Does Paul Agree With LDS?

sojourner said:

“In the religious culture of the ancient Near East, Israel was the odd one out. Belief in life after death was well established among Israel’s neighbors, but for the longest time Israel remained adamant in its denial of life after death. Alan Segal in his masterful study Life after Death summarizes the issues well:
‘That the Bible lacks a concrete narrative of the afterlife, as we have seen so often manifested in the pagan cultures around it, must, we suspect, no be just accidental or deficient; it must be part of the biblical polemic against its environment. Practically every scholar who systematically surveys the oldest sections of the Biblical text is impressed with the lack of a beatific notion of the hereafter for anyone.’ (P. 121)

The most likely reason for this denial of an afterlife in ancient Israel is the threat such a belief poses to monotheism. The dead were viewed as powerful, almost as gods. [This] posed a threat to monotheism and so Israel denied such beliefs.

A number of the Psalms make this point so clearly that little commentary is necessary.

‘...turn your gaze away from me, that I may smile again, before I depart and am no more.’ (Ps 39:13)

Earth is the place for humans, and when they die and depart, they are no more, as the psalmist notes.”
(Scott, Bernard Brandon: The Trouble with Resurrection: From Paul to the Fourth Gospel; 2010, Polebridge Press; Pp 26-27)

Click to expand...

Hello,

I don't know any academics that deny that by the Second Temple Period the notion of resurrection/afterlife was well established within Jewry. The Book of Daniel is typically cited as one clear example:

-"Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence. And the knowledgeable will be radiant like the bright expanse of sky, and those who lead the many to righteousness will be like the stars forever and ever." (Dan. 12:2–3)

The standard Rabbnic claim is that resurrection and an afterlife have always existed within the Torah. If one asserts there was no concept of an afterlife prior to the Second Temple Period, it immediately runs into the logical issue of trying to prove a negative. It also would need to explain how the change within Judaism to have an afterlife model emerged without simply making bald assertions (it came from Zoroastrianism, for example), and also needs to contend with academic voices that reject the view an ancient Jewish afterlife concept didn't exist. Per the latter, a couple simples examples:

James L. Kugel of Bar Ilan's Bible Department in Israel authored "The Great Poems of the Bible: A Reader’s Companion with New Translations" (New York: Free Press in 1999. He states:

"Some decades ago, the cliché about the Hebrew Bible was that it really has no notion of an afterlife or the return of the soul to God or a last judgment or a world to come. But such a claim will not withstand careful scrutiny." (PP 209-210)


Jon D Levenson of Harvard's Jewish Studies Dept. is the author of "Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life" with Yale Press in 2006. His base thesis is that large swaths of scholarship on ancient Jewry is anachronistic. It draws conclusions based on notions of individuality that developed in the West. Ancient Judaism had a larger concept of identity. This applied to ideas of life, death, and salvation. Levenson puts forward ancestry, descendants, and affinity with the House of Israel all inform conceptions of resurrection and afterlife. Moreover, he argues the concept of resurrection is fundamental to the redemption of the House of Israel narrative, and therefore the very notion of salvation. It is impossible to remove afterlife conceptualization from the core of the faith tradition. All through the Tanakh there is an underlying assumption of an afterlife. He is basically agreeing that the Rabbinic Tradition is right. Levenson presents verses throughout the Tanakh to illustrate the point. Some examples:

-"And Abraham breathed his last, dying at a good ripe age, old and contented; and he was gathered to his kin". (Gen. 25:8) Gather to his kin is the clan/family relations in the afterlife.
-"God took Enoch (Gen. 5:24)
- Elijah was taken to heaven in a fiery chariot (II Kings 2:11).
- Malachi prophesies that Elijah will return in the future as the harbinger of the messianic era (Mal. 3:23–24).
- A witch conjured up Samuel’s spirit (I Sam. 28:11–14)
- Both Elijah and Elisha revived dead children (I Kings 17:19–23; II Kings 4:32–36).

For a Rabbinic approach, Rabbi Umberto Cassuto is a good example. His two volumes "Biblical and Oriental Studies" speaks directly to why the Tanakh is not more explicit in afterlife discussion in his analysis of the Garden of Eden story. He notes how in nearly all Middle Eastern Myth Traditions there is a tree, plant or some other representation of the life motif. In the Eden story by contrast, the Tree of Life is downplayed against the Tree of Knowledge and only becomes significant after the Tree of Knowledge has been eaten from. The Jews, as contradistinct to all surrounding peoples, placed the emphasis on the moral question and the relationship with the Divine, rather than a singular pursuit of physical immortality. Thus, immortality concerns are subverted to the more primary moral question.


Note: your citation of Bernard Brandon's "The Trouble with Resurrection: From Paul to the Fourth Gospel" is a product of the Westar Institute. The Westar Institute is most famous for the Jesus Seminar. Their approach is to reject at the outset any and all supernatural or metaphysical elements. This is problematic when dealing with a revealed religion as a topic. They are often criticized for a disciplinary myopia as they must then torture the prima facie textual data into saying something other than what is written. It can easily fall into circular reasoning.

nPeace said:

I read your post Kat.
I just have one question.
What do you think I should imply this to mean, and should I feel insulted by this, and get frustrated?
As far as you're concerned, Watchtower has the final say and it absolutely beyond the realm of possibility that your beliefs could be wrong.

Click to expand...

I thought it was pretty straightforward. What part of it don't you understand? Am I wrong in assuming that, for you, Watchtower has the final say on how the Bible should be interpreted? Is there any conceivable way, in your mind, that Watchtower could be wrong (even in part) in its interpretation of the Bible?

Katzpur said:

I thought it was pretty straightforward. What part of it don't you understand? Am I wrong in assuming that, for you, Watchtower has the final say on how the Bible should be interpreted? Is there any conceivable way, in your mind, that Watchtower could be wrong (even in part) in its interpretation of the Bible?

