-
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!
The thief on the cross and jesus.Did they go to paradise underground?
- Thread starter Frank Goad
- Start date
@cataway replied : "You are going to be red in the face when you find out Hades is the grave. A hole doug in to the ground to put a dead person" (post #81).
Hi @cataway;
One of the problems in historical religious discussions is often differing theology caused by differing interpretations.
For example, your comments stem contextually from the meaning the Jehovahs Witness created for the ancient word "Hades" (which they describe in their own literature)
My comments stem contextually from the meaning of "Hades" held by the early Judeo-Christians (which they describe in their own literature).
These are two different Hades from two different religions having two different interpretations.
Keep in mind that your religion is NOT the same religion as that of the earliest Christians who wrote and described their religion and their beliefs and their interpretations.
Your religion is a relatively modern religion (1800s) with it's own modern beliefs and interpretations compared to that of the ancient Christianity with their ancient set of beliefs and interpretations.
For example, your religion and it's interpretations are not found in the early Historical Christian literature where the earliest Christians witness to their earliest beliefs and interpretations.
It is these historical differences that will keep your religion from being historically coherent with the religion of early Judeo-Christianity.
This specific point does not indicate that the earliest and more original Christianity is superior to yours, merely that your religion is different in it's doctrines and interpretations that the early Judeo-Christian religious movement.
Clear
ειφιφιφιω
Last edited:
cataway
Well-Known Member
earliest Christianity ?? which would be ,what? 200 years after the death of Jesus ? which would be more than enough time for odd understandings to get excepted. fact is hades is that place where the dead are put. in time the earth consumes them the bodies are gone ,destroyed. you dont want to go there i dont want to go there. however there is a very good chance we all will. only by the power of God through Jesus the Christ can any one be saved from the clutches of Hades
How do you know the quote is correct? all the gospels contradict the event so which is true?
cataway
Well-Known Member
occam's razor.
there are to many problems with "43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Muffled
Jesus in me
There are passages that lend to the idea of the lake of fire that is in Revelations. The idea of Hell and Hades comes from myths and get used as terms for it but that does not mean the myths are accurate. So if the rich man is in a hot place, we select a term to express that.
The thing is that there is no time context despite the fact that the story has a past tense. For God everything has already happened. The context is that of Jesus teaching and this is a story with a moral.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe I wouldn't put too much stock in Abraham's bosom. No doubt Abraham was buried and slept with the body until he could be reincarnated. So it is more likely that Jesus is talking about a future event. There is no need for that place to be any different than it will be for the rest of us who are saved. We know Elijah was taken up from the earth but we don't know where he went anymore than we know where Jesus went when He ascended. We don't know where paradise is or even if one goes there bodily or simply by spirit. I am sure of one thing: God is judge of where people are going despite whatever they think about where they are going.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe I have read it but do not remember any reference to that. That is why you need to point it out to refresh our memories. I remember His body was laid in a tomb and three days later the tomb was found to be empty. I doubt anyone was checking before that to see if the body was still there. It would not surprise me if a gospel writer speculated that he was in the ground 3 days but that isn't the same as fact.
1) Regarding Cataways Jehovahs Witness doctrines and interpretations :
Clear said : “…your comments stem contextually from the meaning the Jehovahs Witness created for the ancient word "Hades" (which they describe in their own literature)
My comments stem contextually from the meaning of "Hades" held by the early Judeo-Christians (which they describe in their own literature). These are two different Hades from two different religions having two different interpretations.
Keep in mind that your religion is NOT the same religion as that of the earliest Christians who wrote and described their religion and their beliefs and their interpretations.
Your religion is a relatively modern religion (1800s) with it's own modern beliefs and interpretations compared to that of the ancient Christianity with their ancient set of beliefs and interpretations.
For example, your religion and it's interpretations are not found in the early Historical Christian literature where the earliest Christians witness to their earliest beliefs and interpretations. It is these historical differences that will keep your religion from being historically coherent with the religion of early Judeo-Christianity.
Cataway replied : “earliest Christianity ?? which would be ,what? 200 years after the death of Jesus ? which would be more than enough time for odd understandings to get excepted.” (post #82)
Hi @cataway :
If you are unable to think historically, you will continue to offer historically inaccurate suggestions. If you ever decide to start to educate yourself about early Christianity and it’s doctrines and it’s interpretations, I suggest you start earlier than “200 years after Jesus died”.
