• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does Paul Agree With LDS?

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Mormons view anything critical of the church as anti-Mormon.

the sources to my original statement are my countless experiences sitting in sacrament meeting.

This was the claim:

"if you want to learn about the Mormon Church talk to Mormons and ignore all else."

"All else" includes every mode and model of communication. This includes: textbooks, encyclopedias, journals, explanatories, all non-Mormons that are or were alive etc. This is your claim.

Therefore the challenge remains:

1) Provide something official from the Church that makes such a claim.

2) Alternatively, provide 10 or so examples from LDS that post on these forums.




Note: a 'critique' typically means that which measures the bounds or limits of a thing. The prefix 'anti' means to be opposed to, or against the noun that would follow. They are not the same.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This was the claim:

"if you want to learn about the Mormon Church talk to Mormons and ignore all else."

"All else" includes every mode and model of communication. This includes: textbooks, encyclopedias, journals, explanatories, all non-Mormons that are or were alive etc. This is your claim.

Therefore the challenge remains:

1) Provide something official from the Church that makes such a claim.

2) Alternatively, provide 10 or so examples from LDS that post on these forums.




Note: a 'critique' typically means that which measures the bounds or limits of a thing. The prefix 'anti' means to be opposed to, or against the noun that would follow. They are not the same.
The articles I posted are sufficient. I’ve also shared my personal experience. That it doesn’t satisfy your arbitrary measures is of no consequence to me.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I'm not sure precisely what it is we're arguing, @nPeace.
Arguing?
I don't know about you Katzpur, but I am having, hopefully, a peaceful discussion, just like I do with my neighbors who disagree with me, and whom we leave not with frowning faces, but smiling with each other... at least, most of them.

I would agree that one's "spiritual life" can and often does mean how we should focus our lives on spiritual things as opposed to temporal things. I'm not denying that at all. Hebrews 12:9 is not arguing against that. It is doing nothing more than describing God as the "Father of [our] spirits," as opposed to our earthly fathers who are the "fathers of our flesh." Each of us, of course, has different earthly parents. But we are all God's children in that He is the Father of each and every one of our spirits.
Sorry Kat, but I did not read that. Spiritual life does not mean our spirit, necessarily.

Acts 17:29 very specifically states that we are "the offspring of God." He is our Father; we are His offspring. Genesis 2:7 says that when God breathed "the breath of life," into Adam, Adam "became a living soul." It is that same "breath of life" that we Latter-day Saints refer to as our "spirit." We believe that the spirit is eternal. It never dies. It simply leaves the body for a period of time, at which time the body dies. At this point, there is no longer "a living soul." There is just a dead body and a living spirit. 2 Corinthians 12:2 is interesting in this regard. It says, "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven." To me, this clearly shows that a person's life force (i.e. his spirt) can exist and have experiences while outside of the body.
Yes. You are correct that man became a living soul, hence he becomes a dead soul, when the spirit goes out.
I am glad we can at least agree that the Bible does not teach of immortal souls.

However, the part about eternal spirit, has got me.
Question. What does God do with the eternal wicked spirit, according to LDS?
Of course we both know that there are different understandings, or some prefer, interpretations, on 2 Corinthians 12:2. I'm not going to get into that. That might then be an argument.
So we can leave that as, you believe that supports your belief. I don't.
If you would like to get into it though, on another thread, I don't mind. We can create one.

Well, you don't need to be surprised then, because I do understand that.

Latter-day Saints believe that all spirit is matter. It's just highly refined matter that cannot normally be seen by the naked eye. How could the spirit exist if God did not create it? And if He is the Father of our spirits, then it goes without saying that He created them, just as our physical bodies were created through the sex act between our parents.
Remember, the scripture does not say 'He is the Father of our spirits'. You interpret it that way, so we need cannot leave that conclusion in your favor. Agreed.

I take it to mean that when someone's spirit leaves his body, he dies, and that body returns to dust. Since, according to scripture, we are "God's offspring," we each carry with us a spark of divinity. Every life form carries with it the traits of its parents, and ours is no different. We believe that God created our spirits out of highly refined matter that was co-eternal with Him. In other words, the raw materials were there. He used them to create the spirits of His offspring.
Thanks for your explanation.
I should have been more specific. I keep making the same mistake of thinking that people would know that I am asking their view on the entire passage rather than just part of it.
What do you think of Psalm 104:29, 30, especially in the latter portion?.... If you take away their spirit, they expire, And back to their dust they go. If you send forth your spirit, they are created; And you make the face of the ground new. .

There isn't "a book" of early Old World, Judeo-Christian scripture that goes hand in hand with the Bible, and I never said there was. There are, however, excerpts from various early sermons that give us very interesting insights into the religious beliefs and practices of Christ's earliest followers. Perhaps (and I'm just speculating here) these teachings are not found in the New Testament because they were already commonly accepted truths, and not new ideas that needed to be introduced to Jesus' audience. I can tell you one thing. @Clear knows more about these writings than the rest of us Latter-day Saints on this forum combined. Ask him for specific examples, and he'll be able to provide them far more efficiently than I would.
I think that would be 'her'.
I still expect you could at least name one though... at least.

I'm not sure why it Paul's writings would be any more authoritative on this subject than Jesus Christ himself. When He first appeared to His Apostles after His resurrection, it was with a material body. They were frightened because they thought they were seeing a spirit. This, incidentally, implies that there are instances in which a spirit can be visible to the naked eye. Jesus responded by saying that He was not a spirit, but that He had a corporeal body.
Again, you are interpreting what is written.
I like the fact that you said, 'this implies...'. It is what you think it is an indication of.

(John 20:20) . . . he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced at seeing the Lord.
(Luke 24:37-43) 37 But because they were terrified and frightened, they imagined that they were seeing a spirit. 38 So he said to them: “Why are you troubled, and why have doubts come up in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have.” 40 And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 But while they were still not believing for sheer joy and amazement, he said to them: “Do you have something there to eat?” 42 So they handed him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it before their eyes.

Now if as you are saying, the disciples knew that spirit could "be visible to the naked eye", why did Jesus have holes in his hands and side? Was he put to death as a spirit, and then raised with the same body?
According to what I read in scripture, the Bible say, to the contrary, "He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit." (1 Peter 3:18)
So how could Jesus have said, "He was not a spirit"?
Also, how would that agree with the same passages of scripture in Paul's discussion of the resurrection?
(1 Corinthians 15:44-49)
44It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46However, what is spiritual is not first. What is physical is first, and afterward what is spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust; and like the heavenly one, so too are those who are heavenly. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we will bear also the image of the heavenly one.

Thanks for bringing us back to the passage we began with.
How do you harmonize what the scriptures say, and what you believe about the spirit?
Could it be you are missing something somewhere, because of "another doctrine"?

If, however, they had been looking at merely a body, that body wouldn't have been alive. This is because, as you pointed out, "the spirit is the force of life which every human needs to live." As to why I believe what I do about the resurrected body being sustained solely by spirit as opposed to by a beating heart and blood flowing through veins, I don't get this from the Bible. I realize that, to you, if it's not in the Bible, it must not be true. That's not how I look at it. Joseph Smith taught, " The resurrected body is tangible, but when the flesh is quickened by the Spirit there will be "spirit in their [veins] and not blood." I believe this truth was revealed to him by God. Again, though, I should emphasize, that when I say the resurrected body is "tangible," I absolutely do not believe it to be "mortal." It will be immortal, glorious and perfect, and no longer subject to illness, injury or death.
Thanks for that.
I really and truly do appreciate your honesty. You are the first LDS that ever admitted to me that whether or not it agrees with the Bible, you hold to the teachings of Joseph Smith.
I respect that. I wish all Mormons would come straight, without beating around the bush... or hiding behind it.

So it is indeed due to another doctrine, that you view things different to what Paul said.
That's why I hold to the Bible.
I especially like Paul's warnings, along with Jesus', of course..
(1 Timothy 6:3-5) 3 If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion, 4he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything.

(Galatians 1:8) However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. . .