Click to expand...

Yes you are wrong in your assumption, but that's not the point of my question.
My point really, is that to take offense if someone says, your teachings are not in line with the Bible, while you are saying the same thing really, about the other person... Is, in you opinion, what?
How do you consider that?
Do you think the other person should feel insulted and frustrated, as you do?

Clear said:

If one is speaking of the ancient Judeo-Christian religion, then Hell and Sheol are two of many names for the same place. Just as apparition, ghost, spirit, etc are simply different words for the same concept, the world between death and resurrection was called by various names such as hell, sheol, the grave, the pit, hades, paradise, world of spirits, spirit world, purgatory, the grave etc. The various names and various versions of this place have a common ancient tradition as their source in that they all, historically, in ancient Judeo-Christian religion describe the a way-station of spirits of those who died and whose spirits have separated from their bodies and are awaiting resurrection.

Click to expand...

This thought particularly caught my attention......this concept of the "place" where "spirits" of the dead go between this life and the next....where does this originate? Certainly not in scripture.

I cannot find anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures where the "spirit" in humans is in any way conscious after death. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; 10) And I cannot see why there has to be a "way-station" if the spirit in man is not a conscious entity. A human soul is never spoken of as a disembodies spirit. The only ones who dwell in the spirit realm are those whom God created to live there. He created us to be material creatures to live in a material world.

Going back to Eden, Adam was told that he would simply "return to the dust" from which he was taken. There is never any mention of any sort of "way station".....no heaven or hell scenario at all. That was never offered to the nation of Israel either. (Deuteronomy 30:19-20)

It seems to me in my study of the Bible that the nation of Israel had great difficulty sticking to the script, so to speak. They had many excursions into false worship and adopted beliefs and practices that had no business being in their worship. God punished them for doing that.

You remember that when Israel were about to enter the Promised Land, God told them....
"When you have come to the land the Lord, your God, is giving you, you shall not learn to do like the abominations of those nations. טכִּ֤י אַתָּה֙ בָּ֣א אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ נֹתֵ֣ן לָ֑ךְ לֹֽא־תִלְמַ֣ד לַֽעֲשׂ֔וֹת כְּתֽוֹעֲבֹ֖ת הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָהֵֽם:

10 There shall not be found among you anyone who passes his son or daughter through fire, a soothsayer, a diviner of [auspicious] times, one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, ילֹֽא־יִמָּצֵ֣א בְךָ֔ מַֽעֲבִ֥יר בְּנֽוֹ־וּבִתּ֖וֹ בָּאֵ֑שׁ קֹסֵ֣ם קְסָמִ֔ים מְעוֹנֵ֥ן וּמְנַחֵ֖שׁ וּמְכַשֵּֽׁף:

11 or a charmer, a pithom sorcerer, a yido'a sorcerer, or a necromancer. יאוְחֹבֵ֖ר חָ֑בֶר וְשֹׁאֵ֥ל אוֹב֙ וְיִדְּעֹנִ֔י וְדֹרֵ֖שׁ אֶל־הַמֵּתִֽים:

12 For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations, the Lord, your God is driving them out from before you. יבכִּי־תֽוֹעֲבַ֥ת יְהֹוָ֖ה כָּל־עֹ֣שֵׂה אֵ֑לֶּה וּבִגְלַל֙ הַתּֽוֹעֵבֹ֣ת הָאֵ֔לֶּה יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶי֔ךָ מוֹרִ֥ישׁ אוֹתָ֖ם מִפָּנֶֽיךָ:

13 Be wholehearted with the Lord, your God. יגתָּמִ֣ים תִּֽהְיֶ֔ה עִ֖ם יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶֽיךָ:

14 For these nations, which you are to possess, hearken to diviners of [auspicious] times and soothsayers, but as for you, the Lord, your God, has not given you [things] like these. ידכִּ֣י | הַגּוֹיִ֣ם הָאֵ֗לֶּה אֲשֶׁ֤ר אַתָּה֙ יוֹרֵ֣שׁ אוֹתָ֔ם אֶל־מְעֹֽנְנִ֥ים וְאֶל־קֹֽסְמִ֖ים יִשְׁמָ֑עוּ וְאַתָּ֕ה לֹ֣א כֵ֔ן נָ֥תַן לְךָ֖ יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶֽיךָ: (Deuteronomy 18:9-14)

So any form of spiritism was forbidden, which included 'necromancy'...or inquiring of the dead.
Why would God call these practices an "abomination" if they were connected to anything good?

Scriptural resurrection does not allude to any pre-existence before birth, nor does it say anything about the spirit being reunited with the physical body at the resurrection. So the LDS scenario has no scriptural basis at all. We are the product of our parents and before our conception, we simply did not exist. When we die we simply go back to where we came from. If you invent a separate, conscious spirit that survives death, then you have to invent places for them to go. Almost all false religious beliefs can in fact be traced back to Babylon.

As Jesus said of his friend Lazarus..."He is sleeping and I am going to awaken him"....."sleeping in death" is what the scriptures indicate. Paul too spoke of those "sleeping" in death. (John 11:11-14; 1 Thessalonians 4:13, 16)

The safest place in the world to be is in the memory of the only one who can give back our spirit....or the "breath (spirit) of life" that was given to Adam at the start when God first gave him a body.

nPeace said:

Yes you are wrong in your assumption, but that's not the point of my question.
My point really, is that to take offense if someone says, your teachings are not in line with the Bible, while you are saying the same thing really, about the other person... Is, in you opinion, what?
How do you consider that?
Do you think the other person should feel insulted and frustrated, as you do?

Click to expand...

What I'm trying to say is that while we both believe the Bible, we interpret it differently. You don't believe my interpretation of certain verses in the Bible is correct. I don't believe your interpretation of certain verses in the Bible is correct. I've never said, "Your teachings are not in line with the Bible," even though I do believe that your teachings are not in line with how I believe the Bible should be interpreted. And you've said essentially the same thing about my teachings.

