• 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?

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
REGARDING THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS DOCTRINE OF RESURRECTION REPRESENTING A CLONE OR COPY OF THE ORIGINAL


YoursTrue said : “Actually annihilation at death is not a term I would use. What death is is a cessation of life. Annihilation would be complete destruction.” (post #100)

Hi @YoursTrue

I agree with you. The two terms have different meaning.

Like you, I also felt the jehovahs Witness Deeje was incorrect and I argued in post #32 against the word destruction (Απολεσαι of Matt 10:28) as meaning "annihilation".

However, The Jehovahs Witness Deeje explained her reason for teaching annihilation, as a Jehovahs Witness doctrine, saying : “So I don't know how you can say that Jesus is not stressing annihilation. This is the destruction of a life in its entirety....meaning no future existence whatsoever. (post #33)

In describing the Jehovahs Witness doctrine of resurrection Deeje explained their concept of the meaning of the word “renewal”. @Deeje said : " the highlighted phrases are a translation of the word "palingenesia" which Strongs defines as...new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation, regeneration".....so in the world to come, all things will be regenerated or recreated....including those who come back in the resurrection. This nonsense about having to continue life in some shadowy form…” (post #31)


So, while I agree with you that “destroy” is a better term, Deeje and other Jehovahs Witnesses describe the loss of all prior aspects of life as an “annihilation”. This is why I used the word the Jehovahs Witnesses taught me.


The base point here is that the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses in the 1800s that they describe in their literature is a different religion that that of the earliest Judeo-Christians that they describe in their literature.

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 annihilation of the person (per Deeje), OR as I also accept, your word “destruction” of the person – either word is fine with me.

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 created at resurrection since the original was annihilated (per Deeje) , OR, as I also accept, your word “the original is destroyed” – either word is fine with me.

4) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and replaced that doctrine with one that has a resurrection only after Armageddon.


Thanks for your comment @YoursTrue




Clear
τωτζτζδρω
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
REGARDING THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS DOCTRINE OF RESURRECTION REPRESENTING A CLONE OR COPY OF THE ORIGINAL


YoursTrue said : “Actually annihilation at death is not a term I would use. What death is is a cessation of life. Annihilation would be complete destruction.” (post #100)

Hi @YoursTrue

I agree with you. The two terms have different meaning.

Like you, I also felt the jehovahs Witness Deeje was incorrect and I argued in post #32 against the word destruction (Απολεσαι of Matt 10:28) as meaning "annihilation".

However, The Jehovahs Witness Deeje explained her reason for teaching annihilation, as a Jehovahs Witness doctrine, saying : “So I don't know how you can say that Jesus is not stressing annihilation. This is the destruction of a life in its entirety....meaning no future existence whatsoever. (post #33)
To the best of my knowledge, annihilation is destruction of life with no hope of any future existence. I'll do some research on that and get back to you.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
REGARDING THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS DOCTRINE OF RESURRECTION REPRESENTING A CLONE OR COPY OF THE ORIGINAL


YoursTrue said : “Actually annihilation at death is not a term I would use. What death is is a cessation of life. Annihilation would be complete destruction.” (post #100)

Hi @YoursTrue

I agree with you. The two terms have different meaning.

Like you, I also felt the jehovahs Witness Deeje was incorrect and I argued in post #32 against the word destruction (Απολεσαι of Matt 10:28) as meaning "annihilation".

However, The Jehovahs Witness Deeje explained her reason for teaching annihilation, as a Jehovahs Witness doctrine, saying : “So I don't know how you can say that Jesus is not stressing annihilation. This is the destruction of a life in its entirety....meaning no future existence whatsoever. (post #33)

In describing the Jehovahs Witness doctrine of resurrection Deeje explained their concept of the meaning of the word “renewal”. @Deeje said : " the highlighted phrases are a translation of the word "palingenesia" which Strongs defines as...new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation, regeneration".....so in the world to come, all things will be regenerated or recreated....including those who come back in the resurrection. This nonsense about having to continue life in some shadowy form…” (post #31)


So, while I agree with you that “destroy” is a better term, Deeje and other Jehovahs Witnesses describe the loss of all prior aspects of life as an “annihilation”. This is why I used the word the Jehovahs Witnesses taught me.


The base point here is that the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses in the 1800s that they describe in their literature is a different religion that that of the earliest Judeo-Christians that they describe in their literature.

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 annihilation of the person (per Deeje), OR as I also accept, your word “destruction” of the person – either word is fine with me.

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 created at resurrection since the original was annihilated (per Deeje) , OR, as I also accept, your word “the original is destroyed” – either word is fine with me.

4) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and replaced that doctrine with one that has a resurrection only after Armageddon.


Thanks for your comment @YoursTrue
Clear
τωτζτζδρω
I'm not sure what you mean in your comment #4.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
REGARDING THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS DOCTRINE OF RESURRECTION REPRESENTING A CLONE OR COPY OF THE ORIGINAL


YoursTrue said : “Actually annihilation at death is not a term I would use. What death is is a cessation of life. Annihilation would be complete destruction.” (post #100)

Hi @YoursTrue

I agree with you. The two terms have different meaning.

Like you, I also felt the jehovahs Witness Deeje was incorrect and I argued in post #32 against the word destruction (Απολεσαι of Matt 10:28) as meaning "annihilation".

However, The Jehovahs Witness Deeje explained her reason for teaching annihilation, as a Jehovahs Witness doctrine, saying : “So I don't know how you can say that Jesus is not stressing annihilation. This is the destruction of a life in its entirety....meaning no future existence whatsoever. (post #33)

In describing the Jehovahs Witness doctrine of resurrection Deeje explained their concept of the meaning of the word “renewal”. @Deeje said : " the highlighted phrases are a translation of the word "palingenesia" which Strongs defines as...new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation, regeneration".....so in the world to come, all things will be regenerated or recreated....including those who come back in the resurrection. This nonsense about having to continue life in some shadowy form…” (post #31)


So, while I agree with you that “destroy” is a better term, Deeje and other Jehovahs Witnesses describe the loss of all prior aspects of life as an “annihilation”. This is why I used the word the Jehovahs Witnesses taught me.


The base point here is that the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses in the 1800s that they describe in their literature is a different religion that that of the earliest Judeo-Christians that they describe in their literature.

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 annihilation of the person (per Deeje), OR as I also accept, your word “destruction” of the person – either word is fine with me.

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 created at resurrection since the original was annihilated (per Deeje) , OR, as I also accept, your word “the original is destroyed” – either word is fine with me.

4) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and replaced that doctrine with one that has a resurrection only after Armageddon.