With respect to God, yes, I believe that He has a tangible body that resembles that of His offspring, who were "created in His image." Latter-day Saints believe angels to be essentially messengers that God sends to earth. They are human in form (e.g. they do not have wings, etc.). They may be individuals who have not yet lived a mortal life or individuals who have lived a mortal life but then been resurrected. (The second would be less common.) So, it would all depend upon where they were in the stage of their existence whether or not they had a tangible body.

Yes.

I think I covered this a couple of paragraphs ago.

Yes, there definitely is a difference between spiritual and physical, but we Latter-day Saints believe that while a spirit can live outside of a body, a body cannot be alive without a spirit residing within it. Here's how Joseph Smith expressed it: "[The spirit] existed before the body, can exist in the body; and will exist separate from the body, when the body will be mouldering in the dust; and will in the resurrection, be again united with it." He also explained that it is only when the spirit and the body are inseparably connected (after the resurrection of man) that man can receive a fullness of joy.
Now that I understand where you get your doctrines, I don't need to ask where in the Bible I can find it, since it won't be there.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
By the way, I've heard JWs say, "We don't have a soul. We are a soul." We LDS would agree with that, but to us, a soul is a body + a spirit.
There is a dead soul, don't you agree? Ezekiel 18:4

Hopefully I've answered these questions in my responses above. If I haven't, please let me know.
Yes, you did very well. Better than you think. Thank you so very much.


Thank you for that.

[QUOTE="Katzpur, post: 6822970, member: 2540"][USER=2540]The problem is that, when one insists that the Bible alone is sufficient to provide us with all we need to know to re-create Christianity as it was practiced in the first century, there are simply too many missing puzzle pieces. That's why continued revelation is essential to the process, in my opinion.
[/QUOTE]
I think the same rigorous test the Bible undergoes, would need to apply to any book that makes claims of being from God.
What would we use to test the writings you think are just as authentic, in your view?
You do agree we should investigate those claims, don't you?[/user]
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Arguing?
I don't know about you Katzpur, but I am having, hopefully, a peaceful discussion, just like I do with my neighbors who disagree with me, and whom we leave not with frowning faces, but smiling with each other... at least, most of them.
Sorry. It's just most of the time, my discussions with JWs do not end on such a positive note. I had a particularly negative experience a few years back with another Jehovah's Witness on this forum. She started out under the guise of wanting to have "a peaceful discussion." It definitely didn't end that way. Until that happened, I was not so gun shy. Now, I've got to admit that I'm a little bit cynical about having "peaceful discussions" with JWs. I'll try to get over that.

Sorry Kat, but I did not read that. Spiritual life does not mean our spirit, necessarily.
Okay. Then how about "focused on spiritual things... living according to Christ." The word "spiritual" can mean different things, that's all.

Yes. You are correct that man became a living soul, hence he becomes a dead soul, when the spirit goes out.
I am glad we can at least agree that the Bible does not teach of immortal souls.
Well... yes and no. I believe that when a person's spirit leaves his mortal body, the body dies and there is no longer a "living soul." So in that regard, I suppose we agree. On the other hand, I believe that man's spirit is immortal and that when a person is resurrected, that spirit re-enters his body, giving it new life. He is once again, a "living soul," but this time, he is an immortal soul as opposed to a mortal one. He will never again die.

However, the part about eternal spirit, has got me.
Question. What does God do with the eternal wicked spirit, according to LDS?
I'm not sure I understand your question. I'm assuming that you're referring to people who live "wicked" lives, and that you're asking what happens to their spirit. Is that right?

Of course we both know that there are different understandings, or some prefer, interpretations, on 2 Corinthians 12:2. I'm not going to get into that. That might then be an argument.
So we can leave that as, you believe that supports your belief. I don't.
If you would like to get into it though, on another thread, I don't mind. We can create one.
Sure, that would be fine.

Remember, the scripture does not say 'He is the Father of our spirits'. You interpret it that way, so we need cannot leave that conclusion in your favor. Agreed.
Well, what spirits do you believe He is the Father of? In the context in which the phrase, "Father of spirits" is found, it certainly sounds to me as if it's talking about our spirits. It refers to our being subject to correction from "the fathers of our flesh" and asks why we should not also be subject to correction from "the Father of spirits." How do you interpret that?

Thanks for your explanation.
I should have been more specific. I keep making the same mistake of thinking that people would know that I am asking their view on the entire passage rather than just part of it.
What do you think of Psalm 104:29, 30, especially in the latter portion?.... If you take away their spirit, they expire, And back to their dust they go. If you send forth your spirit, they are created; And you make the face of the ground new.
I believe that, ultimately, God has control over when to infuse a body with spirit (i.e. give it life) and when to take away that spirit (i.e. cause the body to die). In that respect, our spirits belong to God, but I believe each one of us has a unique spirit, a unique life force given to us by God. I'm no sure if I'm understanding correctly what you're asking me.

Oops! Interruption. I'll finish responding to the rest of your questions and comments in a separate post.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I think that would be 'her'.
@Clear is a man, if that's who you are referring to. Yes, I realize he's smart enough to be a woman but he's not. ;)

I still expect you could at least name one though... at least.
Okay, let me try to understand exactly what you want "one" of. Are you asking for one example of an pseudepigraphical document that supports a specific LDS doctrine? If so, which doctrine specifically? The doctrine that spirits are immortal or the doctrine that we had a pre-mortal existence? Or another doctrine entirely?

Again, you are interpreting what is written.
I like the fact that you said, 'this implies...'. It is what you think it is an indication of.
Yes. I am interpret what is written. That's what we do. All of us. Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Baptists, etc.

(John 20:20) . . . he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced at seeing the Lord.
(Luke 24:37-43) 37 But because they were terrified and frightened, they imagined that they were seeing a spirit. 38 So he said to them: “Why are you troubled, and why have doubts come up in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have.” 40 And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 But while they were still not believing for sheer joy and amazement, he said to them: “Do you have something there to eat?” 42 So they handed him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it before their eyes.

Now if as you are saying, the disciples knew that spirit could "be visible to the naked eye", why did Jesus have holes in his hands and side? Was he put to death as a spirit, and then raised with the same body?
According to what I read in scripture, the Bible say, to the contrary, "He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit." (1 Peter 3:18)
So how could Jesus have said, "He was not a spirit"?
Also, how would that agree with the same passages of scripture in Paul's discussion of the resurrection?
(1 Corinthians 15:44-49)
44It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46However, what is spiritual is not first. What is physical is first, and afterward what is spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust; and like the heavenly one, so too are those who are heavenly. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we will bear also the image of the heavenly one.
We are definitely talking past each other here. Jesus said that "a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." He was saying that He wasn't just an unembodied spirit, but that He was a corporeal being. That corporeal being was alive because of the spirit that resided in it. Therefore, it was a "spiritual body." I believe the vast majority of people reading the Bible for the first time (without the benefit of the Watchtower to tell them what it means) would come to exactly the same conclusion as the Latter-day Saints have. Jesus Christ was resurrected. His mortal body was given new, immortal life by His spirit.

Thanks for bringing us back to the passage we began with.
How do you harmonize what the scriptures say, and what you believe about the spirit?
Could it be you are missing something somewhere, because of "another doctrine"?
Sorry, you lost me. I don't believe Paul was making reference to our pre-mortal existence at all. He was talking about our having to live as mortal men and women before we could live as immortal, resurrected men and women.

Thanks for that.
I really and truly do appreciate your honesty. You are the first LDS that ever admitted to me that whether or not it agrees with the Bible, you hold to the teachings of Joseph Smith.
I respect that. I wish all Mormons would come straight, without beating around the bush... or hiding behind it.
Please don't thank me, because you clearly didn't understand me. I never said or even implied that the Latter-day Saints hold to the teachings of Joseph Smith whether they agree with the Bible or not. Nothing Joseph Smith said in those quotes I provided contradicts anything the Bible says. It is commentary on doctrine the Bible doesn't explicitly teach, but it is not contrary to what the Bible teaches, either. You JWs look to the Watchtower to provide you with insights into biblical teachings. The Watchtower tells you how to interpret the Bible, just as our prophets do.

