So this is why I say it 'sounds bad' that the church people of today are even questioning the validity of the writings of Jesus 12 Apostles. I mean, those writings are the foundation (the 12 foundation stones) of the Christian faith. The try and discredit those apostles must be absolutely heart breaking to Jesus seeing he set them as the ones to whom we should learn from. How sad that the chruch leaders of today feel they are above the 12 Apostles.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The earliest church established the authenticity of the christian scriptures. . From as far back as Papias of Hierapolis (early second century C.E.) onward, testifies that Matthew wrote this Gospel of Matthew for one example.

The gospel of Mark (not an apostle) was most likely dictated to by the Apostle Peter whom Mark was very closely associated. Papias, Origen, and Tertullian all state that the source of Marks information came directly from the Apostle Peter.

The Gospel of Luke does not name its writer, but the earliest ancient authorities are agreed that he was the write by second-century writers such as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. And the Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 C.E.) names him as the writer.

The letters of Peter state in the opening words that he was the writer and Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian all quote the letter, naming Peter as writer.

The letters of John and Revelation were never in question by the earliest church. The letters of John are attested to in the Muratorian Fragment and by such early writers as Irenaeus, Polycarp, and Papias, all of the second century C.E. According to Eusebius (c. 260-342 C.E.), the authenticity of First John was never questioned.

So this is why I say it 'sounds bad' that the church people of today are even questioning the validity of the writings of Jesus 12 Apostles. I mean, those writings are the foundation (the 12 foundation stones) of the Christian faith. The try and discredit those apostles must be absolutely heart breaking to Jesus seeing he set them as the ones to whom we should learn from. How sad that the chruch leaders of today feel they are above the 12 Apostles.

The work of the apostles Is witnessed by their missionary work and witness to Jesus.

While they may have links to some of the biblical writings, there is no evidence from their contemporaries that they wrote anything. It is only in the third century that links start to be testified.
This lack of links and evidence to writings is not denigrating the apostles in anyway.
They like Jesus wrote nothing that we are aware of.
After two hundred years no one living had personal evidence of anything relating to the apostles.

No proof does not me that something did not happen. It simple means that there is no proof one way or another.

 

[cataway]

My question seeks to compare Christian theology that believes in an intelligent spirit placed into a body with Christian theology that believes there is no spirit inside the biological body.


I was sent and read a pamphlet sent to me from a Jehovahs Witness friend regarding the world mankind will ultimately live in should they make it into God’s kingdom after this life. My question regards what happens to the mentally incapable in Jehovah’s Witness theology?


1) The context of the question in “spirit & body” vs “spiritless body” theology :

In a religious debates thread the concept came up regarding the ultimate status of those who died and were later resurrected and ended up “saved” in God’s kingdom in the context of J.W. theology (hereafter called “spiritless body theology”.)

It was explained that in “spiritless body” J.W. theology, there is no spirit in an individual that has an existence independent of the body. All intelligence, emotions and thoughts reside inside the physical body and once the body dies then all that is part of that body decays and is gone.

This is different than the Theology that believes in an intelligent and cognizant spirit that exists independent of the body it is placed in (hereafter called “spirit& body theology”). In “spirit & body” theology, the body may die and decay after death but the spirit with it’s attendant characteristics such as intelligence and emotion and memories continues on just as when the body was alive.


2) The resurrection in “spirit & Body” vs “spiritless body” theology

It was further explained that, in “spiritless body” Jehovahs Witness version of this theology, if that deceased is among those who are ultimately “saved” in God’s kingdom, God will then create (or re-create) that person who died and place within this second body all the memories and characteristics that had been associated with the first body that had been created. (i.e. an exact duplicate of the first person who lived and died and whose body decayed).


In the case of the mentally incapable (those without sufficient mental functioning to make moral choices, store memories, create typical relationships, etc., If they are among those who died but are resurrected and are saved, will God simply reproduce the copy of the person with defects included (I suspect not), or will he create another person similar to the prior defective person but without the same mental defects and save this different person?