Thanks for your comment @YoursTrue




Clear
τωτζτζδρω
Here is some helpful information to examine the subject. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/502014162?q=annihilation&p=par
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
REGARDING THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS DOCTRINE OF RESURRECTION REPRESENTING A CLONE OR COPY OF THE ORIGINAL


YoursTrue said : “Actually annihilation at death is not a term I would use. What death is is a cessation of life. Annihilation would be complete destruction.” (post #100)

Hi @YoursTrue

I agree with you. The two terms have different meaning.

Like you, I also felt the jehovahs Witness Deeje was incorrect and I argued in post #32 against the word destruction (Απολεσαι of Matt 10:28) as meaning "annihilation".

However, The Jehovahs Witness Deeje explained her reason for teaching annihilation, as a Jehovahs Witness doctrine, saying : “So I don't know how you can say that Jesus is not stressing annihilation. This is the destruction of a life in its entirety....meaning no future existence whatsoever. (post #33)

In describing the Jehovahs Witness doctrine of resurrection Deeje explained their concept of the meaning of the word “renewal”. @Deeje said : " the highlighted phrases are a translation of the word "palingenesia" which Strongs defines as...new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation, regeneration".....so in the world to come, all things will be regenerated or recreated....including those who come back in the resurrection. This nonsense about having to continue life in some shadowy form…” (post #31)


So, while I agree with you that “destroy” is a better term, Deeje and other Jehovahs Witnesses describe the loss of all prior aspects of life as an “annihilation”. This is why I used the word the Jehovahs Witnesses taught me.


The base point here is that the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses in the 1800s that they describe in their literature is a different religion that that of the earliest Judeo-Christians that they describe in their literature.

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 annihilation of the person (per Deeje), OR as I also accept, your word “destruction” of the person – either word is fine with me.

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 created at resurrection since the original was annihilated (per Deeje) , OR, as I also accept, your word “the original is destroyed” – either word is fine with me.

4) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and replaced that doctrine with one that has a resurrection only after Armageddon.


Thanks for your comment @YoursTrue




Clear
τωτζτζδρω
I'm not sure what you're talking about really. Do you believe that God can and will destroy (annihilate) a life?
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @YoursTrue

1) REGARDING THE MEANING OF "ANNIHILATION"

YoursTrue said : To the best of my knowledge, annihilation is destruction of life with no hope of any future existence. (post #101)

I agree with you YoursTrue.
If something is annihilated, then it is gone; it is “non-existent” in any prior form and that original object that is annihilated has no future existence.



2) REGARDING EXAMPLE #4 : ANOTHER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RESURRECTION DOCTRINE IN EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE VERSUS THE RESURRECTION DOCTRINE CREATED BY JEHOVAHS WITNESS IN THE 1800S


Clear said : 4) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and replaced that doctrine with one that has a resurrection only after Armageddon. (POST #101)

YoursTrue said : “I'm not sure what you mean in your comment #4.” (post #103)


a) EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEF THAT A LIMITED RESURRECTION OCCURRED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST

In the earliest Judeo-Christianity literature, the Christians describe their belief that Matthew 27:52 was literally true, 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 Judeo-Christian religious belief and literature, this represented individuals who had died and whose bodies lay in the tombs in varying degrees of decay while their cognizant spirits were in Hades/Sheol/a world of spirits, and who, at the resurrection of Jesus Christ, were also resurrected into bodies.


b) THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS BELIEF THAT NO RESURRECTION OCCURRED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. INSTEAD, IT ONLY IT OCCURS LATER IN THE COURSE OF EXISTENCE

The Jehovahs Witness, @kjw47 states : “Revelation is clear on the ressurection, It occurs after Har-mageddon occurs.” (post #90)

IF I understood kjw47 correctly, then his attempt to correct early Christian doctrine means that resurrection only occurs “after Har-mageddon” occurs.

Jehovahs Witnesses will have to correct this assumption if my understanding of kjw47s claim is incorrect.
I hope this clarifies this specific point YoursTrue. Did it?




YoursTrue asked : "Do you believe that God can and will destroy (annihilate) a life?"
When you ask about God destroying a "life", are your speaking of the life of the body, or the annihilation of the spirit of an individual that resides within the body and which, in early Christianity, was the thing that gave a body intelligence, emotion, love, memories, etc.? Can you be specific?

I honestly DO appreciate the thought behind your reference to the jw.org site for information regarding the Jehovahs Witness interpretation of Isaiah 66:24 but my interest is not really in the area of modern religions. My historical interest lies in the earliest and most original Christianity and it's interpretations.

Honestly. Thank you. I know you are trying to help me understand your methods of interpretation and I appreciate that.


I hope your spiritual journey in this life is absolutely wonderful YoursTrue


Clear
τωτζφινεω
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
So, while I agree with you that “destroy” is a better term, Deeje and other Jehovahs Witnesses describe the loss of all prior aspects of life as an “annihilation”. This is why I used the word the Jehovahs Witnesses taught me.

What does “destroy” mean to you Clear? If you “destroy” something, you render it utterly useless for any purpose.
I believe the scripture I was referring to is Matthew 10:28...where Jesus said...
"And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Ge·henʹna."

We are not speaking about "hades" here, but "gehenna" erroneously translated "hell" in many Bibles. If you know what "Gehenna" is......it is a place where only the incorrigibly wicked will go. The place where Jesus consigned the wicked religious leaders of his day. (Matthew 23:33)

Gehenna is "the lake of fire"...it is not a literal place, but a place of no return. Anything or anyone consigned to "Gehenna" will never exist again. That is what Jesus meant when he spoke of the 'destruction' of body and soul. The whole person is eternally dead...that is annihilation. There is no place where the wicked are tortured forever.

The spirit in man is his "breath", so in the resurrection (which will be for the majority of deceased mankind) a return to their former life is assured.....It will be a resurrection of that person in a new body, made whole and healthy, and God will 'breathe the breath of life' into them, just as he did with Adam and his wife.

The ancient Jews had no belief in life after death....that notion was picked up later, under Greek influence.
The dead slept in an unconscious state, in the grave (sheol/hades) and hence why "Gehenna" was used to illustrate eternal death. Anyone or anything going into "Gehenna" (which was the city's rubbish dump in the valley of Hinnom just outside Jerusalem's walls) was utterly destroyed. "Death and hades" are also thrown in this lake, so it isn't literal. (Revelation 20:13-14) Its called "the second death" because you can't come back from this one.