You could, for example, study the literature that the writers of the New Testament refer to and quote in the New Testament that were written BEFORE Jesus was born.
You could start with Christian literature that was written concurrent with the New Testament. For example, Paul mentions his fellow worker Clement in Phillipians 4:3. Clement, who was a convert of the Apostle Peter and a colleague and fellow worker with the Apostle Paul wrote his own letter to the Corinthians before 70 a.d.. This was the same time period when the writer of revelations was alive and writing his apocalypse.
You could study the didache which was written before 100 a.d.
You could study 2nd Clement, written while the writer could have known a living apostle.
You could study the apostolic Fathers, all written when the writer could have known an apostle.
You could start with literature which either WAS in the earliest Christian bibles (Clement - C. Alexandra, P6, barnabas, hermas, etc.) or which are still INSIDE eastern Christian bibles (The larger ethiopian canon still has 81 books in it versus the western 66 books).
All of these and much, much more, will describe the earliest Christianity with it’s doctrines and interpretations that are very different than those of the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses almost 2000 years later.
The literature will show what doctrines remained constant over time and which doctrines changed and how they evolved.
2) THE SILLY SUGGESTION THAT ONE CAN USE THE PASSING OF TIME AS AN INDICATION OF RELATIVE ERROR IN CHRISTIAN THINKING
Cataway replied : “earliest Christianity ?? which would be ,what? 200 years after the death of Jesus ? which would be more than enough time for odd understandings to get excepted.” (post #82)
IF you are using the passing of time as an indication of degree of apostasy, consider that less than 40 years had passed between Clements writings and the death of Jesus.
IF, you insist that by 200 years later, the Christians had time to adopt errors, then how many errors could have been adopted by the Jehovahs Witness movement that was separated by 1800 years from the death of Jesus. How much apostasy could THEY have adopted, given 1800 years?
In early Judeo-Christian religion, Hades/Sheol/world of Spirits/the Grave/Death etc. was the place where the cognisant spirits of the dead were while they awaited resurrection and judgment.
The religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses adopted different doctrines.
In the religion they created :
1) there is no spirit inside the body of individuals and
2) Once individual die, there is nothing left of that individual. They are Annihilated.
Because of such very basic differences, the Jehovahs Witness religion can never historically cohere with the religion of the early Judeo-Christians.
We have no indication that Paul's coworker Clement suddenly turned apostate in his literature, nor in similar works.
The reason Jehovahs Witnesses are unable to use any significant amount of similar early literature is because the earliest literature contradicts and undermines significant Doctrines the Jehovah's Witnesses created and adopted.
They simply cannot use much of the earliest Judeo-Christian literature without running into theological conflicts regarding very basic doctrines.
Clear
ειφυφυνεω
Clear said : “…your comments stem contextually from the meaning the Jehovahs Witness created for the ancient word "Hades" (which they describe in their own literature)
My comments stem contextually from the meaning of "Hades" held by the early Judeo-Christians (which they describe in their own literature). These are two different Hades from two different religions having two different interpretations.
Keep in mind that your religion is NOT the same religion as that of the earliest Christians who wrote and described their religion and their beliefs and their interpretations.
Your religion is a relatively modern religion (1800s) with it's own modern beliefs and interpretations compared to that of the ancient Christianity with their ancient set of beliefs and interpretations.
For example, your religion and it's interpretations are not found in the early Historical Christian literature where the earliest Christians witness to their earliest beliefs and interpretations. It is these historical differences that will keep your religion from being historically coherent with the religion of early Judeo-Christianity.
Cataway replied : “earliest Christianity ?? which would be ,what? 200 years after the death of Jesus ? which would be more than enough time for odd understandings to get excepted.” (post #82)
Hi @cataway :
If you are unable to think historically, you will continue to offer historically inaccurate suggestions. If you ever decide to start to educate yourself about early Christianity and it’s doctrines and it’s interpretations, I suggest you start earlier than “200 years after Jesus died”.
You could, for example, study the literature that the writers of the New Testament refer to and quote in the New Testament that were written BEFORE Jesus was born.