Orontes said:

I don't know any academics that deny that by the Second Temple Period the notion of resurrection/afterlife was well established within Jewry.

Click to expand...

My point was that there’s no official dogma — or even doctrine with regard to the afterlife. For the ancient Jews (who wrote about Sheol), it was simply “a place of the dead. contrast that with the Christian concept of hell. Two different concepts.

Orontes said:

The standard Rabbnic claim is that resurrection and an afterlife have always existed within the Torah.

Click to expand...

Not quite. some do; some don’t. In my profession, I know several colleagues who are Rabbis. They state the opposite.

Orontes said:

If one asserts there was no concept of an afterlife prior to the Second Temple Period, it immediately runs into the logical issue of trying to prove a negative.

Click to expand...

Oh, there was a concept; it was merely rejected — as my quote said.

Orontes said:

Note: your citation of Bernard Brandon's "The Trouble with Resurrection: From Paul to the Fourth Gospel" is a product of the Westar Institute. The Westar Institute is most famous for the Jesus Seminar. Their approach is to reject at the outset any and all supernatural or metaphysical elements.

Click to expand...

Note: your adherence to the BoM is a product of dubious spiritual origin. Most critical textual scholars dismiss it as in any way authentic as it states. Point: anyone can find any number of ways to dismiss things. The Westar Institute is comprised of peer-reviewed biblical scholars (including Scott). Since the approach is exegetical, and since that process requires belief to be taken out of the equation, the rejection of supernatural and metaphysical elements is one valid approach.

Orontes said:

This is problematic when dealing with a revealed religion as a topic.

Click to expand...

No, it’s one facet of dealing with texts produced by revealed religions.

Katzpur said:

What I'm trying to say is that while we both believe the Bible, we interpret it differently. You don't believe my interpretation of certain verses in the Bible is correct. I don't believe your interpretation of certain verses in the Bible is correct. I've never said, "Your teachings are not in line with the Bible," even though I do believe that your teachings are not in line with how I believe the Bible should be interpreted. And you've said essentially the same thing about my teachings.

Click to expand...

Your claim Kat, is that we interpret scripture differently. That's your opinion which I do not agree with (I said that before).
I am saying point blank, that your teachings are not in line with scripture ... in the Bible (I do not use the BoM) so I couldn't possibly be talking about anything else).

You said to me...
Quote
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.
Unquote

How do you want me to understand that? It does not need interpreting, as far as I can see.

You kept saying things like...
As far as you're concerned, Watchtower has the final say and it absolutely beyond the realm of possibility that your beliefs could be wrong.

This is certainly an absolute false statement, but what am I to understand from it. Perhaps you can tell me know the real meaning, if I am wrong, but to me, it is saying that my teachings and what I believe are based on the Watchtower. That is false.
See Spoiler.

Please tell me, did it make any difference to you, that I said, "Yes, you are wrong..." to this question... "Am I wrong in assuming that, for you, Watchtower has the final say on how the Bible should be interpreted?"
I noticed you did not acknowledge it.

I noticed you also don't seem to want to answer my questions.
I was making a point.
I actually understand why persons take offense when someone disagrees with them and says why they view a teaching as un-scriptural.
JWs meet that probably everyday, but it does not upset, or frustrate them, because they understand why people say it... (not that JWs think it's true), and they appreciate when persons express their view, because they like to reason with people despite whatever opinions they have.
Many of Jws have expressed that view, before becoming Witnesses, and one of the things that helped them, was the calm way the JWs reasoned with them, from the scriptures.

Jesus and his apostles were accused of being false, but did that frustrate them? Paul reasoned with the accusers.
Jesus was patient with them.
We should strive to imitate such examples, don't you think?

Deeje said:

This thought particularly caught my attention......this concept of the "place" where "spirits" of the dead go between this life and the next....where does this originate? Certainly not in scripture.

I cannot find anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures where the "spirit" in humans is in any way conscious after death. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; 10) And I cannot see why there has to be a "way-station" if the spirit in man is not a conscious entity. A human soul is never spoken of as a disembodies spirit. The only ones who dwell in the spirit realm are those whom God created to live there. He created us to be material creatures to live in a material world.

Going back to Eden, Adam was told that he would simply "return to the dust" from which he was taken. There is never any mention of any sort of "way station".....no heaven or hell scenario at all. That was never offered to the nation of Israel either. (Deuteronomy 30:19-20)

It seems to me in my study of the Bible that the nation of Israel had great difficulty sticking to the script, so to speak. They had many excursions into false worship and adopted beliefs and practices that had no business being in their worship. God punished them for doing that.

You remember that when Israel were about to enter the Promised Land, God told them....
"When you have come to the land the Lord, your God, is giving you, you shall not learn to do like the abominations of those nations. טכִּ֤י אַתָּה֙ בָּ֣א אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ נֹתֵ֣ן לָ֑ךְ לֹֽא־תִלְמַ֣ד לַֽעֲשׂ֔וֹת כְּתֽוֹעֲבֹ֖ת הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָהֵֽם:

10 There shall not be found among you anyone who passes his son or daughter through fire, a soothsayer, a diviner of [auspicious] times, one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, ילֹֽא־יִמָּצֵ֣א בְךָ֔ מַֽעֲבִ֥יר בְּנֽוֹ־וּבִתּ֖וֹ בָּאֵ֑שׁ קֹסֵ֣ם קְסָמִ֔ים מְעוֹנֵ֥ן וּמְנַחֵ֖שׁ וּמְכַשֵּֽׁף:

11 or a charmer, a pithom sorcerer, a yido'a sorcerer, or a necromancer. יאוְחֹבֵ֖ר חָ֑בֶר וְשֹׁאֵ֥ל אוֹב֙ וְיִדְּעֹנִ֔י וְדֹרֵ֖שׁ אֶל־הַמֵּתִֽים:

12 For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations, the Lord, your God is driving them out from before you. יבכִּי־תֽוֹעֲבַ֥ת יְהֹוָ֖ה כָּל־עֹ֣שֵׂה אֵ֑לֶּה וּבִגְלַל֙ הַתּֽוֹעֵבֹ֣ת הָאֵ֔לֶּה יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶי֔ךָ מוֹרִ֥ישׁ אוֹתָ֖ם מִפָּנֶֽיךָ:

13 Be wholehearted with the Lord, your God. יגתָּמִ֣ים תִּֽהְיֶ֔ה עִ֖ם יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶֽיךָ:

14 For these nations, which you are to possess, hearken to diviners of [auspicious] times and soothsayers, but as for you, the Lord, your God, has not given you [things] like these. ידכִּ֣י | הַגּוֹיִ֣ם הָאֵ֗לֶּה אֲשֶׁ֤ר אַתָּה֙ יוֹרֵ֣שׁ אוֹתָ֔ם אֶל־מְעֹֽנְנִ֥ים וְאֶל־קֹֽסְמִ֖ים יִשְׁמָ֑עוּ וְאַתָּ֕ה לֹ֣א כֵ֔ן נָ֥תַן לְךָ֖ יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶֽיךָ: (Deuteronomy 18:9-14)

So any form of spiritism was forbidden, which included 'necromancy'...or inquiring of the dead.
Why would God call these practices an "abomination" if they were connected to anything good?

Scriptural resurrection does not allude to any pre-existence before birth, nor does it say anything about the spirit being reunited with the physical body at the resurrection. So the LDS scenario has no scriptural basis at all. We are the product of our parents and before our conception, we simply did not exist. When we die we simply go back to where we came from. If you invent a separate, conscious spirit that survives death, then you have to invent places for them to go. Almost all false religious beliefs can in fact be traced back to Babylon.

As Jesus said of his friend Lazarus..."He is sleeping and I am going to awaken him"....."sleeping in death" is what the scriptures indicate. Paul too spoke of those "sleeping" in death. (John 11:11-14; 1 Thessalonians 4:13, 16)

The safest place in the world to be is in the memory of the only one who can give back our spirit....or the "breath (spirit) of life" that was given to Adam at the start when God first gave him a body.

Click to expand...

I was asking about the spirits of wicked people, but didn't get an answer.
I'd be interested to know what God will do with all those created spirits of the wicked, who will never be resurrected.
.. but that's irrelevant, since the Bible never speaks of disembodied immortal spirits.

nPeace said:

Your claim Kat, is that we interpret scripture differently. That's your opinion which I do not agree with (I said that before).
I am saying point blank, that your teachings are not in line with scripture ... in the Bible (I do not use the BoM) so I couldn't possibly be talking about anything else).

Click to expand...

Well, again, what more can I say? We have a difference of opinion. In my opinion, my teachings are in line with scripture (even if I don't include the Book of Mormon). In your opinion, yours are.

You said to me...
Quote
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.
Unquote

How do you want me to understand that? It does not need interpreting, as far as I can see.

Click to expand...

Where in the Bible does it say we have no spirit?

You kept saying things like...
As far as you're concerned, Watchtower has the final say and it absolutely beyond the realm of possibility that your beliefs could be wrong.

This is certainly an absolute false statement, but what am I to understand from it. Perhaps you can tell me know the real meaning, if I am wrong, but to me, it is saying that my teachings and what I believe are based on the Watchtower. That is false.
See Spoiler.

Please tell me, did it make any difference to you, that I said, "Yes, you are wrong..." to this question... "Am I wrong in assuming that, for you, Watchtower has the final say on how the Bible should be interpreted?"
I noticed you did not acknowledge it.

Click to expand...

I did not acknowledge it because you not only said I was wrong, but that it wasn't the point of your question. From that, I assumed you didn't want to get into it.

I noticed you also don't seem to want to answer my questions.

Click to expand...

Well, I've certainly tried. If I've missed one or two, I'm sorry.

I was making a point.
I actually understand why persons take offense when someone disagrees with them and says why they view a teaching as un-scriptural.
JWs meet that probably everyday, but it does not upset, or frustrate them, because they understand why people say it... (not that JWs think it's true), and they appreciate when persons express their view, because they like to reason with people despite whatever opinions they have.
Many of Jws have expressed that view, before becoming Witnesses, and one of the things that helped them, was the calm way the JWs reasoned with them, from the scriptures.

Jesus and his apostles were accused of being false, but did that frustrate them? Paul reasoned with the accusers.
Jesus was patient with them.
We should strive to imitate such examples, don't you think?

Click to expand...

Yes, why don't you give it a shot sometime.

When JWs go knocking on doors, their primary goal is to do what Jesus said, at Matthew 24:12, and Matthew 28:19, 20, so those who show interest are offered a free home Bible study, not a Watchtower study.

The student is not forced to accept the teachings, as though someone holds a gun to their head, while screaming, "Swallow it!"

The student is looking at the scriptures; carefully considering them; meditating on what they mean, and examining whether what they read in the Bible, lines up with what the JWs are saying.

This can take six months or more, or even years, depending on how often the study is conducted; how much knowledge the person has about scripture, or the students comprehension skills, or intellect.

The student is the one who decides that what he has studied in the Bible is the truth, and he decides that JWs are indeed teaching the truth, and therefore he wants to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, and join his disciples (Jehovah's [God's] Witnesses) in making yet more disciples.

Click to expand...

What's your point? The exact same thing happens when Mormon missionaries talk with people, except that they decide to join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Hence, what we teach and believe is based on the Bible, and not the Watchtower.
The Watchtower contains what is believed, based on a study of the Bible. That's why there are always adjustments made in the Watchtower, because those of us studying the Bible, do see a need to adjust our understanding, as we see things clearer - the light of truth gets brighter.