In ancient (and most modern) “spirit & body” Christian theology, there is a spirit placed into each person which is immortal and separate from the body. In this model, the spirit itself may have no defect but the bodily manifestations of mental incapacities are with the body it inhabits.

In this case, the intelligent spirit can remain the same in the resurrection and it is merely the body which is modified and changed to allow for the resurrected person to manifest normal characteristics.


In “spiritless body” theology such as the Jehovahs Witness version (if there are other Christian versions?) if God modifies the “spiritless body” in the resurrection, then it is a different person with different characteristics that is being saved, (and not the original).

In typical “spirit & body” of early Christianity, this sort of conundrum does not exist. The original spirit whose body was defective is simply given a perfect body and thus, the original spirit with it’s original identity is saved.


Is there a Jehovahs Witness who can explain how this might work inside “spiritless body” theology. That is, is the original person with mental incapacities re-created after death with the same mental incapacities (and thus the original personality is saved) or will God change the mental status and recreate a different personality and intelligence and emotional being to save in the place of the defective one?



Thank you for any explanations that you can give.

Clear
τζ

i get the feeling you dont like the thought of being dead

 

[Eli G]

(...)

"Spiritless body" theory or theology does not exist.

The point is: what is/are the meaning(-s) of the word "spirit" in the Bible?

JWs recognize that human beings have "spirit" inside; otherwise they would be uncapable to function. That is the energy that we have inside our bodies since the very first moment we begin to exist as beings in our mother's womb.

The first time we adquired spirit was when our first parents were created.

Gen. 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.

Since then we adquire that capacity genetically, later from our mother, then from what we eat ... It is the energy that if we don't have, we'll naturally die.

So, are we JWs believers of any "spiritless theology"? NO, as you can see. Actually, the Scriptures say that animals have spirit too.

 

[Clear]

THE ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIAN CONCEPT THAT AN INTELLIGENT SPIRIT EXISTS WITHIN THE BODY THAT EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF THE BODY

Hi @Bree and @cataway and @Eli G and @Terrywoodenpic

1) Jehovahs Witness theology regarding spiritless bodies cannot survive in historical Judeo-Christianity but must remain inside dogmatic interpretation

Bree said : “If you've noticed that, then one thing you might consider is why those writers never quote from apocryphal sources. (post #21)

This naïve claim that the writers never quote from sources outside of the modern, western, biblical canon is incorrect and is NOT what Historians have noticed.
The insistence for direct quotes is a naïve historical assumption as well.
To try to re-context historical references to be friendly to a non-historical theory cannot be done by simply dismissing a single reference among the thousands that exist.


A) There are profound and deep parallels and interdependence between biblical and extra-biblical literature.

There are (literally) thousands of parallels and interdependence between the various canonic literatures and Judeo-Christian literature that is not in the modern, western, protestant biblical canon.

For example delemarters demonstrates that there are more than 200 specific parallels to Jewish epigraphs just in New Testament John alone.
This is not counting Christian epigraphs and Christian genres of ancient literature.
One cannot have that many specific verse to verse parallels without having a historical association between texts. And similar parallels exist in almost every New Testament book.

Similar parallels are noted for Old Testament books as well. Lawrence, in his independent list of Ethiopic Enoch noted 128 doctrinal references to Old and New testament themes.
As historical texts demonstrate and historians of the texts have known for years, direct quotes are not needed to show correlation and interdependence of ancient textual themes.

The claim that you make as a non-historian represents historical naivete and an anachronistic context to approaching religious history.


B) Jehovahs Witness Theology on this point cannot survive in the world of historical literature but must remain in the world of dogmatic interpretation of the later text.

Your claim gives us yet another example why the Jehovahs Witness theology and its movement must remain the world of provincial dogmatic interpretation of their text rather and cannot survive inside the world of early Judeo-Christian history and its texts.

