Does Paul Agree With LDS?

[Clear]

POST ONE OF FOUR

Hi @nPeace, @Katzpur, @Orontes, the LDS and other readers.

THE EXISTENCE OF SPIRITS IN MANKIND AND THEIR PRE-CREATION EXISTENCE (THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY)

I hope it makes sense to readers why certain modern theologies can exist inside the world of dogma and interpretation and simple arguments, but once one enters the world of religious history, they cannot survive because they do not have enough historical coherence and historical supporting data.

There is also great value in study of the earliest and most original Judeo-Christianity and it’s doctrines. For example, since the Jehovahs Witness movement created it’s system of beliefs and it’s interpretations of texts without the belief in spirits as part of it’s basic system of belief, it will not have the same supporting doctrines underlying this belief.

We’ve already discussed in post #137, why a modern 19th century Jehovahs Witness theology cannot survive in the world of Historical religion and some effects of this inability. However, let me also explain some of the advantages of return to the early Judeo-Christian beliefs surrounding the existence of spirits had for the earliest and most authentic Historical Christian movement. For example, the early doctrines surrounding the pre-creation existence of spirits (for whom the material creation exists).

I do not think many restorationists (i.e. member of the movement which seeks to return to the earliest base doctrines of the original Christian movement) fully understand and appreciate the immense contextual value of a return to these doctrine has nor do they fully understand the sorts of theological compensatory distortions and disadvantages that occur in it's absence for Judeo-Christian movements who've abandoned it. For examples :

Many of the greatest existential questions concern the pre-mortal period of time.

Without a knowledge and understanding of THIS time period, one cannot understand in full and detailed context many of the greatest controversies and the most profound and sublime doctrines of Christianity.

For example an understanding of what went on before the creation of the earth concerns such things as :

1) The original purpose and plan of God and conditions under which he decided to initiate his creation have to do with this time period. Modern Christian theories that have no contextual knowledge of such events will have less contextual understanding of such things.

2) The most profound considerations concerning the origin of evil relate to conditions Prior to creation of the earth. Simply put, philosophers ask "Why did God Create such Evil" and suffering if he could have accomplished the same purpose without evil? (i.e. if he "omnipotent"). This is important since the critics of religion have legitimate curiosity regarding such issues and are unsatisfied with many modern theories regarding this subject. The critics of religion often have legitimate reason for their criticisms. The early Christian context of pre-creation existence of spirits creates a contextual framework to understand such questions.

3) The nature of the devil and his fall from “heaven” has to do with the Pre-mortal time period. The origin of evil and it’s manifestations by another powerful agent having free will (lucifer) produces profound questions for anyone trying to understand why God allows Lucifer such rein on earth.

Even the prophet Sedrach asked God “If you loved man, why did you not kill the devil, the artificer of all iniquity? ” (Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7) Abraham also, asked God “How then, since he [Lucifer] is now not before you, did you establish yourself with (him)? “ (The Apocalypse of Abraham 20:5-7).

Agnostics have a right to have authentic answers to such questions as well. The best contextual answers are to be found in pre-mortal/pre-earth creation conditions. Modern non-historian christians have relatively little concept as to the earliest traditions concerning why an angel (Lucifer) would become an enemy to God. They have little information concerning the "war in heaven" when Jesus says "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven".(luke 10:18) .

4) The nature of and issues underlying the “war in heaven” have to do with the pre-creation period. Virtually ALL of the facts surrounding this this controversy and the reasons underlying it are found in early Judao-christian texts that begin their considerations with the time period in which the controversy took place; the pre-creation/pre-mortal time period.

5) The role of the Fall of man in God’s plan has much to do with events PRIOR to Adam having been placed in the Garden. Modern christianities who have little understanding of pre-mortal issues often view the atonement of Jesus as a hastily prepared “plan B”, necessitated by a crafty Lucifer who scuttles God’s “plan A” for Adam in a Garden of Eden.

The ancient christians, having a more complete understanding that the fall of Adam WAS part of the pre-mortal/pre-creation plan did NOT feel that God was "duped" by Lucifer, but that all had proceeded according to the original plan of God as they understood it.

6) The underlying reasons why some individuals are born into apparently arbitrary and unjust life scenarios are placed into a more understandable context by the greater data provided by conditions during the pre-mortal existence. Arbitrariness, capriciousness and unjustness are consistent complaints that some individuals make about God since the world God created is not fair (if there are no other conditions which justify it).

If God creates men ex-nihilo at an instant, and places some into conditions where they live happy lives and hear of Jesus and are ultimately “saved” and yet creates other men and places them into terrible and torturous conditions where they die before hearing of Jesus and ultimately suffer eternal punishment for not living laws they were never exposed to is seen as arbitrary and unjust. Without a consideration of events PRIOR to life, then some lives cannot make proper sense. It’s like coming into a movie that is more than half-over.