The Watchtower thus, is not the final say. The Bible is.

Click to expand...

So where does the Bible tell you to let your child die rather than allow him or her to receive a blood transfusion?

Katzpur said:

Well, again, what more can I say? We have a difference of opinion. In my opinion, my teachings are in line with scripture (even if I don't include the Book of Mormon). In your opinion, yours are.

Where in the Bible does it say we have no spirit?

Click to expand...

Where in this thread did anyone say we have no spirit?

Katzpur said:

I did not acknowledge it because you not only said I was wrong, but that it wasn't the point of your question. From that, I assumed you didn't want to get into it.

Click to expand...

What about now?

Katzpur said:

Well, I've certainly tried. If I've missed one or two, I'm sorry.

Click to expand...

I don't think you tried Kat. Two short posts... How could you miss?

Katzpur said:

Yes, why don't you give it a shot sometime.

Click to expand...

I'm not the one describing how upset, and frustrated they are. Nor am I displaying it.

Katzpur said:

What's your point? The exact same thing happens when Mormon missionaries talk with people, except that they decide to join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Click to expand...

My point is clear. You were wrong. Please read the last sentence again, if you missed the point.

Katzpur said:

So where does the Bible tell you to let your child die rather than allow him or her to receive a blood transfusion?

Click to expand...

Off topic, but if you really want to know, See... this thread, or you can visit www.jw.org, and use the search engine if you want more.
If you need further help, please let us know.

nPeace said:

When JWs go knocking on doors, their primary goal is to do what Jesus said, at Matthew 24:12, and Matthew 28:19, 20, so those who show interest are offered a free home Bible study, not a Watchtower study.

The student is not forced to accept the teachings, as though someone holds a gun to their head, while screaming, "Swallow it!"

The student is looking at the scriptures; carefully considering them; meditating on what they mean, and examining whether what they read in the Bible, lines up with what the JWs are saying.

This can take six months or more, or even years, depending on how often the study is conducted; how much knowledge the person has about scripture, or the students comprehension skills, or intellect.

Click to expand...

I don't think a lot of people have any idea what it means to be a "Christian".
It took me two solid years of study before I committed myself to God as a disciple of his son. I explored everything there was to explore, and no one came up better equipped to answer my questions straight from the Bible, than Jehovah's Witnesses. For the first time in my life, everything made perfect sense.

So for the dissenters here, I ask....is it OK to believe whatever suits you, but is in conflict with what other "Christians" believe, and is it still acceptable to God and his Christ?
Didn't Paul say..."Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought." (1 Corinthians 1:10) Is this what we see in Christendom?

The disunity should be enough to question all of them. Jesus said that there are "wheat and weeds" growing together in the world......the wheat have the truth, and the weeds are just counterfeits.....these are "Christians" by label but not by behavior. So, how do you tell the difference? You use God's word.....all of it, not just the convenient bits that appear to back up a belief or practice. Even the devil can quote scripture and he is the sower of the weeds.

That means that you have to look at what people do...not just listen to what they say. God hates hypocrites so if we see professed "Christians" going against what Christ taught....there is your red flag, right there. Should we remain silent about it? If we care about our fellow man we should be making them very aware of it....like Jesus did. Its the reason why he commanded us to preach....to save people's lives.

Where is this difference between real Christianity and the fake ones most obvious? In times of political conflict, where "Christians" are called upon to go and fight for their country. Clergy often accompany them to the battle lines, because consciences can become troubled when you are there to take human life. Why does it feel wrong, when your own clergy have told you its OK?

What did Jesus say?...."You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you". (Matthew 5:43-44)
Does Jesus sanction the taking of human life, even if its an enemy? How do you "love your enemies" with a bomb, a tank or a machine gun? No true Christian would even be in the military to train to kill other humans. It shows intent to disobey the Christ if the circumstances arose.....and you have placed yourself in a war zone.

What about all the doctrinal differences? Shouldn't we know where our beliefs originated and what God might think of them? How many of us have bothered to check the Bible for ourselves to see if a belief held by our church is genuinely from the Bible?
Does it teach that God is a trinity? Do we have an immortal soul that departs from the body at death? Have we lived as spirits before our human birth?
Is there such a place as "hell"? What does baptism mean?
Does the strict morality of the Bible change because immoral humans demand them to be relaxed?

And what about pagan celebrations dressed up to appear to be "Christian"? How does God feel about those?

Paul wrote..."Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? 15 Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Beʹli·al? Or what does a believer share in common with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols? For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: “I will reside among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” 17 “‘Therefore, get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’”; “‘and I will take you in.’” 18 “‘And I will become a father to you, and you will become sons and daughters to me,’ says Jehovah, the Almighty.”

That should be enough to see that giving something pagan, a thin Christian veneer, just doesn't cut it.
We are told not to "touch" such things if we want God to accept us as his children.

Christmas is the greatest commercial greed-fest in existence, yet it is still promoted as a Christian celebration. It was never connected to Christ in any way. It was a festival to Mithra and it retains the date and all the customs that went along with that pagan celebration. The Norse gods got a look in too with their decorated trees and Yule logs etc.

Easter too....they didn't even bother to change the name of the goddess that this festival was held to honor. This fertility goddess had as her emblems, rabbits and eggs. Now read that scripture above again, and ask the question...does God approve of those festivities originally held in honor of other gods? How could he?

How many "Christian" churches display all those negative traits? Who do you believe?

Deeje said:

I don't think a lot of people have any idea what it means to be a "Christian".
It took me two solid years of study before I committed myself to God as a disciple of his son. I explored everything there was to explore, and no one came up better equipped to answer my questions straight from the Bible, than Jehovah's Witnesses. For the first time in my life, everything made perfect sense.

So for the dissenters here, I ask....is it OK to believe whatever suits you, but is in conflict with what other "Christians" believe, and is it still acceptable to God and his Christ?
Didn't Paul say..."Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought." (1 Corinthians 1:10) Is this what we see in Christendom?