For example, the Ancient Judeo-Christian description that individuals have a spirit within them that is cognizant and intelligent and emotional and exists independent of the body exists throughout much of the ancient Judeo-Christian literature including the biblical text (as demonstrated in posts, 10, 11 and 12) but the relatively modern Jehovahs Witness theory did not exist in ancient literature and only can exist inside the bible if one uses Jehovahs Witness dogmatic interpretation.

Their J.W. theology regarding the lack of a separate spirit simply does not appear in the earliest ancient Mishnaic Judeo-Christian literature where Jews and Christians explain their beliefs.


C) Jehovahs Witness reinterpretation of “spirit” as “breath” creates incoherent and irrational text if applied to ancient Judeo-Christian literature

And, as demonstrated in posts #17 and 18, one cannot use the Jehovahs Witness interpretation of spirit simply as the “breath” in ancient Judeo-Christian literature.
So, J.W. theological theory on this doctrine is entirely dependent upon using the J.W. interpretation but one cannot use the J.W. interpretation in the ancient texts and have rational and logical translations.
The two theologies are historically incoherent.




HISTORY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT OUR THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS

Hi @cataway :

Cataway said : “i get the feeling you dont like the thought of being dead” (post #34)

I don’t think history cares what our feelings are.
Your conclusion seems illogical and irrational inside a discussion of historical Judeo-Christianity and how they described their early beliefs.
I do think the ancient Judeo-Christians themselves would not like their witness to be re-contexted and spun differently by the development of a religious theory that once a person is dead, the original person is gone and the original person cannot be saved in heaven.



IS THIS A JEHOVAHS WITNESS WHO DOES BELIEVE AN INTELLIGENT SPIRIT EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF THE BODY?

Hi @Eli G

Clear, in the OP said : “It was explained that in “spiritless body” J.W. theology, there is no spirit in an individual that has an existence independent of the body.”
Eli G. said : “So, are we JWs believers of any "spiritless theology"? NO, as you can see.” (post #35)

If you are being serious and this is not a matter of “semantics” or “bait and switch”, then are you saying that in Jehovahs Witness theology teaches that there IS a spirit in an individual that has an existence independent of the body similar to ancient Judeo-Christianity that believed that individuals had spirits within them that existed independent of the physical body (as was pointed out in posts #10, #11, and #12)?


Clear
σιεισεω

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

THE ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIAN CONCEPT THAT AN INTELLIGENT SPIRIT EXISTS WITHIN THE BODY THAT EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF THE BODY

Hi @Bree and @cataway and @Eli G and @Terrywoodenpic

1) Jehovahs Witness theology regarding spiritless bodies cannot survive in historical Judeo-Christianity but must remain inside dogmatic interpretation

Bree said : “If you've noticed that, then one thing you might consider is why those writers never quote from apocryphal sources. (post #21)

This naïve claim that the writers never quote from sources outside of the modern, western, biblical canon is incorrect and is NOT what Historians have noticed.
The insistence for direct quotes is a naïve historical assumption as well.
To try to re-context historical references to be friendly to a non-historical theory cannot be done by simply dismissing a single reference among the thousands that exist.


A) There are profound and deep parallels and interdependence between biblical and extra-biblical literature.

There are (literally) thousands of parallels and interdependence between the various canonic literatures and Judeo-Christian literature that is not in the modern, western, protestant biblical canon.

For example delemarters demonstrates that there are more than 200 specific parallels to Jewish epigraphs just in New Testament John alone.
This is not counting Christian epigraphs and Christian genres of ancient literature.
One cannot have that many specific verse to verse parallels without having a historical association between texts. And similar parallels exist in almost every New Testament book.

Similar parallels are noted for Old Testament books as well. Lawrence, in his independent list of Ethiopic Enoch noted 128 doctrinal references to Old and New testament themes.
As historical texts demonstrate and historians of the texts have known for years, direct quotes are not needed to show correlation and interdependence of ancient textual themes.

The claim that you make as a non-historian represents historical naivete and an anachronistic context to approaching religious history.


