POST ONE OF TWO
Hi
@nPeace
nPeace said : “I don't understand how early Judeo-Christianity as you claim it, is involved, so please explain.” (post #44)
Sure. Since you are a Jehovahs Witness, I will try to couch it in terms of your theology that I agree with, (i.e. the development of apostasy away from original religion) versus differences in your theology than that of the earliest Christianity and how a knowledge of original Judeo-Christianity can illuminate that comparison.
1) MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF THE ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN RELIGION DEVELOPED
The early, original Christian movement which Jesus and the apostles and Paul and the earliest converts belonged to, had their own beliefs and interpretation of texts and practices. The multiple later Christian schisms and break-away movements evolved and developed their own differing set of beliefs, their own differing interpretations and their own differing practices which were not the same as those of the earliest Judeo-Christian movement.
2) THE EARLIEST AND MOST ORIGINAL JUDEO-CHRISTIANS WROTE LITERATURE DESCRIBING THEIR EARLY BELIEFS AND INTERPRETATIONS AND PRACTICES
The early apostles and earliest Judeo-Christians wrote a lot of literature describing their early beliefs and what the scriptures meant to them just as modern religious movement in a similar fashion, produce literature representing their doctrines and interpretations, as they proselytize their beliefs to the world.
3) RELIGION WHICH IS MOST SIMILAR TO ORIGINAL CHRISTIANITY IS ABLE TO USE EARLY LITERATURE MORE EASILY THAN RELIGION THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN EARLY CHRISTIANITY
While the Jehovahs Witness movement was one of the later movements that had different beliefs than that of the earliest Christians and different interpretations of texts, the Church of Jesus Christ (of latter day saints – i.e. “mormons”) are part of a movement that seeks to restore and adopt the earliest base doctrines and be as close to early beliefs and interpretations as they can.
Since the LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of lds, / “Mormons”) and other restorationists are the most similar in doctrine and in interpretations to early Christianity, they are most able to use the literature of early Christianity and apply them the their parallel beliefs.
Movements whose doctrines conflict with or are least similar to the earliest versions of Christianity are least able to use the literature of the earliest Christianities since their doctrines and their interpretations are quite different than that described by the earliest Christians.
For example, the
Jehovahs Witnesses, are a religious product whose doctrine and interpretations of religious texts originated in the 19th-20th century and it is a very different religion than that of the apostles and early Christians. Thus, the earliest Christian literature will be less useable in their their theology since the earliest literature does not describe nor support their doctrines and interpretations nor any other religious movement that are so different than those of Early Christianity.
Thus the Jehovahs Witnesses and other
movements that are different that early Judeo-Christianity are left to try to justify this inability by claiming that the earliest Christianity and their writings represent “apostasy” and “heresy” when
in actuality, it is THEIR own relatively modern theology which has deviated from the more original theology.
Another problem with this tact of claiming the apostles and those early apostolic fathers (writing from the time of a living apostle or the writer could have known a living apostle) and similar were written by heretics is that some of the early writings come from very orthodox sources. For example, Clement, who is mentioned in the New Testament is a convert who was taught his Christianity by the Apostle Peter and Paul and Barnabas, etc and he describes the doctrines these orthodox sources taught him. How does one justify calling the teachings of apostles “apostate” doctrines?
Yet another problem is that the earliest literature contains some relatively
stable and consistent doctrines over large swaths of time and over large geographical distance indicating it was a very early doctrine, that was very popular and very stable over time and space and was very orthodox. If Jehovah witnesses claim that ALL early writings by such sources as Clement are “heresy”, then where are the writings that contain any “orthodox” doctrines and beliefs that support the Jehovahs Witnessea in these doctrines? Did ONLY heretics write? How does one support a theory that none of the “legitimate” and “orthodox” Christians wrote and ONLY heretics wrote any literature?
Yet another problem is the problem of priority. How does a religion with beliefs and interpretations of ancient text that are of relatively modern origin such as the Jehovahs Witness interpretations justify giving their modern interpretations priority over that of the earliest Christians such as the apostle Peter, or Clement, or Ignatius, etc. Claiming that one’s modern opinion and interpretation of texts is more correct than the earliest and most authentic Christianity is a very difficult position to support.
Yet another problem is the variety and arbitrariness of biblical texts. The bible that a modern person grows up with is, to a certain extent, arbitrary. For example, hermas and barnabas were in early New Testament texts and a Christian in Sinai in the 4th century would have gorwn up reading them as sacred texts but they are not in the modern, western New Testament. Even nowadays, the eastern Christian Canon contains 81 books, including Jubilees, barnabas, enoch, and to them, these books are scripture. Whereas such books are not in western texts.
The same problems occur if one merely says such books are “heresy” as with the claim that all early Christian by apostles or their followers literature is “heresy”. For example, suppose one claims that Enoch is “heresy”. What then of the almost 128 references to or direct quotes from enoch that are found in the New Testament? How does one explain that the New Testament is sacred “except the text that is heretical”? How does one explain how such texts were sacred to New Testament writers but were then heretical to others who came after?
Early Judeo-Christian Literature illuminates what early Judeo-Christian beliefs were and helps us understand how the earliest Christians interpreted texts available to them and which were written in their day and which pertained to their historical context.
MODERN INTERPRETATION VERSUS ORIGINAL OR EARLIEST JUDEO-CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION OF TEXTS
NPeace asked : " So I think the what I need to know from you is, what do you believe Paul is saying, and how can you show this from the Bible?"
I understand. The bible is an important base source of data but it has its own historical and textual limitations for religions such as yours that are different than the early Christian religion. To use your O.P. example of 1 Corinthians 15 45-46.
In the Jehovahs Witness paraphrase bible Franz translated verse 45 as :
"So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” “…ο πρωτος ανθροπος αδαμ εις ψυχην ζωσαν “ The Greek says Adam became
a living “soul” (gk ψυχη does not specifically mean a "person" without added context).
While this may mean different things to different Christianities having different interpretations, in early christianity, the soul of adam consisted of a spirit which was placed into a body. It was the spirit that was the source of life and intelligence and emotions for a living being. Since the Jehovahs Witnesses do not have this specific belief that a spirit exists within Adam (or the rest of mankind) this is another confirmation that they are not the same religion as original or early Christianity, and the Jehovahs Witness must create different interpretations for such texts.
For example, the Gospel of Phillip explains the early basic Christian belief that “
The soul of Adam came into being by means of a breath, which is a synonym for spirit.” Whereas the Jehovahs Witness religion did not adopt early Christians belief on this subject into their belief system.
The early document On the origin of the world tells us that God the Father left Adams lifeless body for a time “
without a spirit” reflecting the early belief that without a spirit in it, the Body of all individuals is “lifeless”. This is the same doctrine reflected by Ecclesiastes 12:7 “
Then the dust returns upon the earth as it was and the spirit return to God who gave it”.
Such verses speak clearly of a spirit that returns to God upon the death of a person. However, In a different religion that no longer believes in this doctrine, there is a necessity to re-define or re-interpret such verses to mean something other than what they appear to say.
The historical question is how it was meant and understood anciently and originally. If I want to know how the ancient Judeo-Christians interpreted the verste, then I can read their own comments regarding the matter or what they read that gives a clearer picture. I can even look up different versions of the same scripture. For example :
Therefore, fear not death. For that which is from me, that is the 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 such the additional data that makes clear and confirms he earliest and most authentic interpretation and doctrine.
In the popular Apocalypse of Sedrach God sends for the spirit of the Prophet Sedrach. God says,
“Go, take the spirit 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 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 spirits 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;
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