The disunity should be enough to question all of them. Jesus said that there are "wheat and weeds" growing together in the world......the wheat have the truth, and the weeds are just counterfeits.....these are "Christians" by label but not by behavior. So, how do you tell the difference? You use God's word.....all of it, not just the convenient bits that appear to back up a belief or practice. Even the devil can quote scripture and he is the sower of the weeds.

That means that you have to look at what people do...not just listen to what they say. God hates hypocrites so if we see professed "Christians" going against what Christ taught....there is your red flag, right there. Should we remain silent about it? If we care about our fellow man we should be making them very aware of it....like Jesus did. Its the reason why he commanded us to preach....to save people's lives.

Where is this difference between real Christianity and the fake ones most obvious? In times of political conflict, where "Christians" are called upon to go and fight for their country. Clergy often accompany them to the battle lines, because consciences can become troubled when you are there to take human life. Why does it feel wrong, when your own clergy have told you its OK?

What did Jesus say?...."You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you". (Matthew 5:43-44)
Does Jesus sanction the taking of human life, even if its an enemy? How do you "love your enemies" with a bomb, a tank or a machine gun? No true Christian would even be in the military to train to kill other humans. It shows intent to disobey the Christ if the circumstances arose.....and you have placed yourself in a war zone.

What about all the doctrinal differences? Shouldn't we know where our beliefs originated and what God might think of them? How many of us have bothered to check the Bible for ourselves to see if a belief held by our church is genuinely from the Bible?
Does it teach that God is a trinity? Do we have an immortal soul that departs from the body at death? Have we lived as spirits before our human birth?
Is there such a place as "hell"? What does baptism mean?
Does the strict morality of the Bible change because immoral humans demand them to be relaxed?

And what about pagan celebrations dressed up to appear to be "Christian"? How does God feel about those?

Paul wrote..."Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? 15 Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Beʹli·al? Or what does a believer share in common with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols? For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: “I will reside among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” 17 “‘Therefore, get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’”; “‘and I will take you in.’” 18 “‘And I will become a father to you, and you will become sons and daughters to me,’ says Jehovah, the Almighty.”

That should be enough to see that giving something pagan, a thin Christian veneer, just doesn't cut it.
We are told not to "touch" such things if we want God to accept us as his children.

Christmas is the greatest commercial greed-fest in existence, yet it is still promoted as a Christian celebration. It was never connected to Christ in any way. It was a festival to Mithra and it retains the date and all the customs that went along with that pagan celebration. The Norse gods got a look in too with their decorated trees and Yule logs etc.

Easter too....they didn't even bother to change the name of the goddess that this festival was held to honor. This fertility goddess had as her emblems, rabbits and eggs. Now read that scripture above again, and ask the question...does God approve of those festivities originally held in honor of other gods? How could he?

How many "Christian" churches display all those negative traits? Who do you believe?

Click to expand...

I tink for many, the weed are so plentiful, they get so used to identifying them as wheat, because they can't be bothered with what is wheat, or weeds.
I think somehow many have convinced themselves that the sower of the wheat will excuse them, and say, "It's okay. I know they looked similar."
However, I think they fail to take to heart the words of Matthew 7:13, 14, 21-23.
It will truly be a great deal of weeds to be burnt up. The fire will be great.

nPeace said:

Where in this thread did anyone say we have no spirit?

Click to expand...

Okay, so I phrased that wrong. I humbly beg your forgiveness. You have said that we do not have a spirit component that God created for each of us, a cognizant life force which can exist either within a body (making the body a "living soul") or outside of it.

What about now?

Click to expand...

You're just like the Energizer Bunny, nPeace. You just keep on going forever, don't you? Okay, so we can talk about it now if you'd like. Personally, I don't feel as if we're getting anywhere, but if you want to keep at it, okay.

I don't think you tried Kat. Two short posts... How could you miss?

Click to expand...

Well, evidently I did. I don't know which two posts you're referring to, so if you would be so kind as to tell me which ones they are, I'll go back and re-read them.

I'm not the one describing how upset, and frustrated they are. Nor am I displaying it.

Click to expand...

No, you're just the one being passive-aggressive, self-righteous and condescending.

My point is clear. You were wrong. Please read the last sentence again, if you missed the point.

Click to expand...

I didn't miss the point. I just disagree with you.

Off topic, but if you really want to know, See... this thread, or you can visit www.jw.org, and use the search engine if you want more.
If you need further help, please let us know.

Click to expand...

Off topic? Who cares? At least half the posts on this thread have been off-topic. And I don't need to visit the JW website or plow through another thread to know that nowhere in the Bible are we told not to accept blood transfusions. Just admit it already!

@Deeje, @nPeace, (since you both are posting here...) what a wonderful WT article for tomorrow, eh?

I especially appreciate the opening sentence in the preview!
If only everyone recognized how Satan is controlling just about everything here on Earth. It’s his world. 2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9; Luke 4:5-6

Hockeycowboy said:

@Deeje, @nPeace, (since you both are posting here...) what a wonderful WT article for tomorrow, eh?

I especially appreciate the opening sentence in the preview!
If only everyone recognized how Satan is controlling just about everything here on Earth. It’s his world. 2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9; Luke 4:5-6

Click to expand...

Yep we live on the front edge of the International Date Line so our today begins around when your yesterday ends.....how weird!

It was a great study! No doubt at all who is running this show and how his time is running short....no subtlety any more....he is in all our faces......let's spit in his eye!

Hockeycowboy said:

@Deeje, @nPeace, (since you both are posting here...) what a wonderful WT article for tomorrow, eh?

I especially appreciate the opening sentence in the preview!
If only everyone recognized how Satan is controlling just about everything here on Earth. It’s his world. 2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9; Luke 4:5-6

Click to expand...