B) Jehovahs Witness Theology on this point cannot survive in the world of historical literature but must remain in the world of dogmatic interpretation of the later text.

Your claim gives us yet another example why the Jehovahs Witness theology and its movement must remain the world of provincial dogmatic interpretation of their text rather and cannot survive inside the world of early Judeo-Christian history and its texts.

For example, the Ancient Judeo-Christian description that individuals have a spirit within them that is cognizant and intelligent and emotional and exists independent of the body exists throughout much of the ancient Judeo-Christian literature including the biblical text (as demonstrated in posts, 10, 11 and 12) but the relatively modern Jehovahs Witness theory did not exist in ancient literature and only can exist inside the bible if one uses Jehovahs Witness dogmatic interpretation.

Their J.W. theology regarding the lack of a separate spirit simply does not appear in the earliest ancient Mishnaic Judeo-Christian literature where Jews and Christians explain their beliefs.


C) Jehovahs Witness reinterpretation of “spirit” as “breath” creates incoherent and irrational text if applied to ancient Judeo-Christian literature

And, as demonstrated in posts #17 and 18, one cannot use the Jehovahs Witness interpretation of spirit simply as the “breath” in ancient Judeo-Christian literature.
So, J.W. theological theory on this doctrine is entirely dependent upon using the J.W. interpretation but one cannot use the J.W. interpretation in the ancient texts and have rational and logical translations.
The two theologies are historically incoherent.




HISTORY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT OUR THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS

Hi @cataway :

Cataway said : “i get the feeling you dont like the thought of being dead” (post #34)

I don’t think history cares what our feelings are.
Your conclusion seems illogical and irrational inside a discussion of historical Judeo-Christianity and how they described their early beliefs.
I do think the ancient Judeo-Christians themselves would not like their witness to be re-contexted and spun differently by the development of a religious theory that once a person is dead, the original person is gone and the original person cannot be saved in heaven.



IS THIS A JEHOVAHS WITNESS WHO DOES BELIEVE AN INTELLIGENT SPIRIT EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF THE BODY?

Hi @Eli G

Clear, in the OP said : “It was explained that in “spiritless body” J.W. theology, there is no spirit in an individual that has an existence independent of the body.”
Eli G. said : “So, are we JWs believers of any "spiritless theology"? NO, as you can see.” (post #35)

If you are being serious and this is not a matter of “semantics” or “bait and switch”, then are you saying that in Jehovahs Witness theology teaches that there IS a spirit in an individual that has an existence independent of the body similar to ancient Judeo-Christianity that believed that individuals had spirits within them that existed independent of the physical body (as was pointed out in posts #10, #11, and #12)?


Clear
σιεισεω

I hardly think it is necessary to go all out on the JW front.
Most people would accept that their interpretation of the scriptures is very much their own.
To the extreme of authoring their own version of the Bible which matches more closely their own dogma.

It follows with little surprise, that their Ideas on body and spirit present a unique take on the subject.

Unless they break free and become ex JWs, there is little chance that they will be permitted to believe any differently.

 

[Eli G]

THE ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIAN CONCEPT THAT AN INTELLIGENT SPIRIT EXISTS WITHIN THE BODY THAT EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF THE BODY
(...)
1) Jehovahs Witness theology regarding spiritless bodies cannot survive in historical Judeo-Christianity but must remain inside dogmatic interpretation
(...)
A) There are profound and deep parallels and interdependence between biblical and extra-biblical literature.
(...)
B) Jehovahs Witness Theology on this point cannot survive in the world of historical literature but must remain in the world of dogmatic interpretation of the later text.
(...)
C) Jehovahs Witness reinterpretation of “spirit” as “breath” creates incoherent and irrational text if applied to ancient Judeo-Christian literature
(...)
HISTORY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT OUR THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS
(...)
IS THIS A JEHOVAHS WITNESS WHO DOES BELIEVE AN INTELLIGENT SPIRIT EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF THE BODY?
(...)