Knowledge of the pre-existence gives us much greater insight into controversies which have plagued non-pre-existent Christianities for over 1700 years. Many of these millennia-long debates are neatly answered, simply by a return to the early doctrines. This is part of the immense value of a restoration to early Christian Salvational doctrines.

Post two of four follows

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF FOUR

Many, many of the earliest Judeo-Christian sacred Texts, relate the expansive doctrine of the pre-mortal realm and the nature of spirits there and God’s purposes for creation. The theme of pre-creation and what happened there is written into the early sacred texts, their hymns contain the doctrine; virtually ALL of the ascension literature contains the doctrine, the war in heaven texts certainly contain the doctrine; the earliest liturgies contain the doctrine; the midrashic texts contain the doctrine, the Jewish Haggadah contains the doctrine, the Zohar contains it; the testament literature is full of it. One simply cannot READ the earliest sacred Judeo-Christian texts without reference to this early Christian doctrine. This vast early literature is part of the context for early Christians and illuminates their understanding of biblical texts that reference this pre-creation time period and what happened there. For examples :

I started out quoting Enoch, not because the doctrine is ONLY found in Enoch, but because the Enochian literature was very orthodox, very popular, very clear and very influential textual genre. In his vision of pre-creation heaven, Enoch relates seeing the spirits that have populated and will populate the earth during it’s existence :

”... I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits. (1st Enoch 40:1)

The great scribe Enoch is commanded by the angel to : “... write all the souls of men, whatever of them are not yet born, and their places, prepared for eternity. 5 For all souls are prepared for eternity, before the composition of the earth.” (2nd Enoch 23:4-5)

In his vision the angel bids Enoch, “Come and I will show you the souls of the righteous who have already been created and have returned, and the souls of the righteous who have not yet been created.” After seeing various pre-existent souls, the ancient midrashic explanation is given us by himself Enoch regarding these many souls says : “the spirit shall clothe itself in my presence” refers to the souls of the righteous which have already been created in the storehouse of beings and have returned to the presence of god; and “the souls which I have made” refers to the souls of the righteous which have not yet been created in the storehouse.” (3rd Enoch 43:1-3)

However, the Enochian literatures witness and description of this tradition are only part of the vast textual literature into which this doctrine is woven.

The vast ascension literature, describes the pre-creation realm of spirits. Abraham, in his ascension Vision describes the unnumbered spirits he sees, many of whom are waiting to come into mortality. The angel says to Abraham : “Look now beneath your feet at the firmament and understand the creation that was depicted of old (i.e. planned). Among other things Abraham says “I saw there a great crowd of men and women and children, half of them on the right side of the portrayal, and half of them on the left side of the portrayal.”... He asks : “Eternal, Mighty One! What is this picture of creation?” 2 And he said to me, “This is my will with regard to what is in the council and it became good before my face (i.e. according to his plan).. “These who are on the left side are a multitude of tribes who existed previously...and through you. some (who have been) prepared for being put in order (slav” restoration”), others for revenge and perdition at the end of the age....those on the right side of the picture are the people set apart for me of the people with azazel; these are the ones I have prepared to be born of you and to be called my people (The Apocalypse of Abraham 21:1-7 and 22:1-5 and 23:1-3)

The doctrine of pre-mortal existence of the spirits within men permeates the biblical text as well. A knowledge of this simple principle explains and underlying so many of the quotes in many other texts as well. In the Old testament it was said : “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (ecclesiates 12:7). This principle is mirrored in multiple other early Judao Christian texts as well : When God the Father commands the son to “Go, take the soul of my beloved Sedrach, and put it in Paradise.”

The only begotten Son said to Sedrach, “give me that which our Father deposited in the womb of your mother in your holy dwelling place since you were born.” (The Apocalypse of Sedrach 9:1-2 and 5).

When the Son finally DOES take the Soul of the Mortal Sedrach, he simply takes it back to God “where it came from”. God’s statement to the prophet Sedrach is simply a rephrase of what God said in Old Testament Ecclesiastes 12:7...” and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” This principle is repeated in this same ancient usage in many of the ancient sacred texts from the earliest periods.