So it is indeed due to another doctrine, that you view things different to what Paul said.
That's why I hold to the Bible.
It's due to a doctrine on an entirely different topic.

I especially like Paul's warnings, along with Jesus', of course..
(1 Timothy 6:3-5) 3 If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion, 4he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything.

(Galatians 1:8) However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. . .
Yeah, I like Paul's warnings, too. I especially like what he said in Ephesians 4:11-14 where he spoke of the organization found within Christ's Church and pointed out how without it, we'd be powerless to know and understand the truth. "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive..." He said that this organization should include not only evangelists, pastors and teachers but prophets and apostles and that it should remain such until we were all unified in our faith.

Now that I understand where you get your doctrines, I don't need to ask where in the Bible I can find it, since it won't be there.
Yup. Kind of like the prohibition against blood transfusions isn't there. I explained our interpretation of the scriptures you asked about. You don't need to agree with our perspective, but it's every bit as legitimate as yours. They are both just interpretations.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
There is a dead soul, don't you agree? Ezekiel 18:4
I don't agree that this is what that verse is saying. I've just never heard any reference to "a dead soul." I could agree, perhaps, that the "living soul" ceases, for a period of time to exist, but I cannot agree that the spirit which made the body "a living soul" also dies. And sure, I could tell you why, but I've had this same conversation with JWs before and they simply disagree with any passages of scripture I post to support my position. Interestingly enough, the Bible does not explicitly state that the JW's interpretation is the correct one any more than it specifically states that the LDS one is.

I think the same rigorous test the Bible undergoes, would need to apply to any book that makes claims of being from God.
What would we use to test the writings you think are just as authentic, in your view?
You do agree we should investigate those claims, don't you?
Absolutely. But in investigating them, we need to remember that there is only one way we can ultimately come to understand the truth. It's not based on who is the more convincing debater or who is the most persistent in terms of having to push until the other person is so sick and tired of the debate that they want only to agree to disagree. It's based on the personal witness of the Holy Spirit, which reveals the truth to the sincere in heart. Ultimately, I'm going to base my beliefs on what the Holy Spirit teaches me, not on the words of the Bible or the Book of Mormon, not on the Watchtower and not even on any of the LDS prophets, past or present. The voice of the Holy Spirit is going to trump them all.
 
Last edited:

Orontes

Master of the Horse
The articles I posted are sufficient. I’ve also shared my personal experience. That it doesn’t satisfy your arbitrary measures is of no consequence to me.

The articles posted are about anti-Mormonism. They do not address your claim that is:

"If you want to learn about the Mormon Church talk to Mormons and ignore all else."

Your claim remains a bald assertion.

Per your personal anecdote: your experience has no credibility. Your claim was this sentiment was so common among Mormons, if you have a nickel for each time you heard it, you would be rich. So an official statement from the Church or pulling out comments (I asked for 10 examples) from this website that has existed for years with many many Mormon participants should make it easy. You have provided neither. This is telling.

There seems to be a pattern:

-bald assertion
-fail to justify said assertion
-a series of ad hominems
-make another bald assertion
-fail to justify said assertion

Are insults coming next?
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @Katzpur and @nPeace

Your conversations have discussed multiple themes in each post so it is complicated to follow, but I have noticed the pattern of incongruity of discussion between you two regarding the theme of spirits that exist in man inside early Judaic and Early Christian religion.


THE FUTILITY OF RECONCILING A NEW RELIGION WITH ITS NEW DOCTRINES TO ORIGINAL JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY WITH ITS OLD DOCTRINES

I mentioned to Katzpur that since the Jehovah’s Witness movement uses a set of interpretations that did not exist anciently, but were developed in the 19th and 20th century, it will be very difficult to reconcile those interpretations with the interpretations of the Christian movement that existed in the 1st century when the apostles were still teaching and in the early era following this time period. These are two different religions. For example :


THE FUTILITY OF RECONCILING A NEW RELIGION WITHOUT A BELIEF IN A SPIRIT TO ORIGINAL JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY WITH ITS BELIEF IN A SPIRIT

The ancient Judeo-Christians make clear in their literature, that they believed in a spirit within mankind that existed separately from the body. The modern Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned this concept. One problem then is that without having the same basis of belief as the ancient Christian movement any religion created in the modern age that does not share the very basic belief in spirits, will necessarily skew their theology in a different manner, have different interpretations of ancient texts (bible, etc), and have a different theology. This lack of belief in a spirit, skews Jehovahs Witness theology in important ways.

For example, a religion that abandons the existence of a spirit causes that religion to change its interpretation regarding the nature of creation and it’s purpose, it changes the nature of mankinds experience in mortality and the nature of death and Hades as well as changing the nature of the resurrection. It forces that new religion to change ancient biblical text to conform to it’s new religious doctrines, rather than conforming the new religion to the ancient text.

As a reader, of the conversation regarding spirits, I am simply seeing how the Jehovahs Witness interpretation is different than the interpretation of early Judeo-Christianity. While I think all just about all Christian religions can survive in the world of Dogma and varying interpretations (i.e. if you interpret a text to mean what they say it means, then it can appear rational), I do not think that the Jehovahs Witness religion can enter and survive in the world of history. Once one enters the historical realm, the doctrine where no spirit exists dies since it has no objective supporting historical data from the earliest periods of time.


THE NEED TO CREATE NEW SACRED TEXT TO RECONCILE THE NEW RELIGION

I have noticed the pattern where Katzpur offers a scripture and nPeace responds with something that “looks” like scripture, but isn’t. Or at least it doesn’t exist in any text I’ve ever seen. I haven’t studied the reason for this, but my tentative assumption is that the Jehovahs Witness theology creates the necessity to change the ancient and authentic scripture to conform to their modern theological theories. For example, Hebrews 12:9


HEBREWS 12:9 - THE MODIFICATION OF AUTHENTIC “THE FATHER OF SPIRITS” TO INAUTHENTIC AND INACCURATE “FATHER OF OUR SPIRITUAL LIFE”

Katzpur quotes the scripture correctly “"Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" (post #102) And her following comment refers to parentage of God : “ We believe that God created the spirits of each and every person who has ever lived or will live. Hebrews 12:9 makes a distinction between the parentage of our physical bodies and the parentage of our spirits.” (post #102)

However, nPeace offers a modified and inaccurate version of Hebrews 11:9 and comments on THAT.

nPeace replied :Hebrews 12:9 is the only verse in the Bible that says spiritual life…” (post #108) nPeace, Then comments on the switched text, “spiritual life” in such a way to negate the implication of the existence of spirits, saying “ and that does not mean a life inside of you necessarily, as it can mean your spiritual life -the life you now live according to spirit, and not flesh. For claruity... In other words, just as we say, spiritual person, or spiritual minds - focused on spiritual things... living according to Christ.” (nPeace, post #108).

Katzpur is speaking of a "Father of spirits" and nPeace is speaking of a "spiritual life". These are not the same conversations (it makes following conversations difficult and the data irrelevant to each other)


THE TENDENCY TO SWITCH AUTHENTIC BIBLICAL TEXT WITH INAUTHENTIC BIBLICAL TEXT

I have noticed multiple similar examples of nPeace switching from authentic text to inauthentic and inaccurate text and why such switching from authentic to inauthentic and inaccurate text occurs. While all text has errors, the frequency of inauthentic and inaccurate text in nPeaces’ comments formed a pattern instead of being random and rare.

I found this pattern of using modified and inaccurate replacement of sacred text in The New World paraphrase of the bible which was created in the main by the Jehovahs Witness Frederick Franz. While no translator is perfect and all translators have bias, Frederick was not trained in Koine Greek and had minimal (minimal) training in Greek and none (none) in Koine.

The specific bias of a translator that does not believe in a spirit inside of man will cause significant variation in text away from the bias of the writers (who came from original Judeo-Christianity that says they DID believe in a spirit inside man). The work of a biased translator who inserts his own religious bias into a text will, inevitably poorly reflect the teaching of the original writer who held to different beliefs. And the greater the translators bias and willingness to modify the text, the greater the degree of error in the resulting text.