Thank you for your extensive comment on your historical-theological analysis of religious beliefs about the state of the dead.

The truth is that we Jehovah's Witnesses only study and believe what the Scriptures teach.

You apparently forgot that Jehovah never taught the Israelites about an afterlife. He told them things like this:

Dan. 12:13 “But as for you, go on to the end. You will rest, but you will stand up for your lot at the end of the days.”

Neither did Jesus, Jehovah's Son. He said something like this:

John 5:28 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 (...)

... so he will call dead to live out of the tombs. Wow, how much power! That should not be too dificult for him, because he saw when Jehovah created a man from dust ... and he already showed how it's done, when called Lazarus out of the tomb (John 11).

Paul did not belief any of that either. Look what he believed:

1 Cor. 15:12 Now if it is being preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how is it that some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If, indeed, there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised up. 14 But if Christ has not been raised up, our preaching is certainly in vain, and your faith is also in vain. 15 Moreover, we are also found to be false witnesses of God, because we have given witness against God by saying that he raised up the Christ, whom he did not raise up if the dead are really not to be raised up. 16 For if the dead are not to be raised up, neither has Christ been raised up. 17 Further, if Christ has not been raised up, your faith is useless; you remain in your sins. 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in death in union with Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are to be pitied more than anyone.

Wow! Paul is saying that if people are not going to be resurrected then it was all a waste of time. He knew very well what he was talking about, cause he said:

1 Thess. 4:15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord. 18 So keep comforting one another with these words.

All of them knew this:

Psal. 6:5 For in death there is no mention of you;
In the Grave, who will praise you?

Oh, yessss, there were billions and billions of persons who believed and still do that dead people are alive somewhere ... but they are not persons who know what the Bible really teaches and that is why we, Jehovah's witnesses, must go and tell them the truth (Matt. 28:19,20) before time runs out (Matt. 24:14).

 

[Bree]

The insistence for direct quotes is a naïve historical assumption as well.
To try to re-context historical references to be friendly to a non-historical theory cannot be done by simply dismissing a single reference among the thousands that exist.

I've read the bible many times and i have not seen 'thousands' of quotes to apocrhypal texts. Would you like to present more then just the one mentioned from the book of Jude?

A) There are profound and deep parallels and interdependence between biblical and extra-biblical literature.

There are (literally) thousands of parallels and interdependence between the various canonic literatures and Judeo-Christian literature that is not in the modern, western, protestant biblical canon.

For example delemarters demonstrates that there are more than 200 specific parallels to Jewish epigraphs just in New Testament John alone.

The bible was written by Jews...of course things from every day life will be seen in the writings of the early christian canon writers and other uninspired, non christians who wrote things about the christians. When you live at the same time and see the same things you are bound to use similar expressions and narratives. But that does not mean that non christian writings should form a part of Christian scripture. Same goes for the OT writings.... if an apochryphal text speaks of something in the bible such as the Quran for example, it does not prove association

B) Jehovahs Witness Theology on this point cannot survive in the world of historical literature but must remain in the world of dogmatic interpretation of the later text.

Your claim gives us yet another example why the Jehovahs Witness theology and its movement must remain the world of provincial dogmatic interpretation of their text rather and cannot survive inside the world of early Judeo-Christian history and its texts.

For example, the Ancient Judeo-Christian description that individuals have a spirit within them that is cognizant and intelligent and emotional and exists independent of the body exists throughout much of the ancient Judeo-Christian literature including the biblical text (as demonstrated in posts, 10, 11 and 12) but the relatively modern Jehovahs Witness theory did not exist in ancient literature and only can exist inside the bible if one uses Jehovahs Witness dogmatic interpretation.

Their J.W. theology regarding the lack of a separate spirit simply does not appear in the earliest ancient Mishnaic Judeo-Christian literature where Jews and Christians explain their beliefs.