The bodies of executed criminals were often thrown into gehenna because they were not considered worthy of a decent burial......since there was no burial tomb with the person's name and lineage inscribed, it was assumed that God would not remember them in the resurrection. The ancient Jews had no concept of life after death until later when they had forever run off the rails. Jesus gave no indication that they were redeemable. (Matthew 23)

Ezekiel 18:4 states that souls "die". Death is therefore the cessation of life. The “spirit” in man is same spirit that animated the lifeless body of Adam....it is the “breath” that keeps all living souls “alive”.....when breathing ceases, the soul dies.
Solomon lamented that man had no superiority over the animals because we all have the same “spirit”...so when breathing ceases, we die the same death as they do. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20)
We all “return to the dust”. There is no conscious part of us that survives death. Until Jesus calls the dead from their graves, they sleep peacefully. (John 5:28-29) Why is that such a bad thing? :shrug:

For those in "hades", redeemed by the blood of Christ, a resurrection is assured, either to life in heaven for the “elect” (those who are chosen by God to rule with Jesus in heaven) or for their earthly subjects who will be returned to the same sinless perfection as Adam and his wife first enjoyed. God’s purpose for humankind has never changed....neither the earth as our permanent home.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The base point here is that the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses in the 1800s that they describe in their literature is a different religion that that of the earliest Judeo-Christians that they describe in their literature.

Correction....we “created” nothing of the sort.....we actually returned to the kind of Christianity that Jesus taught. You seem to have no awareness of the apostasy that Jesus and his apostles foretold. It was already in evidence in the days of the apostles and when they passed away, the “weeds” of Jesus’ parable took Christianity in a completely opposite direction. How can you imagine that what passed for the "Christian church" in the succeeding centuries, ever was? Their unchristian conduct should have exposed them as frauds, but instead they were accepted as truth. What passes today for Christianity is a sham.

You apparently take all your information from the apostate sources from what you quote. This is why we discarded all the “junk” that apostates brought to Christian teaching. It’s core beliefs were never taught by Jesus at all. The anti-Christ is among us and most people have no idea.

So yes, our beliefs are very different from the "early Judeo-Christians" who apostatized from what Jesus taught. This apostasy was evident towards the end of the first century, with the apostles keeping it at bay.....therefore quoting things written after the apostles died, is not of too much interest since the rot had already begun.
Christendom never mentions the "weeds", or the fact that this apostasy was to come from within their own ranks.
Do they think it never happened? :shrug:

Acts 20:29...
"I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, 30 and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves."

2 Peter 2:1-3...
"However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2 Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct, and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. 3 Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words. But their judgment, decided long ago, is not moving slowly, and their destruction is not sleeping."


1) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the concept of a spirit placed in man and replaced it with a purely physical nature.

Show us where the Bible ever says that the “spirit” in man was a separate conscious entity that survived the death of the soul? Humans were created with a physical nature but with a spiritual aspect that connected them to God in ways that other “souls” were not.

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 annihilation of the person (per Deeje), OR as I also accept, your word “destruction” of the person – either word is fine with me.

You don't go back far enough.....the ancient concepts about death before the Jews adopted false religious ideas were that humans actually died and slept in their graves awaiting a future physical resurrection.
When Jesus and his apostles gave us a foregleam of that resurrection we saw these ones raised out of death and returned to their families here on earth. Jesus never told people who lost a child that they would have to wait until they went to heaven to be reunited with them. In the resurrection all sleep until they are awakened to resume life, but in a new world of righteousness. (2 Peter 3:13)
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
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 created at resurrection since the original was annihilated (per Deeje) , OR, as I also accept, your word “the original is destroyed” – either word is fine with me.

I'm sorry but you are mistaken....Christendom replaced the resurrection with belief in an immortal soul...something they borrowed from pagan religions. For Christendom, the soul or spirit never dies, but you cannot resurrect that which is not dead.

What makes you think God cannot restore what he has created? If the dead "sleep" as Jesus said of Lazarus, (John 11:11-14) then awakening them will not be difficult. Jesus simply called him out of his grave, still wrapped in his grave clothes.

Every seven years the process of cell renewal in the human body is complete, meaning that every cell in your body has been replaced....not a single cell that was there seven years ago exists. We are in a constant state of regeneration and that would have continued forever if Adam and his wife had simply obeyed that one simple command.

If God knows all the stars by name.....why would it be too hard to recreate what his perfect memory has retained?

4) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and replaced that doctrine with one that has a resurrection only after Armageddon.

The resurrection was not to take place until Christ's return according to the apostle Paul.....

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17...NASB...
"But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as indeed the rest of mankind do, who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead, so also God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus. 15 For we say this to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord."

Those who are "dead in Christ" were not to precede those who were "asleep" in death. When Christ returned, he told his disciples what events would make up a "sign" that he was "present". (Matthew 24:3-14)His "parousia" was not something visible but needed a "sign" to reveal it.

After all those events took place, then Christ was to "come" as judge and he was going to bring his elect with him, and gather those who remain in the flesh, transforming them into spirit beings. Then the war to end all wars would cleanse the earth of all wickedness and bring the survivors ("the great crowd" of Revelation 7:9-10; 13-14) into a cleansed "new earth" with a new heavenly government to guide us back to God's original purpose for mankind here on this planet. (Isaiah 55:11)

I think you are lost in your own interpretation of scripture which I believe was gleaned from the later "weeds" not the original "wheat".
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @Deeje,

Thank you for your comments and explanation of Jehovahs Witness doctrine. Your comments ranged over multiple principles, doctrines and interpretations.
If we focus on my actual historical claims, this will keep the conversation more simple and easy to follow.

I made four HISTORICAL claims.

My first historical claim was : “1) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned
the concept of a spirit placed in man and replaced it with a purely physical nature.” (Clear, in post #101)

This claim did not indicate that the earliest and most original Christian religion that we have literature for is “better or worse”, “more or less correct”, “superior or inferior to” the Jehovahs Witness religion.

I merely pointed out historical differences in very specific doctrines and interpretations.
I think you and I and the rest of the readers will agree on this very specific claim.


For example, you say “For Christendom, the soul or spirit never dies, but you cannot resurrect that which is not dead. (Deeje, post #109).

1) THE CONCEPT IN EARLY CHRISTENDOM OF A SPIRIT EXISTING SEPARATELY FROM THE BODY
This is correct to a point. It is correct to say that a spirit did not die at the death of the body, (this is not to say the spirit could not ultimately BE destroyed), there is no logical problem to your claim, since, in ancient Christianity, it was only the body which died and which was resurrected. The spirit was considered to clothe (or sheathe) the body in the same manner that you exist separately from the coat you wear.