“Jesus said, “Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the Kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return.” (THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS v 49)

“Therefore, fear not death. For that which is from me, that is the soul, departs for heaven. That which is from the earth, that is the body, departs for the earth from which it was taken.” (The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 6:26 & 7:1-4)

The Early Christian usage of Ecclesiates 12:7 was used in this same way by the Apostle Peter as he explained to Clement that "This world was made so that the number of spirits predestined to come here when their number was full could receive their bodies and again be conducted back to the light." (Recognitions)

In this same ancient context, the question God asked Job; “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?”; was NOT simply rhetorical, but it was a REMINDER :

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7)

In this early Judao-Christian context, Job KNEW the answer when God asked where Job was when God laid the foundations of the earth “and all the sons of God shouted for joy”. The texts are explicit that the spirits were taught regarding God’s plan to send the spirits of men to earth. They knew they would undergo a fall of Adam and Of the pre-mortal Redeemer. The savior describes this period of time to the ancient Prophet Seth when sons of God shouted for Joy. The redeemer said regarding this time period before creation in a assembly of jubilant spirits : “And I said these things to the whole multitude of the multitudinous assembly of the rejoicing Majesty. The whole house of the Father of Truth rejoiced that I am the one who is from them.... And they all had a single mind, since it is out of one. They charged me since I was willing. I came forth to reveal the glory to my kindred and my fellow spirits.” (The second treatise of the Great Seth)


POST THREE OF FOUR FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF FOUR

In explaining the relationship the pre-mortal realm of spirits, to the current time when individuals do as they please, unhampered (as it were), by a remembrance of pre-mortal relationships, the messiah remarked :
“After we went forth from our home, and came down to this world, and came into being in the world in bodies, we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant, but also by those who think that they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals. They persecuted those who have been liberated by me, since they hate them...” (The second treatise of the Great Seth)

The early Christian doctrine of Pre-mortal existence removed arbitrariness out of the accusation that God himself created spirits unequally. IN this ancient model, the spirits are partly responsible for their own nature upon entering this life. Instead of arbitrarily creating spirits with defects (the very defects for which spirits may be punished for later), in this early christian context, the Lord creates the body in relationship to certain characteristics the spirit has already obtained (or did not obtain) in it’s heavenly abode over vast periods of time. For example, Napthali explains this to his sons from the testament literature :

“For just as a potter knows the pot, how much it holds, and brings clay for it accordingly, so also the Lord forms the body in correspondence to the spirit,” and, because the Lord knows and has known the spirit over eons, “ the Lord knows the body to what extent it will persist in goodness, and when it will be dominated by evil. For there is no form or conception which the Lord does not know since he created every human being according to his own image.” (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Napthali 2:2-5)

In the context of the spirit of man existing long before other spirits, Jewish Haggadah relates that “Instead of being the last, man is really the first work of creation...With the soul of Adam the souls of all the generations of men were created. They are stored up in a promptuary, in the seventh of the heavens, whence they are drawn as they are needed for human body after human body.” The Haggadah (The Soul of Man)

This it the very same teaching the Apostle Peter taught the Christian convert Clement. The Apostle Peter tells the young christian convert Clement about the pre-earth council and man’s place within this plan : "which (plan) He [God the Father] of his own good pleasure announced in the presence of all the first angels which were assembled before Him. Last of all He made man whose real nature, however, is older and for whose sake all this was created." (Recognitions)

The principle that man’s spirit pre-exists the creation was one of the FIRST things the Apostle Peter teaches Clement. I believe there is a reason the Apostle Peter taught the principle of Pre-Existence to Clement at an early stage in Clements conversion to Christianity. Perhaps, for such theists, the key to understanding what God is doing with mankind is contained inside of the concept that we are eternally spiritual.

Many early Judao-Christian texts are quite explicit in explaining the doctrines underlying the New Testament Theology on this subject. For example : Speaking of the souls of men and the manner after which they are sent from their heavenly dwelling place to earth, the Haggadah relates :

“The soul and body of man are united in this way: When a woman has conceived...God decrees what manner of human being shall become of it – whether it shall be male or female, strong or weak, rich or poor, beautiful or ugly, long or short, fat or thin, and what all it’s other qualities shall be. Piety and wickedness alone are left to the determination of man himself. “Then God makes a sign to the angel appointed over the souls, saying, “Bring me the soul so-and-so, which is hidden in Paradise, whose name is so-and-so, and whose form is so-and-so.” The angel brings the designated soul, and she bows down when she appears in the presence of God, and prostrates herself before him.”

Occasionally the spirit is reluctant to leave the untainted pre-mortal heaven for an earth where she knows her existence will be more difficult as she gains her moral education by coming to earth. In such accounts, God is NOT angry but the text says “ God consoles her. The text relates God telling the soul that “The world which I shall cause you to enter is better than the world in which you have lived hitherto, and when I created you, it was only for this purpose.”