As I said, the doctrine cannot help but change the text (which is at the mercy of the “translator” and their bias).


Some of these inaccurate modifications of sacred text are of little consequence. Other modifications of authentic text are blatant and unnerving and obviously false modifications to the biblical text that exist only to supplant the old authentic text with a new text to support a doctrine which did not exist in the old text.

A second example : The concept of a spirit, returning a resurrected body is foreign to a theology which doesn’t believe in a spirit. As I said, this will cause changes in text created by a biased translator.


MODIFICATION OF AUTHENTIC TEXT FROM MATTHEW 27:52 CHANGING A RESURRECTION INTO NON-RESURRECTION

In the biblical text, when Jesus resurrected, many of the saints who had died and whose spirits were in hades/sheol/spirit world etc. resurrected with Jesus and went into Jerusalem and appeared in their resurrected form to many of the inhabitants of that city. Similar witness to this early belief and doctrine and mechanism of resurrection appear in early Judeo-Christian literature.

An authentic biblical version of this occurrence in Matthew 27:52 reads :… the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And, coming out of the tombs after his (jesus) rising, went into the holy city, and appeared to many." (gk Και τα Μενμεα ανεωχθησαν και πολλα κεκοιμημενων αγιων ηγερθη και εχελθοντες εκ των μνημειων μετα την εγερσιν αυτου εισηλθον εις την αγιαν πολιν και ενεφανισθησαν πολλοις)

However, in the Jehovahs Witness “New World” Text, the modified and inaccurate text reads : “And the tombs* were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised up 53 (and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered into the holy city), and they became visible to many people.”

Improper modification of ancient text changes the meaning of the text
In the modified and inaccurate text of the Jehovahs Witness paraphrase of the text, instead of the resurrected saints going into Jerusalem, there are people who are among the tombs who see dead bodies are shaken out of their tombs, and are seen by these other people who were among the tombs. The living individuals then go to Jerusalem and THEY “became visible” to many people.

Thus, what was a powerful witness of the resurrection of others who are dead but then become alive and resurrect with bodies, in the modified and incorrect version are simply dead bodies who are shaken such that they are thrown out of their tombs and these dead and decaying bodies are seen by individuals who go and tell others they saw these dead bodies.

The ancient text is a profound witness of the resurrection promised to mankind and the modified version is a story of aghast individuals who see dead bodies.


I can see NO justification for introducing inaccuracies into the text nor for changing the meaning of sacred text.


1) There is no justification for the modification of this text since there are NO Greek source versions which read the way the Jehovahs’ Witness version reads.
2) The translators Greek New Testament (GN-4) reveals there are NO variants of import to this specific verse in any NA-28 listing.
3) There is no authentic source greek text which either introduces or refers to other “persons” present besides the bodies of the saints that are arising.
4) There is no reflexive form of “appeared” (ενεφανισθησαν) in any Greek source text.


FORMING THE TEXT TO SUIT THE THEOLOGY VERSUS FORMING THE THEOLOGY TO SUIT THE TEXT
This is another example of Frederick Franz creating modifications to his text to make the text agree with his theology, rather than forming theology from text. "Biblical based" religion allows theology to conform to text rather than force text conform to theology.

Such inappropriate and inaccurate modifications to biblical text undermines any claim that one prioritizes "biblical teachings" since such modifications make clear that one values personal bias more than biblical text.

Such reasons are why I do not think a modern (19th century) religion having different doctrines than ancient Judeo-Christianity can be completely reconciled.

Similar reasons underlie my belief that the Jehovahs Witness movement can never survive once they enter into the world of historical Judeo-Christian literature describing different doctrines and different interpretations. It simply won't work. Only authentic restoration with parallel doctrines can be reconciled such that one can say they are versions of one another.

In any case you two, I hope both of you have wonderful and satisfying spiritual journeys in this life and that you are happy.

Clear
ειακακσιω
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I have noticed the pattern where Katzpur offers a scripture and nPeace responds with something that “looks” like scripture, but isn’t. Or at least it doesn’t exist in any text I’ve ever seen. I haven’t studied the reason for this, but my tentative assumption is that the Jehovahs Witness theology creates the necessity to change the ancient and authentic scripture to conform to their modern theological theories.

I have noticed multiple similar examples of nPeace switching from authentic text to inauthentic and inaccurate text and why such switching from authentic to inauthentic and inaccurate text occurs. While all text has errors, the frequency of inauthentic and inaccurate text in nPeaces’ comments formed a pattern instead of being random and rare.
And I naively just tried to figure out how to tie nPeace's train of thought into what we'd been talking about when we started out. :oops: I'm going to be watching for this tactic in the future, @Clear. Thanks for pointing it out to me.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Sorry. It's just most of the time, my discussions with JWs do not end on such a positive note. I had a particularly negative experience a few years back with another Jehovah's Witness on this forum. She started out under the guise of wanting to have "a peaceful discussion." It definitely didn't end that way. Until that happened, I was not so gun shy. Now, I've got to admit that I'm a little bit cynical about having "peaceful discussions" with JWs. I'll try to get over that.
You are not alone really. Mormons and JWs don't very often get along in doctrinal discussions.
The best we do is smile and shake hands. :) I think that's good that we don't leave each other red faced. Or pink. :laughing:
The reason for that though, is what you mentioned. One holds to the Bible as containing The Truth. The other holds to the BoM as the truth - having an edge over the Bible.
That being the case, agreement will be elusive.

Okay. Then how about "focused on spiritual things... living according to Christ." The word "spiritual" can mean different things, that's all.
Yes, it does not necessarily mean body.

Well... yes and no. I believe that when a person's spirit leaves his mortal body, the body dies and there is no longer a "living soul." So in that regard, I suppose we agree. On the other hand, I believe that man's spirit is immortal and that when a person is resurrected, that spirit re-enters his body, giving it new life. He is once again, a "living soul," but this time, he is an immortal soul as opposed to a mortal one. He will never again die.
The Bible doesn't tell us that, so I suppose you got it from JS's writings.
I'm a bit tired, so I'll consider the rest later.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
You are not alone really. Mormons and JWs don't very often get along in doctrinal discussions.
The best we do is smile and shake hands. :) I think that's good that we don't leave each other red faced. Or pink. :laughing:
Well, we can certainly try. I personally enjoy discussing theology with people who have different views than I do. As long as we can both recognize that all we're doing is trying to best we can to get to the truth. And, that sometimes the answers aren't going to come during this lifetime.

The reason for that though, is what you mentioned. One holds to the Bible as containing The Truth. The other holds to the BoM as the truth - having an edge over the Bible.
That being the case, agreement will be elusive.
Actually, we consider them to be essentially equal. As far as we're concerned, they're both from the same source, so there's no need to rank them.

The Bible doesn't tell us that, so I suppose you got it from JS's writings.
Actually, I'd say most Christians believe pretty much as the Latter-day Saints do on this particular topic. And when I say "this particular topic," I'm referring to how the spirit gives life to the body, leaves it for a time, and re-enters it giving it eternal life when we are resurrected. Everybody else didn't get their views on the subject from the writings of Joseph Smith. They got them directly from the Bible.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @Katzpur

1) THE VARIOUS CLAIMS TO BE THE HISTORICAL CHRISTIAN RELIGION

Katzpur said : “I suspect, Clear, that every Jehovah's Witness here is going to disagree with you when you say theirs is "part of a more modern Christian religion.”

While dogmatists argue over the meaning of scripture to support their positions, historically, the tests are more simple.
The claim that a religious movement is THE ancient Christianity can exist in the world of Dogma and certainly there are many Christian movements that do claim this. However, the specific claims often quickly dissolve once one attempts to enter the actual world of history and it’s literature.

In the historians world, coherent and rational historical claims are made based on historical evidence and we have no historical evidence that many of the beliefs and interpretations and scriptures the Jehovahs Witness Movement possess, ever existed anciently in the earliest Judeo-Christian Texts.