The Apostles explained that some christians left the faith that they had imparted. Some early christians deviated from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
The book of Revelation describes some of the early christian sects that were developing even while the last remaining apostle was still alive to write about it. Two examples reveal the existence of apostate sect that tolerated idolatry and fornication.—Revelation 2:6, 14, 15.
And even earlier then that, Paul’s letters show the problem with the early churc of “dissensions” and “divisions.” 1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 3:1-4 Galatians 1:6-9; 5:19-21, Titus 3:9, 10 , 1 Timothy 1:3-7; 4:1-3; 6:20, 21; 2 Timothy 4:3, 4.

So The differences of opinion come from those christians who deviated from the truth of Jesus teachings.

How do you know that the things you are believing in are not from those apostate christians rather then the original teachings of Jesus and his Apostles??

 

[paarsurrey]

My question seeks to compare Christian theology that believes in an intelligent spirit placed into a body with Christian theology that believes there is no spirit inside the biological body.


I was sent and read a pamphlet sent to me from a Jehovahs Witness friend regarding the world mankind will ultimately live in should they make it into God’s kingdom after this life. My question regards what happens to the mentally incapable in Jehovah’s Witness theology?


1) The context of the question in “spirit & body” vs “spiritless body” theology :

In a religious debates thread the concept came up regarding the ultimate status of those who died and were later resurrected and ended up “saved” in God’s kingdom in the context of J.W. theology (hereafter called “spiritless body theology”.)

It was explained that in “spiritless body” J.W. theology, there is no spirit in an individual that has an existence independent of the body. All intelligence, emotions and thoughts reside inside the physical body and once the body dies then all that is part of that body decays and is gone.

This is different than the Theology that believes in an intelligent and cognizant spirit that exists independent of the body it is placed in (hereafter called “spirit& body theology”). In “spirit & body” theology, the body may die and decay after death but the spirit with it’s attendant characteristics such as intelligence and emotion and memories continues on just as when the body was alive.


2) The resurrection in “spirit & Body” vs “spiritless body” theology

It was further explained that, in “spiritless body” Jehovahs Witness version of this theology, if that deceased is among those who are ultimately “saved” in God’s kingdom, God will then create (or re-create) that person who died and place within this second body all the memories and characteristics that had been associated with the first body that had been created. (i.e. an exact duplicate of the first person who lived and died and whose body decayed).


In the case of the mentally incapable (those without sufficient mental functioning to make moral choices, store memories, create typical relationships, etc., If they are among those who died but are resurrected and are saved, will God simply reproduce the copy of the person with defects included (I suspect not), or will he create another person similar to the prior defective person but without the same mental defects and save this different person?


In ancient (and most modern) “spirit & body” Christian theology, there is a spirit placed into each person which is immortal and separate from the body. In this model, the spirit itself may have no defect but the bodily manifestations of mental incapacities are with the body it inhabits.

In this case, the intelligent spirit can remain the same in the resurrection and it is merely the body which is modified and changed to allow for the resurrected person to manifest normal characteristics.


In “spiritless body” theology such as the Jehovahs Witness version (if there are other Christian versions?) if God modifies the “spiritless body” in the resurrection, then it is a different person with different characteristics that is being saved, (and not the original).

In typical “spirit & body” of early Christianity, this sort of conundrum does not exist. The original spirit whose body was defective is simply given a perfect body and thus, the original spirit with it’s original identity is saved.


Is there a Jehovahs Witness who can explain how this might work inside “spiritless body” theology. That is, is the original person with mental incapacities re-created after death with the same mental incapacities (and thus the original personality is saved) or will God change the mental status and recreate a different personality and intelligence and emotional being to save in the place of the defective one?



Thank you for any explanations that you can give.

Clear
τζ

" It was explained that in “spiritless body” J.W. theology, there is no spirit in an individual that has an existence independent of the body. All intelligence, emotions and thoughts reside inside the physical body and once the body dies then all that is part of that body decays and is gone."

Did the JWs quote from Jesus in this regards, please? If yes, then please quote its reference here, please? Right?

Regards