You could start with Christian literature that was written concurrent with the New Testament. For example, Paul mentions his fellow worker Clement in Phillipians 4:3. Clement, who was a convert of the Apostle Peter and a colleague and fellow worker with the Apostle Paul wrote his own letter to the Corinthians before 70 a.d.. This was the same time period when the writer of revelations was alive and writing his apocalypse.
You could study the didache which was written before 100 a.d.
You could study 2nd Clement, written while the writer could have known a living apostle.
You could study the apostolic Fathers, all written when the writer could have known an apostle.
You could start with literature which either WAS in the earliest Christian bibles (Clement - C. Alexandra, P6, barnabas, hermas, etc.) or which are still INSIDE eastern Christian bibles (The larger ethiopian canon still has 81 books in it versus the western 66 books).
All of these and much, much more, will describe the earliest Christianity with it’s doctrines and interpretations that are very different than those of the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses almost 2000 years later.
The literature will show what doctrines remained constant over time and which doctrines changed and how they evolved.
2) THE SILLY SUGGESTION THAT ONE CAN USE THE PASSING OF TIME AS AN INDICATION OF RELATIVE ERROR IN CHRISTIAN THINKING
Cataway replied : “earliest Christianity ?? which would be ,what? 200 years after the death of Jesus ? which would be more than enough time for odd understandings to get excepted.” (post #82)
IF you are using the passing of time as an indication of degree of apostasy, consider that less than 40 years had passed between Clements writings and the death of Jesus.
IF, you insist that by 200 years later, the Christians had time to adopt errors, then how many errors could have been adopted by the Jehovahs Witness movement that was separated by 1800 years from the death of Jesus. How much apostasy could THEY have adopted, given 1800 years?
In early Judeo-Christian religion, Hades/Sheol/world of Spirits/the Grave/Death etc. was the place where the cognisant spirits of the dead were while they awaited resurrection and judgment.
The religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses adopted different doctrines.
In the religion they created :
1) there is no spirit inside the body of individuals and
2) Once individual die, there is nothing left of that individual. They are Annihilated.
Because of such very basic differences, the Jehovahs Witness religion can never historically cohere with the religion of the early Judeo-Christians.
We have no indication that Paul's coworker Clement suddenly turned apostate in his literature, nor in similar works.
The reason Jehovahs Witnesses are unable to use any significant amount of similar early literature is because the earliest literature contradicts and undermines significant Doctrines the Jehovah's Witnesses created and adopted.
They simply cannot use much of the earliest Judeo-Christian literature without running into theological conflicts regarding very basic doctrines.
Clear
ειφυφυνεω
Last edited:
kjw47
Well-Known Member
A good point you bring up.
The Fact is--- There is a comma error in that passage in trinity translations--The following.
Truly i tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise. = error
Truly i tell you today, you will be with me in paradise= correct.
The bible is 100% clear--Jesus was in the grave( Hades) for 3 days. He could not be in Paradise that day of his death.
Revelation is clear on the ressurection, It occurs after Har-mageddon occurs.
Hi @cataway ;
I claimed the the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses in the 1800s is historically incoherent to and historically irreconcilable with the religion of the earliest Judeo-Christians as described in their literature.
In post #90 (above) @kjw47 gives us a very good example of this historical incoherence and why Jehovahs Witness religion cannot enter into the early Christian historical literature.
1) DIFFERENCES IN TYPE AND TIME OF RESURRECTION BETWEEN EARLY CHRISTIANITY VERSUS THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS RELIGION
@Frank Goad asked in the O.P. regarding the promise Jesus made to the thief Dymas, that they would be in paradise together. The traditional promise reads as follows : “And Jesus said unto him, “Verily I say unto you, today you will be with me in paradise.” Luke 23:43
My point does not regard the recent debate as to where the comma goes in this sentence, but rather my point concerns the type and timing of the resurrection described by early Judeo-Christians versus the doctrine of the resurrection adopted by the Jehovahs Witness religion.
The Jehovahs Witness, @kjw47 states : “Revelation is clear on the ressurection, It occurs after Har-mageddon occurs.” (post #90)
The early Christians took Matthew 27:52 at face value in their belief and descriptions and witnesses that a resurrection of many of the Christian Saints took place at the time of Jesus’ resurrection.