The early Christians actually described the body as a type of "clothing" of the spirit. Just as a coat itself has no principle of life within it, but the life principle was provided by the person wearing the coat, similarly, the spirit was seen to have been the source of movement, emotions, choice, thoughts, etc. for the body "worn" by the spirit. In the case of resurrection, it was a matter of putting on a new, different set of clothing.

In Early Judeo-Christianity, the spirit, which lived on after the death of the body and which was the source of the original personality, emotions, memories, morality, etc., was united to that new, resurrected body.



2) THE LACK OF A SPIRIT EXISTING SEPARATELY FROM THE BODY IN THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS RELIGION
You have explained death in the Jehovahs Witness religion as a destruction and complete loss of the original personalilty, emotions, memory, etc. of the original person which were stored in the physical brain and body. You have mentioned that, upon death, nothing of the prior personality, emotions, memory, morality, choices, thoughts exist (except a decaying body), other than as they exist in the memory of God. Is this correct?

If this is correct, then in your religion, the personality, emotions, memories thoughts, morality, etc. of the original person (not God, but the original person) are destroyed and no longer exist in any form. If this is correct, then, upon resurrection, God creates a copy or clone of the original person and that individual is the person who is actually resurrected, and not the original. Is this correct?




3) IS THE RELIGION OF THE MODERN JEHOVAHS WITNESS MOVEMENT DIFFERENT THANT THE RELGION OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF A SPIRIT INSIDE THE BODY OF MANKIND?

If Jehovahs Witness religion is different from the early Judeo-Christian religion in this specific point, then my historical claim on this specific point is correct.

If Jehovahs Witness religion is the same as early Judeo-Christian religion in this specific point then my historical claim is in error.


Clear
τωειδρνεω
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
REGARDING THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS DOCTRINE OF RESURRECTION REPRESENTING A CLONE OR COPY OF THE ORIGINAL


YoursTrue said : “Actually annihilation at death is not a term I would use. What death is is a cessation of life. Annihilation would be complete destruction.” (post #100)

Hi @YoursTrue

I agree with you. The two terms have different meaning.

Like you, I also felt the jehovahs Witness Deeje was incorrect and I argued in post #32 against the word destruction (Απολεσαι of Matt 10:28) as meaning "annihilation".

However, The Jehovahs Witness Deeje explained her reason for teaching annihilation, as a Jehovahs Witness doctrine, saying : “So I don't know how you can say that Jesus is not stressing annihilation. This is the destruction of a life in its entirety....meaning no future existence whatsoever. (post #33)

In describing the Jehovahs Witness doctrine of resurrection Deeje explained their concept of the meaning of the word “renewal”. @Deeje said : " the highlighted phrases are a translation of the word "palingenesia" which Strongs defines as...new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation, regeneration".....so in the world to come, all things will be regenerated or recreated....including those who come back in the resurrection. This nonsense about having to continue life in some shadowy form…” (post #31)


So, while I agree with you that “destroy” is a better term, Deeje and other Jehovahs Witnesses describe the loss of all prior aspects of life as an “annihilation”. This is why I used the word the Jehovahs Witnesses taught me.


The base point here is that the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses in the 1800s that they describe in their literature is a different religion that that of the earliest Judeo-Christians that they describe in their literature.

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 annihilation of the person (per Deeje), OR as I also accept, your word “destruction” of the person – either word is fine with me.

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 created at resurrection since the original was annihilated (per Deeje) , OR, as I also accept, your word “the original is destroyed” – either word is fine with me.

4) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and replaced that doctrine with one that has a resurrection only after Armageddon.


Thanks for your comment @YoursTrue




Clear
τωτζτζδρω
Hello, Clear. I did a little research and see that Matthew 10:28 speaks about the destruction of body and soul. So yes, destruction can mean annihilation.
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @YoursTrue


ANNIHILATION AS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE MEANINGS OF THE WORD DESTROY

YoursTrue said : "I did a little research and see that Matthew 10:28 speaks about the destruction of body and soul. So yes, destruction can mean annihilation." (post #111)

I agree that destruction CAN mean annihilation in certain, specific, contexts.
For example, when a sentence says something was "completely destroyed", it can mean "annihilation" or it can mean a complete loss of function or loss of prior characteristics.

For examples :
I work in medicine and we might say a patient "destroyed" his knee joint or a hip joint in a car accident.
Similarly, when describing the car accident, we might say "The car was completely destroyed!".

However, In neither case is annihilation implied.


So, while destruction CAN mean annihilation, it takes a specific context to cause "destruction" to mean "annihilation".

The koine greek word απολεσαι is the word used in Matthew 10:28 that has been rendered "destroy" and it generally referred to some sort of "Loss" rather than a complete annihilation.

You can certainly argue what the greek actually meant in this specific case if it is important to you to do so.
How the Jehovahs Witnesses interpret this word in this verse It is not an important distinction to me at this point.


Clear
τωεισιφιω
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
If we focus on my actual historical claims, this will keep the conversation more simple and easy to follow.

I made four HISTORICAL claims.

My first historical claim was : “1) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned
the concept of a spirit placed in man and replaced it with a purely physical nature.” (Clear, in post #101)

This claim did not indicate that the earliest and most original Christian religion that we have literature for is “better or worse”, “more or less correct”, “superior or inferior to” the Jehovahs Witness religion.

I merely pointed out historical differences in very specific doctrines and interpretations.
I think you and I and the rest of the readers will agree on this very specific claim.


For example, you say “For Christendom, the soul or spirit never dies, but you cannot resurrect that which is not dead. (Deeje, post #109).

"Historical" is the operative word here. All of the first "Christians" were Jewish. Since Judaism had apostatized from the faith that God originated on Mt Sinai, and Jesus and his apostles had foretold another apostasy from his teachings, it is clear to me that you are taking your ideas from later apostate Christianity.

Have you studied the parable of the "wheat and the weeds"? The "weeds" were believed to be a noxious plant called "bearded darnel", which in the Middle East is called "wheat's evil twin" because in the early growing stages you cannot tell them apart. As the growth continues it becomes more apparent which is the weed, but by then the roots of the weed are so intertwined with the wheat that you cannot uproot the weeds without affecting the wheat.....at the harvest time the distinction is unmistakable so the weeds are gathered and disposed of. We are living in the harvest time. (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-42)

This is what Jesus warned about.....the devil would sow a fake kind of Christianity that, in the early stages was not so easy to pick the false ideas that began to creep in. One of those ideas was that a spirit entity inhabited the body and was released at death to go to some spiritual realm.....but this is not found anywhere in Christ's teachings.

When Jesus raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, Jesus said he was "sleeping"......but what did his sister say about the resurrection?
"Martha then said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise from the dead.” 24 Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.