For example, this thread has to do with the existence of a spirit inside mankind.

Historically, one merely need look at the early Judeo-Christian literature. Do the earliest Christians describe the belief in spirits existing inside of mankind or not.

The Jehovah Witness claim is that there is no independent spirit that is placed inside our mortal body which gives it intelligence and emotions and cognitive abilities. This unusual claim is not only the minority position in Christendom but this claim depends entirely on dogma and interpretation for it’s existence. And it can exist only if one accepts the dogma and the very tenuous and strange interpretation placed upon the modern, western text. Even then the text had to be modified to hide underlying data.

However, once one enters the HISTORICAL world, one cannot manufacture authentic HISTORICAL data without being found out, (as we can see from the examples in post #129.) Authentic history exists in a world that is surrounded by other historical data. To survive THAT world, a religious claim must cohere and be consistent with that authentic, known, historical data.

Because it is based on dogma and interpretation and modification of text when needed, but not on authentic history, It is in this historical world where the Jehovahs Witness movement cannot live nor survive.


2) THE FATHER OF SPIRITS : THE LORD/MASTER/FATHER/ OF SPIRITS

One simple point I wanted to make about the authentic version of Hebrews 12:9 you alluded to in post #102. The authentic version you alluded to reads : “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?"

Paul refers to God as “the Father of spirits”.

Certainly God is, in early literature the Father of the spirits. For example, Jubilees of the eastern old testament says “The Lord will appear in the sight of all. And everyone will know that I am the God of Israel and the father of all of the children of Jacob…” (Jub 1:28)

The “modern”, western new testament refers to God as the “…Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Eph 4:5-6).

However, I think that Paul may have been using a version of a prior Jewish metonymy for God. Paul uses “Father of spirits” while earlier (and later) Judeo-Christian literature more often uses “Lord of Spirits”. The use of the term “Lord of Spirits” existed from at least 300 b.c. as it occurs in Jewish 1st Enoch many times.


a) USE OF THE TERM “LORD OF SPIRITS” IN REFERENCE TO THE PRE-CREATION TIME PERIOD

Describing the time when spirits were to fill the earth that was planned, but not yet created, 1Enoch ch 39:11-12 says “11There is no such thing as non-existence before him. (Even) before the world was created, he knows what is forever and what will be from generation to generation. 12 Those who do not slumber but stand before your glory did bless you. They shall bless, praise, and extol (you) saying “‘Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of the Spirits; the spirits fill the earth.”

However, there are also other metonymys used. For example, the Prophet Enoch (Enoch is still inside the larger eastern old testament) says of pre-creation heaven, when he sees God the Father and the son Together, “At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the “chief of days.”. And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. 2 And I asked the one–from among the angels–who was going with me, and who had revealed to me all the secrets regarding the One who was born of human beings, “Who is this, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?”. 3 And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms; for the Lord of the Spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the Spirits in eternal uprightness. 4 This Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the Kings and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats, and the strong ones from their thrones. He shall loosen the reins of the strong and crush the teeth of the sinners. 5 He shall depose the kings from their thrones and kingdoms. For they do not extol and glorify him, and neither do they obey him, the source of their kingship. 1st Enoch 46:1-6;

The metonymy “chief of days” has been variously translated as “he who precedes time,” “The beginning of days”, “he who is of primordial days,” “the antecedent of time”. The point here is that the language allows for some different wording depending upon the context. “Father of our Spirits” is almost as easily rendered “Lord of our Spirits” depending upon context.



b) USE OF THE TERM “LORD OF SPIRITS” INSIDE THE PERIOD OF MORTALITY

Speaking of the sun, it was said that “it executes its course in accordance with the commandment of the Lord of the Spirits — 1st Enoch 41:6

Regarding the Kings and Rulers who realize their wasted opportunities it was said : “…they shall fall and worship before the Lord of the Spirits, and confess their sins before him... We had put our hopes upon the scepters of our empires.… 11 After that, their faces shall be filled with shame before that Son of Man; and from before his face they shall be driven out.” 1st Enoch 63:7-10;

Speaking of the Jews and those who rejected the messiah, the prophet Enoch records : “For they have denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah. “Blessed be the name of the Lord of the Spirits.” 1st Enoch V1 P36 48:10;



c) USE OF THE TERM “LORD OF SPIRITS” IN REFERENCE TO THE TIME PERIOD AFTER MORTALITY

Speaking of those who are in Hades/sheol/spirit world as spirits and are, to be released and resurrected and given a place in heaven it was said : “1 In Those days, Sheol will return all the deposits which she had received and hell will give back all that which it owes. 2 And he shall choose the righteous and the holy ones from among (the risen dead), for the day when they shall be selected and saved has arrived. 3 In those days, (the Elect one) shall sit on my throne, and from the conscience of his mouth shall come out all the secrets of wisdom, for the Lord of the Spirits has given them to him and glorified him. 4 ...And the faces of all the angels in heaven shall glow with joy, because on that day the Elect One has arisen. 5 And the earth shall rejoice; and the righteous ones shall dwell upon her and the elect ones shall walk upon her. 1st Enoch 51:1-5

Speaking of the time during and after the resurrection, the spirits of mankind are to acquire resurrected bodies of glory (the euphemism of garments is used for the putting on of these bodies just as in New testament usage) and life with the Messiah who accomplishes the atonement. “14 The Lord of the Spirits will abide over them; they shall eat and rest and rise with that Son of Man forever and ever. 15 The righteous and elect ones shall rise from the earth and shall cease being of downcast face. They shall wear the garments of glory. 16 These garments of yours shall become the garments of life from the Lord of the Spirits. Neither shall your garments wear out, nor your glory come to an end before the Lord of the Spirits. 1st Enoch 62:15-16

While Paul uses the Metonymy “Father of Spirits” his colleague in missionary efforts and the colleague of the Apostle Peter named Clement, uses a similar Metonymy saying : “Finally, may the all-seeing God and Lord of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through him to be his own special people.. “ 1 Clement 64:1 (It is just as correct in this context to use “Master of Spirits” as it is “Lord of Spirits”)

It is just this very specific historical point that I am making. Much of Christianity of the apostolic age used key phrases that were borrowed from prior Jewish vocabulary. Some of the meaning was retained and other phrases were applied differently. In the case of "Father of spirits", "Lord of spirits", "Master of Spirits", etc. the meaning of the phrases was fairly constant since God was viewed as the one who created all the spirits of all beings that he also loved and watched over like a Father.

The application of this term also shows that he was the "Father" or "Lord" of spirits that existed prior to creation of the earth, He is their "Lord" as they exist during the mortal time period, and he will be their "Lord" after they die and resurrect, which is consistent with the Judeo-Christian belief that spirits existed before life, during life, and after this life.


In any case, good luck on your spiritual journey Katzpur.
#1 Did you see the movie "Tenet".?
#2 Did you understand the movie "Tenet"?


Clear
εινεσετζω
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
I'm not sure I understand your question. I'm assuming that you're referring to people who live "wicked" lives, and that you're asking what happens to their spirit. Is that right?
Correct.

Sure, that would be fine.

Well, what spirits do you believe He is the Father of? In the context in which the phrase, "Father of spirits" is found, it certainly sounds to me as if it's talking about our spirits. It refers to our being subject to correction from "the fathers of our flesh" and asks why we should not also be subject to correction from "the Father of spirits." How do you interpret that?
Which scripture says "Father of spirits"?

I believe that, ultimately, God has control over when to infuse a body with spirit (i.e. give it life) and when to take away that spirit (i.e. cause the body to die). In that respect, our spirits belong to God, but I believe each one of us has a unique spirit, a unique life force given to us by God. I'm no sure if I'm understanding correctly what you're asking me.
Based on your belief, I understand what you are saying.
Based on the scripture God sends forth his spirit, not ours. Is that correct?