For example : Matthew 27:52, says that, after the resurrection of Christ : “… the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And, coming out of the tombs after his rising (Jesus), went into the holy city (Jerusalem), 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)
In early Christian theology, only the body of Jesus died. His spirit was active and continued to accomplish further works he came to accomplish.
In early Christian theology, Matthew 27:52 meant that it was not only Jesus who resurrected, but a resurrection of many of the saints took place at the same time Jesus was resurrected.
A) The difference in TYPE of resurrection between early Christianity versus the religion created in the 1800s by the Jehovahs witnesses.
While the Jehovahs Witness resurrection is a resurrection of clones or copies of the original Jesus and the rest of mankind (since the original no longer exists at death in their theology).
The ancient version, however was a resurrection of the actual original spirits of the actual, original individuals that were resurrected into new bodies. The original, cognizant spirit of the original person did not die with the body.
B) The difference in TIMING of resurrection between early Christianity versus the religion created in the 1800s by the Jehovahs witnesses.
The Jehovahs Witness, Kjw47 describes the doctrine of the Jehovahs Witnesses created in the 1800, stating : “Revelation is clear on the ressurection, It occurs after Har-mageddon occurs.” (post #90)
The Earliest Christian religion in their literature describes in great detail that they believed the version of Matthew where many individuals were resurrected “many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And, coming out of the tombs after his rising (Jesus), went into the holy city (Jerusalem), and appeared to many.”
If a family member had died and was resurrected and returned to us in like manner that Jesus had returned to the disciples, one would expect the early literature to reflect this witness and, importantly, the early Christian literature describes their early faith in detail, even relating specific individuals who had died and returned to life and who described their cognizant existence while in the world of spirits (or Hades / Sheol / world of the dead spirits / etc.)
My point is NOT that the more original Christian religion is better or worse than the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses almost 2000 years later.
The point is that one can never create a historically coherent version of Christianity in the 1800s that coheres with that described in the earliest Christian literature without paying attention to historical literature.
OR, one must somehow discount and discard the importance of early Judeo-Christian literature in some way. This is usually done by claiming the early Christians apostatized or their literature represents apostasy.
In any case, a non-historical religion is unable to use this literature to support such base doctrines.
On the OTHER HAND. Those Christianities that ARE similar to the earliest Christianities are best able to use the ancient Judeo-Christian literature. This principle means something important.
Whatever readers choose to believe and however they choose to interpret the sacred texts, I hope all have good spiritual journeys and find happiness and fulfillment in this life.
Clear
εισεφυδρω
I claimed the the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses in the 1800s is historically incoherent to and historically irreconcilable with the religion of the earliest Judeo-Christians as described in their literature.
In post #90 (above) @kjw47 gives us a very good example of this historical incoherence and why Jehovahs Witness religion cannot enter into the early Christian historical literature.
1) DIFFERENCES IN TYPE AND TIME OF RESURRECTION BETWEEN EARLY CHRISTIANITY VERSUS THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS RELIGION
@Frank Goad asked in the O.P. regarding the promise Jesus made to the thief Dymas, that they would be in paradise together. The traditional promise reads as follows : “And Jesus said unto him, “Verily I say unto you, today you will be with me in paradise.” Luke 23:43
My point does not regard the recent debate as to where the comma goes in this sentence, but rather my point concerns the type and timing of the resurrection described by early Judeo-Christians versus the doctrine of the resurrection adopted by the Jehovahs Witness religion.
The Jehovahs Witness, @kjw47 states : “Revelation is clear on the ressurection, It occurs after Har-mageddon occurs.” (post #90)
The early Christians took Matthew 27:52 at face value in their belief and descriptions and witnesses that a resurrection of many of the Christian Saints took place at the time of Jesus’ resurrection.
For example : Matthew 27:52, says that, after the resurrection of Christ : “… the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And, coming out of the tombs after his rising (Jesus), went into the holy city (Jerusalem), 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)
In early Christian theology, only the body of Jesus died. His spirit was active and continued to accomplish further works he came to accomplish.
In early Christian theology, Matthew 27:52 meant that it was not only Jesus who resurrected, but a resurrection of many of the saints took place at the same time Jesus was resurrected.