What is "the resurrection on the last day"? What was Martha talking about?
She did not express belief that her brother had gone anywhere, but that "the resurrection" (which was to take place once Messiah ruled in his Kingdom) would take place when Jesus called all of the dead from their graves, as it says in John 5:28-29...

"Do not be amazed at this; for a time is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come out: those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the bad deeds to a resurrection of judgment."

The resurrection was yet future, not something that took place when someone died.

The graves of the dead are on earth and Jesus will call ALL the dead from the same place....both the "righteous" and the "unrighteous". (Acts 24:15) This is the general resurrection of the dead, not the "first resurrection" which is for the "elect".
Who are the "elect", Clear?

Your "historical" claim is false I'm afraid. We base our beliefs on what the earliest "Christians" believed about death and resurrection. Your "history" is from a period after the death of Christ and the apostles....when the false ideas about the soul and spirit has already infiltrated men's thoughts.


1) THE CONCEPT IN EARLY CHRISTENDOM OF A SPIRIT EXISTING SEPARATELY FROM THE BODY
This is correct to a point. It is correct to say that a spirit did not die at the death of the body, (this is not to say the spirit could not ultimately BE destroyed), there is no logical problem to your claim, since, in ancient Christianity, it was only the body which died and which was resurrected. The spirit was considered to clothe (or sheathe) the body in the same manner that you exist separately from the coat you wear.

See above. The "spirit" is the "breath" that animates all living, breathing creatures....not just humans as Solomon acknowledged. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20)

The early Christians actually described the body as a type of "clothing" of the spirit. Just as a coat itself has no principle of life within it, but the life principle was provided by the person wearing the coat, similarly, the spirit was seen to have been the source of movement, emotions, choice, thoughts, etc. for the body "worn" by the spirit. In the case of resurrection, it was a matter of putting on a new, different set of clothing.

Again I believe that you are getting mixed up with the two resurrections. All of the first Christians were of the "elect", which means that they all expected to go to heaven, but they did not know when. The scriptures were written from their perspective. They were anointed for life in heaven and were keen to leave their mortal, sinful body of flesh behind and be given new spiritual bodies in order to dwell in the spiritual realm. They were the ones who would experience the "first resurrection" having been chosen by God for a role in the Kingdom as 'rulers and priests'. (Revelation 20:6)

In Early Judeo-Christianity, the spirit, which lived on after the death of the body and which was the source of the original personality, emotions, memories, morality, etc., was united to that new, resurrected body.

The "soul" is the possessor of the emotions, memories and personality, not the "spirit". The spirit can be likened to the electrical current that makes an appliance "come to life".....it has no personality of its own. It animates all living, breathing creatures.

2) THE LACK OF A SPIRIT EXISTING SEPARATELY FROM THE BODY IN THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS RELIGION
You have explained death in the Jehovahs Witness religion as a destruction and complete loss of the original personalilty, emotions, memory, etc. of the original person which were stored in the physical brain and body. You have mentioned that, upon death, nothing of the prior personality, emotions, memory, morality, choices, thoughts exist (except a decaying body), other than as they exist in the memory of God. Is this correct?

Death is the opposite of life.....it is not a continuation of it. What did God tell Adam?
Genesis 3:19...
"In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return."

Where is there mention of a spirit that would leave his body for destinations unknown? He simply went back to where he came from. Where were you before your parents conceived you? Same place as me...we did not exist.
At death we all go back to where we came from. Sheol is the grave where ALL the dead "sleep". But God has promised to restore our lives.....the soul that is us, will live again. That is what resurrection is. Belief in an immortal soul makes the resurrection redundant because you don't really die. You cannot resurrect what has not died.

Solomon wrote.....
"For the living know that they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor do they have a reward any longer, for their memory is forgotten. 6 Indeed their love, their hate, and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun. . . . Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity, planning, knowledge, or wisdom in Sheol where you are going." (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6, 10)

"Sheol" is the grave according to the Jewish Tanakh.
There is no mention of a separate part of man living on....the dead cannot think or plan or participate in any kind of activity....so where did the immortal soul idea originate? Could it be that the devil wanted to perpetuate his first lie?
"You surely will not die"....and people wanted to believe it.

If this is correct, then in your religion, the personality, emotions, memories thoughts, morality, etc. of the original person (not God, but the original person) are destroyed and no longer exist in any form. If this is correct, then, upon resurrection, God creates a copy or clone of the original person and that individual is the person who is actually resurrected, and not the original. Is this correct?

If God can install all memories of our past life, what does it matter the vehicle? It will not be a corpse ravaged by disease or minus limbs....it will be a sound, healthy body that we and loved ones will recognize as ourselves.

3) IS THE RELIGION OF THE MODERN JEHOVAHS WITNESS MOVEMENT DIFFERENT THANT THE RELGION OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF A SPIRIT INSIDE THE BODY OF MANKIND?

If Jehovahs Witness religion is different from the early Judeo-Christian religion in this specific point, then my historical claim on this specific point is correct.

If Jehovahs Witness religion is the same as early Judeo-Christian religion in this specific point then my historical claim is in error.

Our belief is the same as that of Mary and Martha when their brother died. They did not believe in an immortal soul or spirit because Jesus never taught such a thing. The ancient Jews did not believe that a conscious part of man left the body at death.....the Greek promoted that idea.
Your "history" appears to be letting you down I'm afraid....
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Luke 23:42-43.Makes me think jesus and the thief went to paradise the same day they both died together.Because of Eph 4:7-10 it makes me think they went underground.And there jesus lead the souls of the righteous dead to heaven to be with God.I think they(jesus and the thief)went to hades together and not right to heaven to see God.Because of Jh:3:13.In Acts 2:27-31 it talks about jesus's soul going to hades.And not being abandoned in hades.Or seeing corruption.I think hades was a temporary paradise...

I have understood it so that when person dies, he goes either to Hades, or to Paradise to wait the judgment day. Paradise is not the same as heaven and it is also not the same as Hades. And in judgment day people get out of those places and continue either to eternal life with God, or to permanent destruction.

…Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works. Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:12-15

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS RELIGION AND ITS SYSTEM OF INTERPRETATION IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY DESCRIBED IN THEIR LITERATURE

Clear said :

The base point here is that the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses in the 1800s that they describe in their literature is a different religion that that of the earliest Judeo-Christians that they describe in their literature.

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 annihilation of the person (per Deeje), OR as I also accept, your word “destruction” of the person – either word is fine with me.

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 created at resurrection since the original was annihilated (per Deeje) , OR, as I also accept, your word “the original is destroyed” – either word is fine with me.