@Clear is a man, if that's who you are referring to. Yes, I realize he's smart enough to be a woman but he's not. ;)
Ha Ha. Ahem. Sexist. ;) My apologies @Clear. Unless... you want to be the smartest species on the planet. :D

Okay, let me try to understand exactly what you want "one" of. Are you asking for one example of an pseudepigraphical document that supports a specific LDS doctrine? If so, which doctrine specifically? The doctrine that spirits are immortal or the doctrine that we had a pre-mortal existence? Or another doctrine entirely?
No. I was just asking for one document you consider as reliable, and 'in sync' with the Bible.

Yes. I am interpret what is written. That's what we do. All of us. Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Baptists, etc.

We are definitely talking past each other here. Jesus said that "a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." He was saying that He wasn't just an unembodied spirit, but that He was a corporeal being. That corporeal being was alive because of the spirit that resided in it. Therefore, it was a "spiritual body." I believe the vast majority of people reading the Bible for the first time (without the benefit of the Watchtower to tell them what it means) would come to exactly the same conclusion as the Latter-day Saints have. Jesus Christ was resurrected. His mortal body was given new, immortal life by His spirit.
Why do you believe we are talking past each other?
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Hi @Katzpur and @nPeace

Your conversations have discussed multiple themes in each post so it is complicated to follow, but I have noticed the pattern of incongruity of discussion between you two regarding the theme of spirits that exist in man inside early Judaic and Early Christian religion.


THE FUTILITY OF RECONCILING A NEW RELIGION WITH ITS NEW DOCTRINES TO ORIGINAL JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY WITH ITS OLD DOCTRINES
For example :


THE FUTILITY OF RECONCILING A NEW RELIGION WITHOUT A BELIEF IN A SPIRIT TO ORIGINAL JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY WITH ITS BELIEF IN A SPIRIT


THE NEED TO CREATE NEW SACRED TEXT TO RECONCILE THE NEW RELIGION




THE TENDENCY TO SWITCH AUTHENTIC BIBLICAL TEXT WITH INAUTHENTIC BIBLICAL TEXT


MODIFICATION OF AUTHENTIC TEXT FROM MATTHEW 27:52 CHANGING A RESURRECTION INTO NON-RESURRECTION


I can see NO justification for introducing inaccuracies into the text nor for changing the meaning of sacred text.

1) There is no justification for the modification of this text since there are NO Greek source versions which read the way the Jehovahs’ Witness version reads.
2) The translators Greek New Testament (GN-4) reveals there are NO variants of import to this specific verse in any NA-28 listing.
3) There is no authentic source greek text which either introduces or refers to other “persons” present besides the bodies of the saints that are arising.
4) There is no reflexive form of “appeared” (ενεφανισθησαν) in any Greek source text.


FORMING THE TEXT TO SUIT THE THEOLOGY VERSUS FORMING THE THEOLOGY TO SUIT THE TEXT
This is another example of Frederick Franz creating modifications to his text to make the text agree with his theology, rather than forming theology from text. "Biblical based" religion allows theology to conform to text rather than force text conform to theology.

Clear
ειακακσιω

Religious group X makes truth claims. If those truth claims are derived from a religious text, there are the following issues:

  1. What is the text?
  2. Why is the text authoritative?
  3. What is the interpretive model (the hermeneutical schema)?

For Jehovah’s Witness (JW): 1) is the New World Translation (NWT) produced in 1950 (I believe).


Per 2), why is the New World Translation authoritative? Why is the text as it is:


-Why does the NWT follow the Masoretic and not the Septuagint model? The Septuagint was the text used by early Christianity (and is still used in the Greek Orthodox Tradition) for the Tanakh (Old Testament). The Masoretic text appears to have developed in direct opposition to the Greek version, when Rabbinic Judaism was emerging in the wake of the destruction of the temple and rejected all non-Hebrew material. The creation of a Masoretic version, may have been partially due to the larger geographic rivalry between the major centers of Jewish life (Jerusalem, Babylon and Alexandria). The Septuagint was a product of Hellenized Egyptian Jewry. Hellenistic Jewry, based in Alexandria, was much more open and syncretistic than those in the Levant. The Apostle Paul was part of this same Hellenized Jewry. Paul used the Septuagint (we know this because when he quotes scripture, he used the Septuagint).


-Why does the NWT include the books it does as a New Testament. The standard books included in the New Testament is based on a list written down by Bishop Athanasius in the middle of the Fourth Century (367 AD). Why is that list correct? Why would Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria (a local ecclesiastical position), have authority to decide sacred texts?


-Why does the NWT not include the books found in other older Bibles: the Ethiopic Bible, as one example. What was/is the determining factor for inclusion as a sacred text?



Per 3) What is done when there are translation incongruities? For example, the translation does not match the Greek source material? If the text is not primary, what is? If a narrative take precedence over the text itself, then the text is no longer the source for truth claims. Where does the narrative gain its force? The narrative cannot appeal to the text. There appears to be either base assertion, or a circular logic at play.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Hi @Katzpur

1) THE VARIOUS CLAIMS TO BE THE HISTORICAL CHRISTIAN RELIGION

Katzpur said : “I suspect, Clear, that every Jehovah's Witness here is going to disagree with you when you say theirs is "part of a more modern Christian religion.”

While dogmatists argue over the meaning of scripture to support their positions, historically, the tests are more simple.
The claim that a religious movement is THE ancient Christianity can exist in the world of Dogma and certainly there are many Christian movements that do claim this. However, the specific claims often quickly dissolve once one attempts to enter the actual world of history and it’s literature.

In the historians world, coherent and rational historical claims are made based on historical evidence and we have no historical evidence that many of the beliefs and interpretations and scriptures the Jehovahs Witness Movement possess, ever existed anciently in the earliest Judeo-Christian Texts.

For example, this thread has to do with the existence of a spirit inside mankind.

Historically, one merely need look at the early Judeo-Christian literature. Do the earliest Christians describe the belief in spirits existing inside of mankind or not.

The Jehovah Witness claim is that there is no independent spirit that is placed inside our mortal body which gives it intelligence and emotions and cognitive abilities. This unusual claim is not only the minority position in Christendom but this claim depends entirely on dogma and interpretation for it’s existence. And it can exist only if one accepts the dogma and the very tenuous and strange interpretation placed upon the modern, western text. Even then the text had to be modified to hide underlying data.

However, once one enters the HISTORICAL world, one cannot manufacture authentic HISTORICAL data without being found out, (as we can see from the examples in post #129.) Authentic history exists in a world that is surrounded by other historical data. To survive THAT world, a religious claim must cohere and be consistent with that authentic, known, historical data.

Because it is based on dogma and interpretation and modification of text when needed, but not on authentic history, It is in this historical world where the Jehovahs Witness movement cannot live nor survive.


2) THE FATHER OF SPIRITS : THE LORD/MASTER/FATHER/ OF SPIRITS

One simple point I wanted to make about the authentic version of Hebrews 12:9 you alluded to in post #102. The authentic version you alluded to reads : “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?"

Paul refers to God as “the Father of spirits”.

Certainly God is, in early literature the Father of the spirits. For example, Jubilees of the eastern old testament says “The Lord will appear in the sight of all. And everyone will know that I am the God of Israel and the father of all of the children of Jacob…” (Jub 1:28)

The “modern”, western new testament refers to God as the “…Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Eph 4:5-6).

However, I think that Paul may have been using a version of a prior Jewish metonymy for God. Paul uses “Father of spirits” while earlier (and later) Judeo-Christian literature more often uses “Lord of Spirits”. The use of the term “Lord of Spirits” existed from at least 300 b.c. as it occurs in Jewish 1st Enoch many times.


a) USE OF THE TERM “LORD OF SPIRITS” IN REFERENCE TO THE PRE-CREATION TIME PERIOD

Describing the time when spirits were to fill the earth that was planned, but not yet created, 1Enoch ch 39:11-12 says “11There is no such thing as non-existence before him. (Even) before the world was created, he knows what is forever and what will be from generation to generation. 12 Those who do not slumber but stand before your glory did bless you. They shall bless, praise, and extol (you) saying “‘Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of the Spirits; the spirits fill the earth.”