The entire chapter regarding the soul of man discussed in detail what happens with spirits before they enter the body and it relates their forgetting of their prior preparation and existence with God. (I might mention that souls anciently are all described in the female gender - like ships are - in modern parlance)

Such principles in the Haggadic text (which is related to the talmudic history) is mirrored in several other texts. For example, the Zohar confirms the doctrine as it relates essentially the same description. :

“At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, he decided to fashion all the souls which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men, and each soul was formed into the exact outline of the body she was destined to tenant. Scrutinizing each, he saw that among them some would fall into evil ways in the world. Each one in it’s due time the Holy One, be blessed, bade come to him, and then said: “Go now, descend into this and this place, into this and this body.” Yet often enough the soul would reply: “Lord of the world, I am content to remain in this realm, , and have no wish to depart to some other, where I shall be in thralldom, and become stained.” Whereupon the Holy One, be blessed, would reply: “Your destiny is, and has been from the day of thy forming, to go into that world.” Then the soul, realizing it could not disobey, would unwillingly descend and come into this world. (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul)

In very symbolic language, the Zohar relates the creation of the souls in heaven to the point that they become formed and cognizant and take on characteristics they will keep with them when they are placed into bodies at birth, even to the point of having gender. Speaking of these fully developed souls it says :

“the soul of the female and the soul of the male, are hence preeminent above all the heavenly hosts and camps.” The question in the sacred text is then asked : It may be wondered, if they [the souls] are thus preeminent on both sides, why do they descend to this world only to be taken thence at some future time? “This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day. ...“If the righteous were only aware of this, they would be filled with joy when their time comes to leave this world. For does it not honor them greatly that the matron comes down on their account, to take them into the King’s palace, where the King may every day rejoice in them?....And so, happy are the righteous and in the world to come, ... (THE ZOHAR - A SEAL UPON YOUR HEART)

POST FOUR OF FOUR FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST FOUR OF FOUR

My point is simply that the ancient Judao-Christian doctrine of pre-mortal existence existed and was believed by early Judao-Christians and assumed in their texts. (There is no need for Jesus disciples to ask him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:2) if they did not believe he could sin before being born.

I might as well point out that, just regarding this tradition of Pre-Mortal existence of souls, I have quoted from multiple texts, including :
The Old Testament
The New Testament
The apocalypse of Sedrach
The apocalypse of Abraham
First Enoch
Second Enoch
Third Enoch
Ecclesiates (Old Testament)
The Gospel of Thomas
The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra
Clementine Recognitions
Job (Old Testament)
The Second treatise of the Great Seth
Testaments of the twelve patriarchs (Napthali)
Jewish Haggadah (related to the Talmud)
Jewish Zohar
In the my original, generalized example in post #137, I quoted from multiple other books and the new and old testament as well.

As one considers the implications of the contextual understanding that is provided by the doctrinal details found within the pre-creation time period, then it becomes very obvious that it was a tremendously doctrine doctrinal genre that affects Judeo-Christian theology in profound ways. The abandonment of this doctrine has had many controversial and adverse effects for christianities who have abandoned it.

Though I do not believe the vast majority of restorationists even know of the nature of early Judeo-Christian texts, they will recognize completely familiar and friendly and harmonious themes that they could use in their Sunday School without any doctrinal ripples or inconsistencies with their theology, whereas most other Christian movements will not recognize much resemblance between their theology and the ancient Judeo-Christian texts (to the degree that their theology has diverged from such doctrines).

These principles apply to multiple early Judeo-cCristian doctrines that have been re-adopted by any restorational Christian movement.



THE ONLY OPTION FOR SURVIVAL OF NON-HISTORICAL RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS IN A HISTORICAL SETTING IS TO DENY THE HISTORICAL DATA (SOMEHOW)

As I mentioned, the vast amount of Judeo-Christian historical literature gives many, many, many, wonderful witnesses to the existence of spirits and concerning what the spirits were doing before they were born into mortality. This profound genre of literature gives much greater detail regarding the great religious questions individuals and religionists have argued over for the past 1700 years.

To exist in the world of history takes more than simple dogma. The dogma must be historically coherent and have parallels to the beliefs and doctrines of the earliest Christianity. While all religions may survive in the world of dogma and interpretation and argument, those who are not consistent with "historical" Judeo-Christianity will find they are very different than early Judeo-Christianity and they cannot use early Christian literature to support their doctrines.

They must either stay OUT of the historical religious world and it's field of study or they must deny history is correct (since this historical literature cannot be easily "skewed" nor “re-interpreted” when considered as a whole) by some means such as to claim the historians are biased or their descriptions are incorrect or poorly sourced, etc.

Clear
τωτζφυφιω

 

[sojourner]

There is no such thing as a "ghost"

Matthew disagrees with you.

Your remains go back to the dust and you "sleep" waiting for a resurrection. This is what the ancient Jews were taught

The ancient Judaic religion had no resurrection. They weren’t taught what you say they were taught.

The only "spirits" spoken about in scripture are angels

John says that God is a spirit.

He is a spirit, so that means spirits are finite beings

Therefore, according to you, God (being spirit) is, likewise, finite.

Yet since both are "mortal" they can die under certain circumstances.

Ergo, God, also, can die under certain circumstances (which you have refuted in other threads).

"Hell" is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "sheol"....which simply means the grave.