4) The Jehovahs Witness religion abandoned the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and replaced that doctrine with one that has a resurrection only after Armageddon.



Hi @Deeje


My historical point I was making was never that the earliest Christians held to a more or less correct religion than that of the Jehovahs Witnesses of the 1800s.

My original historical point was that the earliest, most ancient Christianity we have descriptive literature for, was DIFFERENT than the religion of the Jehovahs witnesses in important, basic ways.

In the 24 posts since I made this point, all of your comments claim that ancient Chritianity represents apostate religion.
I will assume therefore that you are in agreement that the most ancient Historical Christianity that produced descriptive literature was different than the Jehovahs Witness religion of the 1800s in the ways I have described. Is this correct?

If you disagree, then we can certainly get into what the earliest Christian literature that we have record tells us about their beliefs and how they differ from the religion of the Jehovahs Witnesses of the 1800s.



HISTORICAL INCOHERENCY OF THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS CLAIM THAT ANCIENT CHRISTIANS SUDDENLY AND EN MASS APOSTATIZED

Deeje said : "All of the first "Christians" were Jewish. Since Judaism had apostatized from the faith that God originated on Mt Sinai, and Jesus and his apostles had foretold another apostasy from his teachings, it is clear to me that you are taking your ideas from later apostate Christianity. (post #113)

The claims and conclusions of these sentences are historically, incoherent.

Yes, Jesus and the original apostles were Jewish and many Jews and Jewish leaders made errors.
This does not mean they completely apostatized from the 10 commandments and all other doctrines received from Sinai.
It does not mean all Jewish apostles were apostates as they taught the religion Jesus taught them.
It does not mean all converts of the apostles taught apostate religion as they spread the gospel the apostles taught them.
It does not mean that the Jew/convert/apostle Paul taught apostate religion.
It does not mean that early converts to Christianity such as Clement (of Phillipians 4:3) who taught the gospel alongside the apostle Paul taught apostate religion.

The problem with your theory of a sudden and complete apostasy by all Christians who wrote their witnesses is not historically coherent or historically logical or historically supportable.



RELIABLE HISTORICAL THEORIES SHOULD NOT COME FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE LITTLE INTEREST IN OR KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY
You claimed “… I have no interest in being "an authentic historian of Judeo-Christian beliefs" (Deeje, #115 in the “eve, jews and afterlife thread”) and Speaking of the ancient Jews and Christians, you claimed “…I do not need their testimony about anything. “ (Deeje, #115, ibid)
Why do you think readers should accept the historical opinion from someone who is ignorant of history and has no interest in learning about the history they are making claims about?

It is this sort of attitude I was speaking to as to why the religion created by the Jehovahs Witness in the 1800s can never be historically coherent. Their religion does not pay sufficient attention to historical principles.


If you are now, trying to claim that, even during the time of a living apostle, very suddenly and en masse, there were no true Christians and no true Christianity that held to the religion Jesus and the apostles and their converts taught religion at the time revelation was being written, you need to have some historical data to support that theory.

All you have given readers so far, it a claim that an apostasy was to occur and this, somehow, supports your claim that the Jehovahs Witnesses have, somehow, returned to the one true form of Christianity while others in all of the earliest Christian literature, somehow, suddenly, and in masse, completely abandoned the true Christianity.


SHIFTING THE CONVERSATION FROM AN OBJECTIVE HISTORICAL DISCUSSION TO THE CLAIM THAT JEHOVAHS WITNESS INTERPRETATION IS TO TAKE PRIORITY OVER THAT OF THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS WE HAVE LITERATURE FROM

If you are wanting to shift this conversation from objective historical claims, to a claim that your religion is correct, and that of the earliest Christians was incorrect, then you should be able to offer some data supporting this claim.

WHY IS THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS INTERPRETATION OF HISTORICAL TEXTS AND OF RELIGIOUS OPINION PREFERRED OVER THAT OF ANCIENT CHRISTIANS?

Why does YOUR system of interpretation and the resulting doctrines take priority over the interpretations and the beliefs of the original or earliest Christians?
For example :

New Testament Clement, was a convert of the apostle Peter and a colleague of Paul.
Clement, in his diary tells us in his own words what the apostle Peter taught him as the early Christian doctrines.

Deeje, Why would your modern interpretation and modern doctrines take priority over the interpretation and doctrines that Clement was taught by the apostle Peter?
For example,
You cannot claim your interpretation is more consistent with early scriptures than Clements interpretation.
You cannot claim your doctrines are “more Christian” than the doctrines the apostle Peter taught Clement.
You cannot claim your doctrines are more Correct than that which the apostle Peter taught Clement.
The early Christians possessed doctrines that were consistent with their scriptures and which doctrines existed from the earliest age that we have record of.

Why are the Jehovahs Witness new interpretations which never existed in any early Christian literature to be preferred over that of the earliest Christians which were quite consistent with the scriptures they had?

Clear
τωτωδρφυω
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Hi @YoursTrue


ANNIHILATION AS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE MEANINGS OF THE WORD DESTROY

YoursTrue said : "I did a little research and see that Matthew 10:28 speaks about the destruction of body and soul. So yes, destruction can mean annihilation." (post #111)

I agree that destruction CAN mean annihilation in certain, specific, contexts.
For example, when a sentence says something was "completely destroyed", it can mean "annihilation" or it can mean a complete loss of function or loss of prior characteristics.

For examples :
I work in medicine and we might say a patient "destroyed" his knee joint or a hip joint in a car accident.
Similarly, when describing the car accident, we might say "The car was completely destroyed!".

However, In neither case is annihilation implied.


So, while destruction CAN mean annihilation, it takes a specific context to cause "destruction" to mean "annihilation".

The koine greek word απολεσαι is the word used in Matthew 10:28 that has been rendered "destroy" and it generally referred to some sort of "Loss" rather than a complete annihilation.

You can certainly argue what the greek actually meant in this specific case if it is important to you to do so.
How the Jehovahs Witnesses interpret this word in this verse It is not an important distinction to me at this point.


Clear
τωεισιφιω
Hello again, Clear. As Deeje aptly pointed out, the proper word for 'hell' at Matthew 10:28 is not really hell, but gehenna, as demonstrated in several Bibles.
"Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna."
Either way, however--hell or Gehenna--Jesus clearly <g> said that the soul can be destroyed. I don't see any way around that, do you? As has been pointed out, if a demolition crew comes along and destroys a building, it's gone. Not there. (Nowhere to be found or seen anymore.) Hope that helps a little about that.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member


YoursTrue said : "Either way, however--hell or Gehenna--Jesus clearly <g> said that the soul can be destroyed. I don't see any way around that, do you? As has been pointed out, if a demolition crew comes along and destroys a building, it's gone. Not there. (Nowhere to be found or seen anymore.) " (post #116)

Hi @YoursTrue

I am not sure what you think I disagree with.