However, there are also other metonymys used. For example, the Prophet Enoch (Enoch is still inside the larger eastern old testament) says of pre-creation heaven, when he sees God the Father and the son Together, “At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the “chief of days.”. And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. 2 And I asked the one–from among the angels–who was going with me, and who had revealed to me all the secrets regarding the One who was born of human beings, “Who is this, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?”. 3 And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms; for the Lord of the Spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the Spirits in eternal uprightness. 4 This Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the Kings and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats, and the strong ones from their thrones. He shall loosen the reins of the strong and crush the teeth of the sinners. 5 He shall depose the kings from their thrones and kingdoms. For they do not extol and glorify him, and neither do they obey him, the source of their kingship. 1st Enoch 46:1-6;

The metonymy “chief of days” has been variously translated as “he who precedes time,” “The beginning of days”, “he who is of primordial days,” “the antecedent of time”. The point here is that the language allows for some different wording depending upon the context. “Father of our Spirits” is almost as easily rendered “Lord of our Spirits” depending upon context.



b) USE OF THE TERM “LORD OF SPIRITS” INSIDE THE PERIOD OF MORTALITY

Speaking of the sun, it was said that “it executes its course in accordance with the commandment of the Lord of the Spirits — 1st Enoch 41:6

Regarding the Kings and Rulers who realize their wasted opportunities it was said : “…they shall fall and worship before the Lord of the Spirits, and confess their sins before him... We had put our hopes upon the scepters of our empires.… 11 After that, their faces shall be filled with shame before that Son of Man; and from before his face they shall be driven out.” 1st Enoch 63:7-10;

Speaking of the Jews and those who rejected the messiah, the prophet Enoch records : “For they have denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah. “Blessed be the name of the Lord of the Spirits.” 1st Enoch V1 P36 48:10;



c) USE OF THE TERM “LORD OF SPIRITS” IN REFERENCE TO THE TIME PERIOD AFTER MORTALITY

Speaking of those who are in Hades/sheol/spirit world as spirits and are, to be released and resurrected and given a place in heaven it was said : “1 In Those days, Sheol will return all the deposits which she had received and hell will give back all that which it owes. 2 And he shall choose the righteous and the holy ones from among (the risen dead), for the day when they shall be selected and saved has arrived. 3 In those days, (the Elect one) shall sit on my throne, and from the conscience of his mouth shall come out all the secrets of wisdom, for the Lord of the Spirits has given them to him and glorified him. 4 ...And the faces of all the angels in heaven shall glow with joy, because on that day the Elect One has arisen. 5 And the earth shall rejoice; and the righteous ones shall dwell upon her and the elect ones shall walk upon her. 1st Enoch 51:1-5

Speaking of the time during and after the resurrection, the spirits of mankind are to acquire resurrected bodies of glory (the euphemism of garments is used for the putting on of these bodies just as in New testament usage) and life with the Messiah who accomplishes the atonement. “14 The Lord of the Spirits will abide over them; they shall eat and rest and rise with that Son of Man forever and ever. 15 The righteous and elect ones shall rise from the earth and shall cease being of downcast face. They shall wear the garments of glory. 16 These garments of yours shall become the garments of life from the Lord of the Spirits. Neither shall your garments wear out, nor your glory come to an end before the Lord of the Spirits. 1st Enoch 62:15-16

While Paul uses the Metonymy “Father of Spirits” his colleague in missionary efforts and the colleague of the Apostle Peter named Clement, uses a similar Metonymy saying : “Finally, may the all-seeing God and Lord of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through him to be his own special people.. “ 1 Clement 64:1 (It is just as correct in this context to use “Master of Spirits” as it is “Lord of Spirits”)

It is just this very specific historical point that I am making. Much of Christianity of the apostolic age used key phrases that were borrowed from prior Jewish vocabulary. Some of the meaning was retained and other phrases were applied differently. In the case of "Father of spirits", "Lord of spirits", "Master of Spirits", etc. the meaning of the phrases was fairly constant since God was viewed as the one who created all the spirits of all beings that he also loved and watched over like a Father.

The application of this term also shows that he was the "Father" or "Lord" of spirits that existed prior to creation of the earth, He is their "Lord" as they exist during the mortal time period, and he will be their "Lord" after they die and resurrect, which is consistent with the Judeo-Christian belief that spirits existed before life, during life, and after this life.


In any case, good luck on your spiritual journey Katzpur.
#1 Did you see the movie "Tenet".?
#2 Did you understand the movie "Tenet"?


Clear
εινεσετζω
The depth of your knowledge never ceases to amaze me, Clear! (And no, I didn't see Tenet. Should I?)
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @nPeace :


EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY VS THE J.W. MOVEMENT - THE INABILITY OF THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS MOVEMENT TO SURVIVE IN THE HISTORICAL WORLD


1) THE ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BELIEF THAT MANKIND HAVE SPIRITS ANIMATING THEIR PHYSICAL BODIES VS THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS DOCTRINE ON SPIRITS

The early Christian movement possessed a set of doctrines, beliefs and assumptions that underlie their belief system. One of these doctrines was the belief that mankind possessed a cognitive and intelligent spirit that gave the physical body life and will.

The schism that became the Jehovahs Witness movement did not adopt this specific Christians belief regarding the existence of a spirit into their belief system and thus, this is a profound difference between Early Judeo-Christianity and the Jehovahs Witness movement and this is one reason the two cannot be reconciled historically.

The ancient Judeo-Christian belief in a spirit is basic belief underlies the multiple biblical texts which refer to the spirit.


THE EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE ASSUMES SPIRITS EXIST

For examples :

In Luke 23:46 Jesus says, upon the death of his body, “into thy hands I commend my spirit” - Jesus cannot commend his spirit if he does not have a spirit. Thus, Jesus had a spirit.
Gal. 5:17 says “flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh” - The flesh cannot “lust against” a spirit that doesn’t exist.
In Ps. 16:10 (or Acts 2:27, 31) the psalmist rejoices that God “thou wilt not leave my spirit in hell” – A spirit must exist if it is to be “left” anywhere.
James 4:5 "spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy" – A spirit dwells in us that is capable of lust.
Job 14:22 his spirit within him shall mourn – The spirit within man can mourn.
Ps. 22:29 none can keep alive his own spirit – A living spirit must exist in the first place if one is unable to keep it alive.
Matt. 10:28 fear him which is able to destroy both spirit and body – A spirit must exist if it can be destroyed.
Hebrews 12:9 "...be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" -- one cannot Be the Father of spirits unless spirit exist.
James 1:21 engrafted word, which is able to save your spirit
– A spirit must exist if it can be saved.
1 Pet. 1:22 ye have purified your spirit in obeying – A spirit must exist if it can be purified.
Ezek. 11:19 (36:26–27; 37:14) I will put a new spirit within you – A spirit must exist if it is to be put into us.
Luke 24:39 spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me – A spirit must exist if it either has or lacks something. .
Acts 7:59 Stephen ... saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit – A spirit must exist if it can be received.
Acts 23:8 Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit – The concept of a spirit existed, else the concept could not have been denied by the Sadducees.
Rom. 8:16 spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit – A spirit must exist if it can be witnessed to.
1 Cor. 6:20 glorify God in your body, and in your spirit – A spirit must exist if it can “glorify God”.


Such biblical texts reference this belief that mankind has a dual nature, spirit and body. While you’ve notice frequently that though the words “spirit” and “soul” are conflated to mean the same thing, technically, they are not. As Katpur pointed out, the LDS agree with the early Christian concept that when a spirit is united with a body, it then becomes a living “soul”. Still, much of Christianity uses the terms as synonyms. We have evidence that this confusion existed anciently as well. 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. (the actual text says "synonym for spirit")

Translators sometimes do not make this distinction in their renderings and it creates some confusion for historians that make the technical distinction. Frequently the translator will render the word for “spirit” as “soul” in translations and it is only by reference to the original language text that one can tell what the actual word was. Such mistakes in rendering are common.