Hell and Sheol are completely different concepts.

lots of inconsistencies and double-talk here.

 

[Katzpur]

@Clear...

Re: Post #1 Thank you!
Re: Post #2 Thank you!
Re: Post #3 Thank you!
Re: Post #4 Thank you!

I truly hope this wealth of information does not fall on deaf ears, ears so certain that nothing outside of the Bible is worth considering when it comes to a period of time that is so critical to our overall understanding of God's Plan for us. Without an understanding of what took place before the events that are described in Genesis transpired, you are absolutely right. It's like walking into a movie that's half over and trying to make sense of parts of it. In teaching the men in the Salt Lake Metro jail, I have used the analogy of a three-act play with an intermission.

Act 1: The pre-mortal existence
Act 2: Mortality
Intermission: Awaiting the Resurrection in the Spirit World
Act 3: Our resurrection, judgment and reconciliation with God

If you missed Act 1, you've missed a lot of important background information. And then, in intermission, you're given the opportunity to catch up with what what failed to make logical sense during Act 2.

 

[Deeje]

Matthew disagrees with you.

Does he? In Matthew, depending upon which translation you use, the disciples thought they saw an 'apparition'.

The Greek word used is..."phantasma" and it means....

1. 
   
   
   • "an appearance
   • an apparition, spectre"

The word "ghost" does not belong because it is deliberately designed to give a false impression. It is taken from a German word (geist) which means "spirit"....so spirit beings in scripture are either angels or demons.....not the "ghost" of a dead person. There is no such thing.

The ancient Judaic religion had no resurrection. They weren’t taught what you say they were taught.

As far back as Job, God's servants believed in the resurrection.
Job 14:13-15...
"Oh that You would hide me in Sheol,
That You would conceal me until Your wrath returns to You,
That You would set a limit for me and remember me!
14 “If a man dies, will he live again?
All the days of my struggle I will wait
Until my change comes.
15 “You will call, and I will answer You;
You will long for the work of Your hands." (NASB)

At the height of his suffering Job prayed to die....but he believed that if he went to sheol (the grave) that God would remember him and bring him out of that place to live again.

Elijah resurrected the widow's son....Jesus himself resurrected the son of a widow, Jairus' daughter and his friend Lazarus. They were returned to this life. What did Martha (Lazarus' sister) believe when she told Jesus that her brother would "rise in the resurrection on the last day"? (John 11:21-25) They were Jewish.
There is no immortal soul taught in the Bible.

John says that God is a spirit.

He is indeed, but he has never left the heavenly realm where he resides. He has sent his angels on many occasions to bring messages or comfort to his earthly servants....Jesus received such on occasion, after his baptism, (Mark 1:13) and on the night before his death. (Luke 22:43)

Therefore, according to you, God (being spirit) is, likewise, finite.

Since the scriptures identify God as the "King of Eternity" I very much doubt that. His created spirit sons however are not immortal. They can die.....just not in the same way that mortal humans do.

Ergo, God, also, can die under certain circumstances (which you have refuted in other threads).

LOL...I can count on you to misinterpret everything I say.....I wonder why? An immortal God cannot die but his created spirit sons can.....Jesus died because he was not immortal. You can't kill an immortal.

Hell and Sheol are completely different concepts.

From God's perspective, they are not. Human interpretations may be different, but the Bible does not contradict itself. Jesus was Jewish and he taught from Jewish scripture.

It would help if the Jews had not adopted Greek beliefs regarding the soul and the afterlife.....and it would have helped if the Christians hadn't done the same thing....but there are no immortal souls in the Bible. In order to go to hell you have to be alive to suffer. Dead people are not alive...they have no consciousness. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10)
How many words in the Bible are translated "hell"? Do they all have the same meaning?

What is the reason for the confusion?....The English translators of the King James Version, translated Sheol 31 times as “hell,” 31 times as “grave,” and 3 times as “pit.” The Catholic Douay Version translated Sheol 64 times as “hell.” In the Christian Greek Scriptures, the King James Version translated Hades as “hell” each of the 10 times it occurs. So.....what the hell is it???

lots of inconsistencies and double-talk here.

But not from me....

 

[nPeace]

Well, we can certainly try. I personally enjoy discussing theology with people who have different views than I do. As long as we can both recognize that all we're doing is trying to best we can to get to the truth. And, that sometimes the answers aren't going to come during this lifetime.

Well I guess you won't enjoy discussing with me then, because I don't agree with that.
I believe that we can get God's view on religion, and the religious, or not so religious, as well as his view on what religion he accepts, and is directing.
I tend to follow what is written, as opposed to what persons may believe, or think.

For example, suppose someone asked the questions, "Is there any one religion that can be Biblically shown to be the one and only true religion, or can God not be a part of various religions, all striving along different roads to God?"