You asked me : "Do you believe that God can and will destroy (annihilate) a life?" (YoursTrue, post #105)
I requested you to clarify : "When you ask about God destroying a "life", are your speaking of the life of the body, or the annihilation of the spirit of an individual that resides within the body and which, in early Christianity, was the thing that gave a body intelligence, emotion, love, memories, etc.? Can you be specific? (Clear, in post #106)


I think God both CAN and WILL, under certain circumstances, cause the loss of life as a physical process in plants, animals, people, etc. I think most of the time life ends by virtue of the circumstances of the mortal condition we are in (age, disease, accidents) rather than God singling out an individual and causing death in any proximal or direct fashion.
I do not know if God WOULD cause annihilation of an intelligent evil spirit that has the potential for improvement and happiness or if he would instead, damn an evil spirit to a different existence.
It is a question that I've honestly never considered or researched and I'm not sure of the answer.

I also don't know the question has to do with any of my present historical claims regarding the difference between the earliest Judeo-Christian religion as described in the ancient Judeo-Christian literature and the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses of the 1800s as described in their literature.

The current question I AM considering is :
Why are the Jehovahs Witness' new interpretations which never existed in any early Christian literature to be preferred over that of the earliest Christians which were quite consistent with the scriptures they had? (Clear, in post #115)


If you have insights into this question, I am certainly interested.

In any case YoursTrue, I hope your own journey in life is wonderful and insightful.


Clear
τωδρειφυω
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)

YoursTrue said : "Either way, however--hell or Gehenna--Jesus clearly <g> said that the soul can be destroyed. I don't see any way around that, do you? As has been pointed out, if a demolition crew comes along and destroys a building, it's gone. Not there. (Nowhere to be found or seen anymore.) " (post #116)

Hi @YoursTrue

I am not sure what you think I disagree with.

You asked me : "Do you believe that God can and will destroy (annihilate) a life?" (YoursTrue, post #105)
I requested you to clarify : "When you ask about God destroying a "life", are your speaking of the life of the body, or the annihilation of the spirit of an individual that resides within the body and which, in early Christianity, was the thing that gave a body intelligence, emotion, love, memories, etc.? Can you be specific? (Clear, in post #106)


I think God both CAN and WILL, under certain circumstances, cause the loss of life as a physical process in plants, animals, people, etc. I think most of the time life ends by virtue of the circumstances of the mortal condition we are in (age, disease, accidents) rather than God singling out an individual and causing death in any proximal or direct fashion.
I do not know if God WOULD cause annihilation of an intelligent evil spirit that has the potential for improvement and happiness or if he would instead, damn an evil spirit to a different existence.
It is a question that I've honestly never considered or researched and I'm not sure of the answer.

I also don't know the question has to do with any of my present historical claims regarding the difference between the earliest Judeo-Christian religion as described in the ancient Judeo-Christian literature and the religion created by the Jehovahs Witnesses of the 1800s as described in their literature.

The current question I AM considering is :
Why are the Jehovahs Witness' new interpretations which never existed in any early Christian literature to be preferred over that of the earliest Christians which were quite consistent with the scriptures they had? (Clear, in post #115)


If you have insights into this question, I am certainly interested.

In any case YoursTrue, I hope your own journey in life is wonderful and insightful.


Clear
τωδρειφυω

Can you answer what IS the soul? How is it used in the holy scriptures? That is the real issue in this particular conversation. And thank you.
I'm looking forward to the future as God has promised (are you?) -- peace. New heavens. New earth. Health. Resurrection. Happiness.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
My historical point I was making was never that the earliest Christians held to a more or less correct religion than that of the Jehovahs Witnesses of the 1800s.

My original historical point was that the earliest, most ancient Christianity we have descriptive literature for, was DIFFERENT than the religion of the Jehovahs witnesses in important, basic ways.

The documents from which you quote were written after the first century. If the apostasy was "already at work" in the days of the apostles, then what do you think happened after they died? They were the restraining influence because the concluding part of the Christian scriptures had not yet been written. God knew what he wanted contained in his word, and John's Revelation was an important part of it's conclusion. Nothing written after the first century is of any interest scripturally, otherwise God would have included it in his word.

Scripture is what we accept...not the apocryphal writings of men in later times.

In the 24 posts since I made this point, all of your comments claim that ancient Chritianity represents apostate religion.

No, I said that "Christendom" represents apostate religion.....big difference. "Christendom" (representing the "weeds" of Jesus' parable) hold to one set of core beliefs...but these very beliefs are shared in pagan religions, but were never taught by Christ. i.e. the trinity, immortality of the soul and hellfire, pagan holidays dressed up to look as if they were Christian, and a host of other teachings.

The one thing that made Judaism stand out was its "uniqueness" in NOT sharing the false beliefs of the nations around them. They were forbidden to adopt them. (Deuteronomy 18:9-12) But they disobeyed and lost God's backing. Time and again they kept putting their God to the test and he stuck to his part of the covenant but they never did.

Christendom has fallen into that very same trap. Adopting doctrines based on pagan ideas and forcing them to fit scripture.

I will assume therefore that you are in agreement that the most ancient Historical Christianity that produced descriptive literature was different than the Jehovahs Witness religion of the 1800s in the ways I have described. Is this correct?

What is not written in scripture is of only basic historical value to us. When the beliefs of the early Christians began to gravitate towards the false doctrines that became their foundational beliefs, they disqualified themselves as Christ's disciples and joined Judaism as those whom Jesus will reject on judgement day. (Matthew 7:21-23) They have no idea that they are "lawless" in God's eyes.

If you disagree, then we can certainly get into what the earliest Christian literature that we have record tells us about their beliefs and how they differ from the religion of the Jehovahs Witnesses of the 1800s.

Clear...you are using what is "the earliest Christian literature" from your own perspective. We rely on scripture alone to furnish our beliefs. These were inspired of God...not the "literature" you choose to quote from.

Yes, Jesus and the original apostles were Jewish and many Jews and Jewish leaders made errors.
This does not mean they completely apostatized from the 10 commandments and all other doctrines received from Sinai.

When the Jewish leaders apostatized, they took the people with them. Jesus made it very clear, what he thought of them and their teachings. Read Matthew ch 23. He does not mince words.