For example, as I’ve pointed out, the Jehovahs Witness paraphrase for a bible made multiple incorrect modifications to the authentic text, (presumably to support their own theology). Ironically, Frederick Franz rendered 1 Corinthians 15:45 as : "…The first man Adam became a living person.” This is another mistake. The Greek actually says the first man Adam became a living soul “…ο πρωτος ανθροπος αδαμ εις ψυχην ζωσαν (gk ψυχη does not specifically mean a "person" without added context). In this case, one can excuse Franz to some degree since he had no training in Koine Greek before creating his bible. Still, it causes consternation for historians when such mistakes cause confusion.

The distinction can also cause problems for religionists when they are trying to create and apply meaning to texts.

For example, the authentic version of, Ecclesiates 17:7 says : “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it”. (Ecclesiastes 12:7). While the verse seems simple enough, upon death, the body (which in Christian tradition was made from dust) returns to the earth as the body disintegrates while the spirit returns to God who gave it to Adam (and the rest of us).


SUPPORTING DOCTRINE BY INTERPRETATION
For Jehovahs Witness theology, the authentic verse disagrees with their theology. In order to justify the absence of this doctrine, the doctrine must be explained away or modified. In this case, this is done by re-interpretation. For example, Deeje, the Jehovahs Witness, explains the interpretation which allows one to dismiss the obvious meaning. She says that to her religion, the verse is interpreted to mean : “Returning the "spirit" (breath) to a resurrected human is what Ecclesiastes means.” (post #91 different thread)

While such re-interpretations allows one to re-purpose the text to support a different theology, this works only as long as one doesn’t enter the world of history where the are multiple versions of Ecclesiates 12:7 and not only confirm the verse means exactly what it says but the literature goes into depth as to the meaning. For example, these historical contextual data cannot ALL BE explained away or re-interpreted away. THIS is why the Jehovah Witness movement can exist in the world of dogma and argument and in the world of interpretation but dies a quick death the moment we step into the world of History and historical religious literature.

NON-EXISTENCE OF A DOCTRINE IN HISTORY MAKES IT "NOT" HISTORICAL
I said to Katzpur, that The Jehovahs Witness was in the minority on this doctrine. By Minority, I should have said virtually “alone”. Not only does the Jehovahs Witness doctrine on the point not exist in any of the earliest Judeo-Christian literature (zero, zip, nada representation), virtually ALL of the early Judeo-Christian literature stands as a witness against the Jehovahs Witness doctrine of “no spirit” existing and instead describes the deep and longstanding belief that the scriptures mean just what they seem to mean on this subject.

The early Christians had need to reinterpret Ecclesiates 12:7 since it agreed with their belief. Upon death, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” To them, it simply meant what it appears to mean.

The questions religious historians will ask is not what the verse means in modern Jehovahs Witness theology, but rather what history tells us regarding how the verse was understood anciently and originally. If I want to know how the ancient Judeo-Christians interpreted the verse, then I can read the early Christians 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)

Such additional context in ancient Christian literature clarify what the scripture meant to the point that no amount of re-interpretation can work. It is not merely the CLARITY of early Christian literature that is, historically important, but the sheer AMOUNT of clarifying literature that confirms historical truth. It is the such the additional historical data that makes clear and confirms he earliest and most authentic interpretation and doctrine that a spirit exists separate from the Body.

This is why non-historical religious movements such as the Jehovahs Witness movements doctrine on "non-existence of spirits" cannot survive in this historical world.

For example, In Apocalypse of Sedrach God sends for the spirit of 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 early Judeo-Christian scriptures (the authentic ones) and their early sacred texts, their diaries, their mishnas, their lectionaries, their letters, their romance literature, their ascension and decension literature, and a host of other literature all form a historical world from which one can gain a description of early beliefs and it is in such a world of literature that the Jehovahs Witness cannot survive due to the many, many, many witnesses that their theology is inconsistent with Early Judeo-Christianity on this specific subject.


THE ONLY OPTION FOR SURVIVAL OF NON-HISTORICAL RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS IN A HISTORICAL SETTING IS TO DENY THE HISTORICAL DATA (SOMEHOW)
The only option for the Jehovah Witness who comes face to face with the historical world of Judeo-Christianity of the earliest periods, is to deny history is correct (since it cannot be “re-interpreted” as a whole) by some means such as to claim the historians are biased or their descriptions are incorrect or poorly sourced, etc.


In any case, I hope your spiritual journey in this life is wonderful and satisfying nPeace.

Clear
εινεακνεω
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The depth of your knowledge never ceases to amaze me, Clear! (And no, I didn't see Tenet. Should I?)

1) I hope you realize that I was trying to confirm your point regarding God and his relationship as "the Father of the spirits" in Hebrews 12:9 (the english KJV leaves out the greek "the" in front of the word "spirits" - I simply re-inserted it...)
2) Interesting for me to think you think I have knowledge. Ironically, I think your balance of facts and knowledge of important issues exceeds mine by far. I also have an "Orontes" shrine in my bedroom and light candles when Orontes makes a point that astounds me in it's insight and logic. I could continue with my "poster worship" list, but the point is that I see myself as educated on a very narrow set of facts and I am not nearly so balanced in my data sets as you and I only wish that I could have the logical and rational powers that Orontes has. It is part of this "holy envy" one speaks of.
3) See the movie Tenet. Yes. READ about it first and then you will be confused about what you read, but less confused about the movie. I will have to see it a few times. However, I am a "DUNE" fanatic and am waiting for "DUNE 2020" to come out in december. That one you have to see.
4) Yes, women are generally smarter in a lot of ways. My wife, the linguist started back to school a while back and is taking languages from the university of Jerusalem. IN just a short time I often have to reference HER for help with language. It's embarrassing. Really..... no, really.

See you @Katzpur

Clear
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
1) I hope you realize that I was trying to confirm your point regarding God and his relationship as "the Father of the spirits" in Hebrews 12:9 (the english KJV leaves out the greek "the" in front of the word "spirits" - I simply re-inserted it...)
2) Interesting for me to think you think I have knowledge. Ironically, I think your balance of facts and knowledge of important issues exceeds mine by far. I also have an "Orontes" shrine in my bedroom and light candles when Orontes makes a point that astounds me in it's insight and logic. I could continue with my "poster worship" list, but the point is that I see myself as educated on a very narrow set of facts and I am not nearly so balanced in my data sets as you and I only wish that I could have the logical and rational powers that Orontes has. It is part of this "holy envy" one speaks of.
3) See the movie Tenet. Yes. READ about it first and then you will be confused about what you read, but less confused about the movie. I will have to see it a few times. However, I am a "DUNE" fanatic and am waiting for "DUNE 2020" to come out in december. That one you have to see.
4) Yes, women are generally smarter in a lot of ways. My wife, the linguist started back to school a while back and is taking languages from the university of Jerusalem. IN just a short time I often have to reference HER for help with language. It's embarrassing. Really..... no, really.

See you @Katzpur

Clear
Thank you, my friend. And I will check out Tenet as soon as I can.
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
1)
3) See the movie Tenet. Yes. READ about it first and then you will be confused about what you read, but less confused about the movie. I will have to see it a few times. However, I am a "DUNE" fanatic and am waiting for "DUNE 2020" to come out in december. That one you have to see.
@Katzpur

Clear

I was planning on seeing Tenet. I really like Christopher Nolan as a director. From the first film of his I saw "The Prestige" (that when I saw it, and didn't know it was Nolan's work and thought it was such a smart and well crafted story) forward, I've liked his film craft.

I am even more a Herbert fanatic. I think he is the Tolkien of Science Fiction. I think Herbert's world (or universe) building chops are simply stunning. Per Dune 2020, I am really put off by the Director Villeneuve changing the small, but pivotal character Liet Kynes into a Black woman!!!! for no bloody reason. Kynes is the leader of the Freman who are a patriarchal warrior society. He is also the father of Chani. Neither of those truths work with Villeneuve's doing the minority gender swap. Villeneuve said narrative integrity was fundamental to his film adaptation. Then, he goes the SWJ route. It's idiocy. I despise social justice warrior-ism with its attendant identity politics, intersectionality and victimology as cultural poison. It is also simply immoral.
 
Last edited:
Top