My response to them would not be, "I think...". My response would be, "Well if the Bible is the word of God, would you not agree that we should look to the Bible for the answer? If you don't believe the Bible is God's word, then you don't believe the Bible can provide the answer in relation to God, and you are left to your own opinion - perhaps even creating your own God. Would you agree with that?"

The person might want to know, "Well how do we know the Bible is really true?"
I would respond by saying, that's a good question, and be willing to discuss that, but if the person says they believe the Bible, I would say. "Let's see the answer the Bible gives to your question then."
Continue here..

Actually, we consider them to be essentially equal. As far as we're concerned, they're both from the same source, so there's no need to rank them.

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

Yes. some refer to it as a soul that inhabits the body, and is disembodied at death (of the body), to live on, with God, and be restored to a new body - an eternal soul.
The same "principal" applies in the reincarnation doctrine.
So yes, they all are one. it's just that they take on their own refinement, but they are all the same.
The question is, "From which root did they spread?"
My answer would be, They did not spring from the Bible - ether the Hebrew text, or the Greek.

 

[nPeace]

From God's perspective, they are not. Human interpretations may be different, but the Bible does not contradict itself. Jesus was Jewish and he taught from Jewish scripture.

It would help if the Jews had not adopted Greek beliefs regarding the soul and the afterlife.....and it would have helped if the Christians hadn't done the same thing....but there are no immortal souls in the Bible. In order to go to hell you have to be alive to suffer. Dead people are not alive...they have no consciousness. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10)

I was thinking the same. Only if the "Christians" had not been swayed by Greek philosophy, but it really had a strong influence, as they controlled almost everything.

 

[sojourner]

Does he? In Matthew, depending upon which translation you use, the disciples thought they saw an 'apparition'.

The Greek word used is..."phantasma" and it means....

1. 
   
   
   • "an appearance
   • an apparition, spectre"

The word "ghost" does not belong because it is deliberately designed to give a false impression. It is taken from a German word (geist) which means "spirit"....so spirit beings in scripture are either angels or demons.....not the "ghost" of a dead person. There is no such thing.



As far back as Job, God's servants believed in the resurrection.
Job 14:13-15...
"Oh that You would hide me in Sheol,
That You would conceal me until Your wrath returns to You,
That You would set a limit for me and remember me!
14 “If a man dies, will he live again?
All the days of my struggle I will wait
Until my change comes.
15 “You will call, and I will answer You;
You will long for the work of Your hands." (NASB)

At the height of his suffering Job prayed to die....but he believed that if he went to sheol (the grave) that God would remember him and bring him out of that place to live again.

Elijah resurrected the widow's son....Jesus himself resurrected the son of a widow, Jairus' daughter and his friend Lazarus. They were returned to this life. What did Martha (Lazarus' sister) believe when she told Jesus that her brother would "rise in the resurrection on the last day"? (John 11:21-25) They were Jewish.
There is no immortal soul taught in the Bible.



He is indeed, but he has never left the heavenly realm where he resides. He has sent his angels on many occasions to bring messages or comfort to his earthly servants....Jesus received such on occasion, after his baptism, (Mark 1:13) and on the night before his death. (Luke 22:43)


Since the scriptures identify God as the "King of Eternity" I very much doubt that. His created spirit sons however are not immortal. They can die.....just not in the same way that mortal humans do.



LOL...I can count on you to misinterpret everything I say.....I wonder why? An immortal God cannot die but his created spirit sons can.....Jesus died because he was not immortal. You can't kill an immortal.


From God's perspective, they are not. Human interpretations may be different, but the Bible does not contradict itself. Jesus was Jewish and he taught from Jewish scripture.

It would help if the Jews had not adopted Greek beliefs regarding the soul and the afterlife.....and it would have helped if the Christians hadn't done the same thing....but there are no immortal souls in the Bible. In order to go to hell you have to be alive to suffer. Dead people are not alive...they have no consciousness. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10)
How many words in the Bible are translated "hell"? Do they all have the same meaning?

What is the reason for the confusion?....The English translators of the King James Version, translated Sheol 31 times as “hell,” 31 times as “grave,” and 3 times as “pit.” The Catholic Douay Version translated Sheol 64 times as “hell.” In the Christian Greek Scriptures, the King James Version translated Hades as “hell” each of the 10 times it occurs. So.....what the hell is it???


But not from me....

I won’t point out your obvious errors and inconsistencies here; it would drag the thread off topic. But you really do appear to live in your own fantasy world of alternate “facts” fostered by poor exegesis of texts and a poor understanding of Greek and Judaic religious history, alongside a healthy dose of confirmation bias. Suffice to say your “arguments” come as no surprise in terms of bias, unsupported “facts” and typical double-speak. Your reply only serves to help me point out that you have no idea what you’re talking about where this subject matter is concerned.