A) The difference in TYPE of resurrection between early Christianity versus the religion created in the 1800s by the Jehovahs witnesses.
While the Jehovahs Witness resurrection is a resurrection of clones or copies of the original Jesus and the rest of mankind (since the original no longer exists at death in their theology).
The ancient version, however was a resurrection of the actual original spirits of the actual, original individuals that were resurrected into new bodies. The original, cognizant spirit of the original person did not die with the body.
B) The difference in TIMING of resurrection between early Christianity versus the religion created in the 1800s by the Jehovahs witnesses.
The Jehovahs Witness, Kjw47 describes the doctrine of the Jehovahs Witnesses created in the 1800, stating : “Revelation is clear on the ressurection, It occurs after Har-mageddon occurs.” (post #90)
The Earliest Christian religion in their literature describes in great detail that they believed the version of Matthew where many individuals were resurrected “many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And, coming out of the tombs after his rising (Jesus), went into the holy city (Jerusalem), and appeared to many.”
If a family member had died and was resurrected and returned to us in like manner that Jesus had returned to the disciples, one would expect the early literature to reflect this witness and, importantly, the early Christian literature describes their early faith in detail, even relating specific individuals who had died and returned to life and who described their cognizant existence while in the world of spirits (or Hades / Sheol / world of the dead spirits / etc.)
My point is NOT that the more original Christian religion is better or worse than the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses almost 2000 years later.
The point is that one can never create a historically coherent version of Christianity in the 1800s that coheres with that described in the earliest Christian literature without paying attention to historical literature.
OR, one must somehow discount and discard the importance of early Judeo-Christian literature in some way. This is usually done by claiming the early Christians apostatized or their literature represents apostasy.
In any case, a non-historical religion is unable to use this literature to support such base doctrines.
On the OTHER HAND. Those Christianities that ARE similar to the earliest Christianities are best able to use the ancient Judeo-Christian literature. This principle means something important.
Whatever readers choose to believe and however they choose to interpret the sacred texts, I hope all have good spiritual journeys and find happiness and fulfillment in this life.
Clear
εισεφυδρω
Last edited:
cataway
Well-Known Member
occam's razor.
In post #91, Clear made the points that the Jehovahs Witness doctrine of resurrection is different than that of early Judeo-Christianity in both type of resurrection and timing of resurrection
1) The TYPE of resurrection
The early Christians taught : Resurrection was of the original person
The Jehovah Witness religion created in the 1800s teaches : Resurrection was of a copy or a clone of the original (since the original person no longer existed after death).
2) The TIMING of resurrection
The early Christians taught : Some individuals resurrected at the time Jesus was resurrected as per Matthew 27:52 : "...many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And, coming out of the tombs after his rising (Jesus), went into the holy city (Jerusalem), and appeared to many.”
The Jehovah Witness religion created in the 1800s teaches : Resurrection will occur after armegeddon. (Kjw47, post #90)
@cataway responded : “occam's razor.”
Hi @cataway :
If “Occams razor” says that the more simple among answers is preferred, are you saying that to destroy an original person and to then re-create a clone or copy of personality and knowledge and experience and morals and emotions and loyalty and all other characteristics that make up a personality as well as creating a clone or a copy of a physical body is more simple than simply placing a spirit into a new body?
Can you explain what this cryptic answer you offered readers means?
If you are arguing “simplicity”, then why is it not just as simple to resurrect a body at the time of Christs resurrection as to resurrection others later?
What do you mean by your reference to “occams’ razor” as a response to the point that the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses in the 1800s is a different religion than the religion of the earliest Christians they themselves describe in their literature?
Clear
εισιδρσιω
1) The TYPE of resurrection
The early Christians taught : Resurrection was of the original person
The Jehovah Witness religion created in the 1800s teaches : Resurrection was of a copy or a clone of the original (since the original person no longer existed after death).
2) The TIMING of resurrection
The early Christians taught : Some individuals resurrected at the time Jesus was resurrected as per Matthew 27:52 : "...many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And, coming out of the tombs after his rising (Jesus), went into the holy city (Jerusalem), and appeared to many.”
The Jehovah Witness religion created in the 1800s teaches : Resurrection will occur after armegeddon. (Kjw47, post #90)
@cataway responded : “occam's razor.”