It does not mean all Jewish apostles were apostates as they taught the religion Jesus taught them.
It does not mean all converts of the apostles taught apostate religion as they spread the gospel the apostles taught them.

It means that the weeds were sown "while men were sleeping", which means that spiritual drowsiness was at work, not keeping a close watch on what men were introducing, ever so gradually. The Roman take-over of the "Christian" faith could never have happened if men had been "awake" as to what was taking place. Paul's words at 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 were not observed. They did not refrain from "touching the unclean things" of pagan religious thinking, and eagerly adopted them by making them appear to be "Christian".
Would you like a list?

It does not mean that the Jew/convert/apostle Paul taught apostate religion.
It does not mean that early converts to Christianity such as Clement (of Phillipians 4:3) who taught the gospel alongside the apostle Paul taught apostate religion.

Who said anything about Paul being an apostate? His writing make up a good part of Christian scripture. What Clement wrote has no bearing on what is contained in God's word. If it did then his writings would be part of canonical scripture.....clearly they are not. So not admissible in this discussion. We are take ALL our beliefs from the Bible...nothing else. If you wish to do so, please take your arguments to someone who believes as you do. We do not accept what you quote as pertinent to our arguments. Use canonical scripture for your points or this discussion is pointless.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The problem with your theory of a sudden and complete apostasy by all Christians who wrote their witnesses is not historically coherent or historically logical or historically supportable.

The conduct of "the church" down through her history is appalling. It is enough to declare them anything but Christian. "By their fruits" Jesus said you would be able to identify his true disciples.....the "fruits" of the church are all rotten from early times. In his parable, the seeds of the devil had to be sown, and given enough time to grow and become a threat to the "wheat". It wasn't "sudden" it was gradual.....this works for satan. (the frog in the pot..remember?)

Why do you think readers should accept the historical opinion from someone who is ignorant of history and has no interest in learning about the history they are making claims about?

I am not ignorant of history, but you appear to be taken in by what is written by those whom the devil used as "weeds" to infiltrate Christ's congregation. He used the same tactics he always has, but men were not spiritually "awake" and so the seeds of apostasy grew and spread like weeds always do. The "Christianity" we see practiced today is not even a close resemblance to what the original Christians practiced.

It is this sort of attitude I was speaking to as to why the religion created by the Jehovahs Witness in the 1800s can never be historically coherent. Their religion does not pay sufficient attention to historical principles.

Daniel foretold that "in the time of the end" God would "cleanse, whiten and refine" a people and give them insight and understanding, but that the wicked would not be granted that insight and understanding, (Daniel 12:4, 9-10) and so would refuse the cleansing. We believe that we are in "the time of the end", and that God has indeed "cleansed, whitened and refined" a receptive people to reflect his truth. Not those who retain false doctrines and try to pass them off as Christian teachings, but those who saw the filth that had accumulated over time and wanted to do something about it. Why cleanse something that is not soiled, or whiten something that is not stained, or refine something that has no impurities? We see those things clearly identified in this "time of the end".

If you are now, trying to claim that, even during the time of a living apostle, very suddenly and en masse, there were no true Christians and no true Christianity that held to the religion Jesus and the apostles and their converts taught religion at the time revelation was being written, you need to have some historical data to support that theory.

The 'wheat' have always been in existence but the 'weeds' gradually overtook them in time. Historical data? Its all in the Bible...that is our historical data.

All you have given readers so far, it a claim that an apostasy was to occur and this, somehow, supports your claim that the Jehovahs Witnesses have, somehow, returned to the one true form of Christianity while others in all of the earliest Christian literature, somehow, suddenly, and in masse, completely abandoned the true Christianity.

No, no, not suddenly and en masse....gradually and over time they increased their influence just like the Pharisees did in Jesus' day. Jesus called their teachings, "leaven" a symbol of corruption, spreading to encompass the whole of Judaism. Every time God sent his prophet to correct them, they silenced him, just like they did to Jesus. (Matthew 23:37-39) So Jesus was not sent to the Pharisees as a whole but to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel"....why were they lost? Because the shepherds were so busy looking after themselves that they neglected the most vulnerable among their flock. Their neglect was why Jesus was sent to rescue them from that legalistic nightmare that treated them like dirt.

We have experienced a cleansing like no others who identify as "Christians".....removing all the false doctrines that centuries of apostasy had planted in the minds of men. We cleaned the slate and went back to the beginning, using only the Bible to supply all our information. If it is God's word, what more do you need?
That is the hole that the Pharisees fell into......not content to just follow the scriptural commands, they wanted every i dotted and every t crossed so that observing God's commands became a legalistic chore. A whole book was written just to supply all that unnecessary, nit picking information. Like the Catholic Catechism, it became a substitute for the Bible.

Why does YOUR system of interpretation and the resulting doctrines take priority over the interpretations and the beliefs of the original or earliest Christians?

They don't. Your reference to "the earliest Christians" is not the same as my definition of the earliest Christians...you know those who wrote about their own experiences in the first century, that are actually contained in God's word. The others have their place, but they are not scripture and hence not to be treated as such.

Deeje, Why would your modern interpretation and modern doctrines take priority over the interpretation and doctrines that Clement was taught by the apostle Peter?

For all the reasons already stated. Just because you are taught by someone, doesn't make you a reliable source of second hand information. What if Judas had written a book about his version of events? He was taught by the greatest teacher in existence, yet he still got it all wrong.

You cannot claim your doctrines are more Correct than that which the apostle Peter taught Clement.
The early Christians possessed doctrines that were consistent with their scriptures and which doctrines existed from the earliest age that we have record of.

The early church fathers wrote a lot of things.....but they do not take the place of scripture. Can I make that any clearer? God's word does not contradict itself, yet the Churches' teachings do in so many ways. I will always take scripture over their writings or even the misinterpretation of their writings any day.

Why are the Jehovahs Witness new interpretations which never existed in any early Christian literature to be preferred over that of the earliest Christians which were quite consistent with the scriptures they had?

Simple....they are not new interpretations, but the original ones lost in the wheat field, which were choked out by the weeds.

You and I can read the same passage of scripture and come up with vastly different interpretations.....and you know what?....God will not correct the ones who are wrong....because he doesn't have to.....He will only reveal his truth to those who see the filth and want it cleaned up, because it misrepresents him as the God and Father of Jesus Christ....it paints him as a God who tortures people in a burning hell forever, and who apparently has the souls of the dead floating about in an unknown place, waiting for who knows what?

In Christendom's scenario there are so many unanswered questions because nothing makes sense. But if you strip away all the rot, the original purpose of God in the beginning was wonderful, and it will yet be realized. (Isaiah 55:11)
 
Top