Yeah bro. The conceited, deceitful hypocrites are going to get what's coming to them, and as John said... They will deserve it.
It's really refreshing to see the humble who started the walk, keep on walking.
I really appreciated the article very much.

@Deeje I believe you were the one being referred to, as the blame for Kat having a bad experience, but from the conversation I have been having in this thread, I can prove that you were not the spit-fire in the conversation... although I knew that from the beginning.

Imagine someone saying this to you...
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.
..and then trying to come off as the baby in the cradle, while painting you as Frankenstein, or Freddy Kruger.
You sort of feel as though you are talking to a person with a split personality... Or someone who don't even know themselves... Or, a pretender that isn't very good at it.
Never again Deeje, Never again. LOL.

sojourner said:

My point was that there’s no official dogma — or even doctrine with regard to the afterlife. For the ancient Jews (who wrote about Sheol), it was simply “a place of the dead. contrast that with the Christian concept of hell. Two different concepts.

Click to expand...

Given Judaism is orthopraxic with no centralized authority, references to an official dogma wouldn't follow.

I'm unsure what you are arguing. You recognize there was a place called Sheol. Place entails a geography and within that geography something called the dead are gathered. Am I correct? If that is your stance then ipso facto an afterlife is agreed to. The question then only becomes one of detail and emphasis and role.

Not quite. some do; some don’t. In my profession, I know several colleagues who are Rabbis. They state the opposite.

Click to expand...

I am well aware of the view "Two Jews, three opinions' ', so there is always a sea of positions from Jews one can access. Here is a contemporary example. This is from 1988, from Rabbi Nissan Dovid Dubov

"The Mishnah* states: “Every Jew has a share in the World to Come.” In this Mishnah, the term “World to Come” refers to the “World of Resurrection.” This is indicated by the continuation of the Mishnah: “The following do not have a portion in the World to Come: He who says that ‘there is no indication in the Torah that the dead will be resurrected.’ ” The reason [why such an individual is denied a share in the World to Come] is, as the Gemara explains: “He denied the Resurrection of the Dead, therefore he will not have a share in this Resurrection — measure for measure.” Thus, [it is with regard to Resurrection of the Dead] that it is said: “Every Jew has a share in the World to Come.”

* This is from Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:1)



I was referring to the larger Rabbinc Tradition. So, the view from some Reformed or Conservative Rabbi isn't the focus. If you don't think I'm correct, see if you can find some non-contemporary rabbinc rejections of resurrection and/or afterlife. Look for some citations, pre- Moses Mendelssohn. That will keep it within the framework I am referring to.

Oh, there was a concept; it was merely rejected — as my quote said.

Click to expand...

Below is the quote you provided:

"That the Bible lacks a concrete narrative of the afterlife, as we have seen so often manifested in the pagan cultures around it, must, we suspect, no be just accidental or deficient; it must be part of the biblical polemic against its environment. Practically every scholar who systematically surveys the oldest sections of the Biblical text is impressed with the lack of a beatific notion of the hereafter for anyone.’ (P. 121)

The most likely reason for this denial of an afterlife in ancient Israel is the threat such a belief poses to monotheism. The dead were viewed as powerful, almost as gods. [This] posed a threat to monotheism and so Israel denied such beliefs. "


The author "suspects" and then puts forward a "most likely reason". This isn't compelling on it's face. It is a qualified guess. That isn't a bad thing, but it clearly, even according to the author's language, is not definitive. The other issue is the basis for this qualification is Jewish monotheism. However, Ancient Jewry wasn't monotheistic. This is demonstrated by the work of Mark Smith, William G Dever, John Day among others. There is also the Documentary Hypothesis and the Ugaritic Texts that undercuts the position.


Further, any rejection of a Jewish afterlife must deal with the primary text(s). Below are the citations I gave earlier. These all present a Jewish afterlife. There are a host of others, these are just a few samples:


"Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence. And the knowledgeable will be radiant like the bright expanse of sky, and those who lead the many to righteousness will be like the stars forever and ever." (Dan 12:2-3 )

"And Abraham breathed his last, dying at a good ripe age, old and contented; and he was gathered to his kin". (Gen. 25:8) Gather to his kin is the clan/family relations in the afterlife.

"God took Enoch (Gen. 5:24)

Elijah was taken to heaven in a fiery chariot (II Kings 2:11).

Malachi prophesies that Elijah will return in the future as the harbinger of the messianic era (Mal. 3:23–24).

A witch conjured up Samuel’s spirit (I Sam. 28:11–14)

Both Elijah and Elisha revived dead children (I Kings 17:19–23; II Kings 4:32–36).

Note: your adherence to the BoM is a product of dubious spiritual origin. Most critical textual scholars dismiss it as in any way authentic as it states. Point: anyone can find any number of ways to dismiss things. The Westar Institute is comprised of peer-reviewed biblical scholars (including Scott). Since the approach is exegetical, and since that process requires belief to be taken out of the equation, the rejection of supernatural and metaphysical elements is one valid approach.

Click to expand...

The barb toward the BoM isn't relevant to the topic at hand.

Per the Westar Institute: when it began in the mid-80s there was some fan fair, but it has lost standing since then. Mostly because it has remained rooted in a singular approach and tending toward the polemical. I quoted from James L. Kugel of Bar Ilan's Bible Department on our topic:

"Some decades ago, the cliché about the Hebrew Bible was that it really has no notion of an afterlife or the return of the soul to God or a last judgment or a world to come. But such a claim will not withstand careful scrutiny."

This is a general standard in Biblical Studies now. I gave you references from Harvard's Jewish Dept. and Bar Ilan in Jerusalem to reflect a consensus view from major institutions in the field. The Westar Institute self publishes and focuses on a non-academic audience. There is a reason for that.

Deeje said:

So for the dissenters here, I ask....is it OK to believe whatever suits you, but is in conflict with what other "Christians" believe, and is it still acceptable to God and his Christ?
Didn't Paul say..."Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought." (1 Corinthians 1:10) Is this what we see in Christendom?