Hi @cataway :
If “Occams razor” says that the more simple among answers is preferred, are you saying that to destroy an original person and to then re-create a clone or copy of personality and knowledge and experience and morals and emotions and loyalty and all other characteristics that make up a personality as well as creating a clone or a copy of a physical body is more simple than simply placing a spirit into a new body?
Can you explain what this cryptic answer you offered readers means?
If you are arguing “simplicity”, then why is it not just as simple to resurrect a body at the time of Christs resurrection as to resurrection others later?
What do you mean by your reference to “occams’ razor” as a response to the point that the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses in the 1800s is a different religion than the religion of the earliest Christians they themselves describe in their literature?
Clear
εισιδρσιω
cataway
Well-Known Member
it means you are making things far more difficult than it really is . likely because of ignorance and or because you want some thing different . you's don't know all the facts so too then tie your disjointed ideas together . things get made up, making it more difficult to understand .
to receive a resurrection is a marvelous gift . with your death you have paid the price of sin ,you have been acquitted .to live again as if born again, a new start ,with out sin ,a clean slate at the time of resurrection . will you try earnestly to live with out sinning or will you refuse and again implement your own want and desires after resurrection ?? if you did , then comes the second death
Hi @cataway
Cataway said : "it means you are making things far more difficult than it really is ." (post #94)
I simply pointed out that the Jehovahs' Witness religions doctrines regarding resurrection are different than the resurrection described by the earliest Christians.
Do you think this is a "difficult" or a "complicated" point?
How would you make that historical principle more simple to understand?
Cataway said : "...things get made up, making it more difficult to understand." (post #94)
Can you explain what "things" were "made up"?
Clear
εισισισεω
Cataway said : "it means you are making things far more difficult than it really is ." (post #94)
I simply pointed out that the Jehovahs' Witness religions doctrines regarding resurrection are different than the resurrection described by the earliest Christians.
Do you think this is a "difficult" or a "complicated" point?
How would you make that historical principle more simple to understand?
Cataway said : "...things get made up, making it more difficult to understand." (post #94)
Can you explain what "things" were "made up"?
Clear
εισισισεω
Last edited:
Cataway said :
"it means you are making things far more difficult than it really is ."
"...things get made up, making it more difficult to understand." (post #94)
Clear responded :
"I simply pointed out that the Jehovahs' Witness religions doctrines regarding resurrection are different than the resurrection described by the earliest Christians.
Do you think this is a "difficult" or a "complicated" point?
How would you make that historical principle more simple to understand?
Can you explain what "things" were "made up"?(post #95)
Cataway responded :
"I never said anything about the JW's I spoke from the Bible not religion...." (post #96)
Cataway, you were never accused of saying anything "about the JW's".
It was ME who spoke of the difference between the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses and the religion of early Christians regarding the resurrection.
How is this a "difficult" or a "complicated" point?
What "things" do you think were "made up"?
Please, Try to be as logical and as coherent and clear as you can be in your response.
Clear
ειακειφιω
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Basically the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are in the Bible. Now it is true that Jesus took the disciples aside and explained illustrations to them. The major application of Christian principles do not change.
Hi @YoursTrue, I hope your holiday season was wonderful.
YoursTrue said : “Basically the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are in the Bible. “ (post #98)
1) USING DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL TEXT TO SUPPORT MULTIPLE, CONFLICTING DOCTRINES
Most Christianities, even those with conflicting doctrines, find evidence to support their conflicting doctrines in whatever bible they have.
One reason that strongly conflicting beliefs can come from similar bibles is because differing interpretations allow them to support differing beliefs from these similar texts.
a) Recent examples of different doctrines supported by different interpretations of similar text :
1) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the concept of a spirit placed in man and replaced it with a purely physical nature.
2) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the ancient concept of Hades/Sheol/world of spirits as a way station to which these spirits went after their bodies died and replaced that doctrine by the physical grave and complete annihilation of the person.
3) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the resurrection of this same spirit into a new body and replaced it by a recreation of a clone or copy of the original person that is resurrected. (since the original is annihilated)
4) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and placed the resurrection only after Armageddon. (post #90)
These and other new doctrines differ from the basic doctrines of the early Judeo-Christians in profound ways.