 

[Orontes]

Does he? In Matthew, depending upon which translation you use, the disciples thought they saw an 'apparition'.

The Greek word used is..."phantasma" and it means....

1. 
   
   
   • "an appearance
   • an apparition, spectre"

The word "ghost" does not belong because it is deliberately designed to give a false impression. It is taken from a German word (geist) which means "spirit"....so spirit beings in scripture are either angels or demons.....not the "ghost" of a dead person. There is no such thing.

Hello,

The distinction being attempted here between apparition, specter, ghost and spirit doesn't really follow. Phantasma does not refer to something non-material or distinct from the physical arena. In fact, the very notion of a thing existing that is not tied fundamentally to materiality is foreign to the Greek mind. There is no word in Greek that can express existence, not rooted in materiality. The verbal root of phantasma is phao that means to give light or show or beam, and indicates there is always an appearance of some other thing. It is often used for heavenly objects: the sun, stars etc. A phantasma does not exist separate or distinct from materiality. Thus, apparition, specter, ghost, and spirit would all work in connection with Matt 14:26.


Also note: the New Testament is being written for a Greco-Roman audience, even when one considers the Jewishness of say the Book of Matthew, readers are still at the very least Hellenized Jews or gentile converts. The linguistic framework all exists within a Greek context. Phantasma is a philosophical term. It was first used by Plato and then used much more by Aristotle.

 

[Katzpur]

Well I guess you won't enjoy discussing with me then, because I don't agree with that.

Yeah, probably not.

I believe that we can get God's view on religion, and the religious, or not so religious, as well as his view on what religion he accepts, and is directing.
I tend to follow what is written, as opposed to what persons may believe, or think.

And I intend to follow what is written, and not just assume that everything worth knowing is in one book. I also believe that God gave us our brains, hoping we would use them to think for ourselves and not just buy into what other people may tell us. Finally, I believe that the best way to come to understand the truth is by listening to the Holy Ghost. If, as we read in John 21:24, "I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." That's a lot a material! Do you seriously belief that all of these things -- things that all the books in the world could not contain -- were all, or even mostly, superfluous to God's message? Do you have any idea of how many times the biblical canon itself was changed between the first century and the time the King James Version came out? Do you know how many books were included at some time and then removed? If something was "God-breathed" at one time, why was it not considered to be "God-breathed" at a later date? You can ignore everything but your Bible and the Watchtower, but it's a waste of your time to try to make me think I should, too.

For example, suppose someone asked the questions, "Is there any one religion that can be Biblically shown to be the one and only true religion, or can God not be a part of various religions, all striving along different roads to God?"

My response to them would not be, "I think...". My response would be, "Well if the Bible is the word of God, would you not agree that we should look to the Bible for the answer? If you don't believe the Bible is God's word, then you don't believe the Bible can provide the answer in relation to God, and you are left to your own opinion - perhaps even creating your own God. Would you agree with that?"

The person might want to know, "Well how do we know the Bible is really true?"
I would respond by saying, that's a good question, and be willing to discuss that, but if the person says they believe the Bible, I would say. "Let's see the answer the Bible gives to your question then."

My answers pretty much always begin with "I believe" or "Here's how I see it" or "From my perspective." I find it quite offensive, to be completely honest with you, when a person expresses his or her opinion concerning spiritual matters as if it is an undisputed fact. The most brilliant among us is so far from understanding all of God's ways that it can't help but rub me the wrong way when people insist that their way is right and that everyone ought to be able to see that. I also believe that learning and growth and progress will continue throughout eternity. I know that is contrary your your viewpoint, but it's something that is a core part of what I believe to be true.

Yes. some refer to it as a soul that inhabits the body, and is disembodied at death (of the body), to live on, with God, and be restored to a new body - an eternal soul.
The same "principal" applies in the reincarnation doctrine.
So yes, they all are one. it's just that they take on their own refinement, but they are all the same.
The question is, "From which root did they spread?"
My answer would be, They did not spring from the Bible - ether the Hebrew text, or the Greek.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that you are going to continue to want to put a gag order on God. Because I am willing to listen to everything He may wish to tell me and not rely solely on the Bible -- as interpreted by Watchtower -- we're going to continue to go around in circles. I don't know if you're interested in doing that, but I'm really not.

 

[nPeace]

Yeah, probably not.

And I intend to follow what is written, and not just assume that everything worth knowing is in one book. I also believe that God gave us our brains, hoping we would use them to think for ourselves and not just buy into what other people may tell us. Finally, I believe that the best way to come to understand the truth is by listening to the Holy Ghost. If, as we read in John 21:24, "I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." That's a lot a material! Do you seriously belief that all of these things -- things that all the books in the world could not contain -- were all, or even mostly, superfluous to God's message? Do you have any idea of how many times the biblical canon itself was changed between the first century and the time the King James Version came out? Do you know how many books were included at some time and then removed? If something was "God-breathed" at one time, why was it not considered to be "God-breathed" at a later date? You can ignore everything but your Bible and the Watchtower, but it's a waste of your time to try to make me think I should, too.