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t say “whatever suits you,” because that seems a little egotistical, but I would say it’s desirable to believe whatever resonates with you and increases your spiritual health. Isn’t that what you’ve said you did: explored several different expressions of the Faith until you found something that resonated with you and deepened your spiritual health? You believe things now that are in “direct conflict” with the Faith in which you were weaned, and, indeed, the majority of the church. Don’t you find that “acceptable to God?”

“The same mind and same line of thought” is the Christ-consciousness,” not particular doctrines.

Deeje said:

Where is this difference between real Christianity and the fake ones most obvious? In times of political conflict, where "Christians" are called upon to go and fight for their country. Clergy often accompany them to the battle lines, because consciences can become troubled when you are there to take human life. Why does it feel wrong, when your own clergy have told you its OK?

Click to expand...

I don’t know of any bona fide clergy who say it’s “ok.” Chaplains are there to help people through traumatic situations. Yes, war is never OK, but it is part of the human condition and presents us with an example of the HUGE grey area that comprises the majority of the human experience. Very, very little is simple black-and-white for us. For my money, religion is there to help us deal with the edges that are grey. Religion creates space for us to wrestle with questions, not to provide easy, cookie-cutter answers.

Orontes said:

I'm unsure what you are arguing. You recognize there was a place called Sheol. Place entails a geography and within that geography something called the dead are gathered. Am I correct? If that is your stance then ipso facto an afterlife is agreed to. The question then only becomes one of detail and emphasis and role

Click to expand...

What you’re saying is, “This is where the dead people live.” It’s an oxymoron. The dead who are in Sheol ... are dead. This is not so with hell.

Orontes said:

I was referring to the larger Rabbinc Tradition. So, the view from some Reformed or Conservative Rabbi isn't the focus. If you don't think I'm correct, see if you can find some non-contemporary rabbinc rejections of resurrection and/or afterlife. Look for some citations, pre- Moses Mendelssohn. That will keep it within the framework I am referring to.

Click to expand...

The biblical milieu is far older than the Rabbinic tradition. This is the framework in which the author is working.

Orontes said:

The author "suspects" and then puts forward a "most likely reason". This isn't compelling on it's face. It is a qualified guess. That isn't a bad thing, but it clearly, even according to the author's language, is not definitive

Click to expand...

99.99% of all exegetical studies rely on “most likely reason.” Very, very little is definitive — and there are several differing, yet acceptable “camps” of thought on any given subject. This is one such. You and I may disagree as to which “camp” we’re in, but we cannot just poke a finger and say, “Your camp is wrong.”

The problem is that we’re dealing with ancient texts, many of which were lifted from earlier and foreign cultures. Of course the concept is there; the concept was extant in the world; but the wholesale focus of the religion on the here-and-now shows a disregard for any sort of afterlife. It’s just not on either the spiritual or doctrinal radar. Hence, any sort of “place” for dead souls cannot be conceptualized the same as the Christian hell.

Orontes said:

The other issue is the basis for this qualification is Jewish monotheism. However, Ancient Jewry wasn't monotheistic

Click to expand...

No, they were henotheistic. But considering the way in which both the theology and the texts developed, the religion morphed into monotheism. Hence, the argument of the scholar in question.

Orontes said:

The barb toward the BoM isn't relevant to the topic at hand.

Click to expand...

See above my response #3. There are several “camps.” My post shows how your barb toward the Westar Institute is, likewise, not relevant.

Orontes said:

This is the general standard in Biblical Studies now. The Westar Institute self publishes and focuses on a non-academic audience. There is a reason for that.

Click to expand...

you will note that the book isn’t produced by Westar. Not everything Dr. Scott produces is from Westar. And the source is patently wrong. I can point to any number of scholastic programs that make use of Westar research as a valid source.

sojourner said:

Of course the concept is there; the concept was extant in the world; but the wholesale focus of the religion on the here-and-now shows a disregard for any sort of afterlife. It’s just not on either the spiritual or doctrinal radar. Hence, any sort of “place” for dead souls cannot be conceptualized the same as the Christian hell.

Click to expand...

I was typing on other points you brought up and then saw the above. Is the above the core of your argument? If so, the question is more on orientation, not whether the concept existed. To the orientation, I presented Levenson's "Resurrection and Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life". . Below is what I presented:

His base thesis is that large swaths of scholarship on ancient Jewry is anachronistic. It draws conclusions based on notions of individuality that developed in the West. Ancient Judaism had a larger concept of identity. This applied to ideas of life, death, and salvation. Levenson puts forward ancestry, descendants, and affinity with the House of Israel all inform conceptions of resurrection and afterlife. Moreover, he argues the concept of resurrection is fundamental to the redemption of the House of Israel narrative, and therefore the very notion of salvation. It is impossible to remove afterlife conceptualization from the core of the faith tradition. All through the Tanakh there is an underlying assumption of an afterlife. He is basically agreeing that the Rabbinic Tradition is right. Levenson presents verses throughout the Tanakh to illustrate the point. Some examples:

-And Abraham breathed his last, dying at a good ripe age, old and contented; and he was gathered to his kin". (Gen. 25:8) Gather to his kin is the clan/family relations in the afterlife.
-"God took Enoch (Gen. 5:24)
- Elijah was taken to heaven in a fiery chariot (II Kings 2:11).
- Malachi prophesies that Elijah will return in the future as the harbinger of the messianic era (Mal. 3:23–24).
- A witch conjured up Samuel’s spirit (I Sam. 28:11–14)
- Both Elijah and Elisha revived dead children (I Kings 17:19–23; II Kings 4:32–36).
-"Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence. And the knowledgeable will be radiant like the bright expanse of sky, and those who lead the many to righteousness will be like the stars forever and ever." (Dan. 12:2–3)