The Jehovahs Witnesses, and other Christianities support conflicting set of beliefs by having different interpretations of similar biblical texts.
2) WHOSE SYSTEM OF INTERPRETATION DO WE USE TO CREATE DOCTRINE? THAT OF ANCIENT HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY OF THAT OF A MODERN RELIGION?
The HISTORICAL observations concern WHOSE context and WHOSE interpretation does one use in determining what a scripture means?
Does one use the context of the ancient Christians to determine what they, themselves meant by their own texts or does one use a modern, non-historical context to determine meaning of ancient texts?
I think the ancient context will most accurately reflect the ancient meanings.
My historical point is that the earliest Christians such as those the apostles taught and their earliest converts together with THEIR interpretations and base beliefs, have a higher likelihood of representing early and authentic Christian doctrine than do the interpretations developed by Christian movements of almost 2000 years later.
While I have not proposed that the earliest Christian religion was more or less true than any other version of Christianity, on the other hand, I have not seen any advantages to the theories of modern Christian movements over the earliest Judeo-Christian religion or their worldviews.
For example, I do not see any moral or theological advantage of the modern Jehovahs’ witness interpretation and their theory that annihilation at death and the resurrection of a clone or copy of the original person over the early Judeo-Christian concept that bodies die and the spirit of the original person is resurrected.
Clear
εινετζειω
YoursTrue said : “Basically the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are in the Bible. “ (post #98)
1) USING DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL TEXT TO SUPPORT MULTIPLE, CONFLICTING DOCTRINES
Most Christianities, even those with conflicting doctrines, find evidence to support their conflicting doctrines in whatever bible they have.
One reason that strongly conflicting beliefs can come from similar bibles is because differing interpretations allow them to support differing beliefs from these similar texts.
a) Recent examples of different doctrines supported by different interpretations of similar text :
1) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the concept of a spirit placed in man and replaced it with a purely physical nature.
2) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the ancient concept of Hades/Sheol/world of spirits as a way station to which these spirits went after their bodies died and replaced that doctrine by the physical grave and complete annihilation of the person.
3) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the resurrection of this same spirit into a new body and replaced it by a recreation of a clone or copy of the original person that is resurrected. (since the original is annihilated)
4) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and placed the resurrection only after Armageddon. (post #90)
These and other new doctrines differ from the basic doctrines of the early Judeo-Christians in profound ways.
The Jehovahs Witnesses, and other Christianities support conflicting set of beliefs by having different interpretations of similar biblical texts.
2) WHOSE SYSTEM OF INTERPRETATION DO WE USE TO CREATE DOCTRINE? THAT OF ANCIENT HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY OF THAT OF A MODERN RELIGION?
The HISTORICAL observations concern WHOSE context and WHOSE interpretation does one use in determining what a scripture means?
Does one use the context of the ancient Christians to determine what they, themselves meant by their own texts or does one use a modern, non-historical context to determine meaning of ancient texts?
I think the ancient context will most accurately reflect the ancient meanings.
My historical point is that the earliest Christians such as those the apostles taught and their earliest converts together with THEIR interpretations and base beliefs, have a higher likelihood of representing early and authentic Christian doctrine than do the interpretations developed by Christian movements of almost 2000 years later.
While I have not proposed that the earliest Christian religion was more or less true than any other version of Christianity, on the other hand, I have not seen any advantages to the theories of modern Christian movements over the earliest Judeo-Christian religion or their worldviews.
For example, I do not see any moral or theological advantage of the modern Jehovahs’ witness interpretation and their theory that annihilation at death and the resurrection of a clone or copy of the original person over the early Judeo-Christian concept that bodies die and the spirit of the original person is resurrected.
Clear
εινετζειω
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Actually annihilation at death is not a term I would use. What death is is a cessation of life. Annihilation would be complete destruction. God can remember every hair on our heads, so He can bring back the dead to life if He desires.
I used to celebrate holidays of all sorts, not really caring what they represented as long as it seemed ok. And I could go to a party and give or receive gifts, didn't care what was happening as long as there was no trouble. I no longer do because #1, the world isn't so merry now, and #2, more importantly, given the misleading information about the holidays and the origins of them, makes me move away from their celebration.
Every day is something wonderful to me to consider.