My answers pretty much always begin with "I believe" or "Here's how I see it" or "From my perspective." I find it quite offensive, to be completely honest with you, when a person expresses his or her opinion concerning spiritual matters as if it is an undisputed fact. The most brilliant among us is so far from understanding all of God's ways that it can't help but rub me the wrong way when people insist that their way is right and that everyone ought to be able to see that. I also believe that learning and growth and progress will continue throughout eternity. I know that is contrary your your viewpoint, but it's something that is a core part of what I believe to be true.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that you are going to continue to want to put a gag order on God. Because I am willing to listen to everything He may wish to tell me and not rely solely on the Bible -- as interpreted by Watchtower -- we're going to continue to go around in circles. I don't know if you're interested in doing that, but I'm really not.

I believe as the scriptures say, God guides us to truth through holy spirit, but that is not apart from the things taught through the prophets and Jesus and the apostles, so I believe if we are not in harmony with scripture, it is clear indication we are not guided by holy spirit, even when we claim it.
As you said, we should use our brain, and not just accept something because someone claims it

I have heard Atheists, and skeptics say that all Christians listen to the holy spirit, and yet hear different and conflicting things, and
Wouldn't you agree that that is indeed using your brain? i agree with them that to just make the claim that the holy spirit is what leads to truth, is the same as a person saying God spoke to them and gave them a message.
I think when we investigate the writings, we should be able to determine if they are true... for example, Did Jesus fulfill the Messianic prophecies? Is he the one we should listen to?
Question like that, and if we can establish that these words are truth, then we have a basis for claim of holy spirit, because we can do as the apostle Paul did - reason from scripture, and prove by reference.

There seems to be a lot of aggression from your responses, for no reason, I can think of, other than you mentioned earlier. I don't think you have gotten over those feelings there, so that will make this conversation difficult.
Are my responses coming over as aggressive to you?

Anyway, i can see that you have no interest in talking to me, so I won't add to your... Whatever it is. I don't know.
Take care.

 

[Katzpur]

I believe as the scriptures say, God guides us to truth through holy spirit, but that is not apart from the things taught through the prophets and Jesus and the apostles, so I believe if we are not in harmony with scripture, it is clear indication we are not guided by holy spirit, even when we claim it.

Right. But we're not even on the same page when it comes to what constitutes scripture. Furthermore, you don't accept any prophets or apostles who lived after Jesus' day, whereas I believe God is still speaking to us through prophets and apostles. When you stop to think about it, it's no wonder we have such opposing views. The biggest hurdle to our ever being able to have a productive dialogue, though, is that you continue to insist that my beliefs aren't in the Bible. Your implication that I don't believe the Bible to be God's word is, quite frankly, insulting. And I say that the vast majority of my beliefs actually are in the Bible -- maybe not in words we could not possibly dispute the meaning of, but stated every bit as explicitly as yours are. We are simply interpreting the Bible differently. You think it means one thing and I think it means something else. I'd be okay with that if you could just admit that there really is more than one way to understand many of the verses in the Bible. You can't though. As far as you're concerned, Watchtower has the final say and it absolutely beyond the realm of possibility that your beliefs could be wrong.

I have heard Atheists, and skeptics say that all Christians listen to the holy spirit, and yet hear different and conflicting things, and
Wouldn't you agree that that is indeed using your brain? i agree with them that to just make the claim that the holy spirit is what leads to truth, is the same as a person saying God spoke to them and gave them a message.
I think when we investigate the writings, we should be able to determine if they are true... for example, Did Jesus fulfill the Messianic prophecies? Is he the one we should listen to?
Question like that, and if we can establish that these words are truth, then we have a basis for claim of holy spirit, because we can do as the apostle Paul did - reason from scripture, and prove by reference.

Once again, you are implying (even if subconsciously) that I don't think we should be paying attention to Jesus' words. Yes, Jesus did fulfill the Messianic prophesies, and I believe everything Jesus had to say. I don't appreciate your implying that I don't, or that I put someone else's words above His.

There seems to be a lot of aggression from your responses, for no reason, I can think of, other than you mentioned earlier. I don't think you have gotten over those feelings there, so that will make this conversation difficult.
Are my responses coming over as aggressive to you?

Anyway, i can see that you have no interest in talking to me, so I won't add to your... Whatever it is. I don't know.

I'm sorry if you see aggression in my responses. I certainly don't feel as if I'm being aggressive. If anything, I believe you are. I'm simply frustrated and that frustration probably shows. I honestly just don't seem to be able to have a conversation with a JW that ends well. When it becomes evident that neither side is going to be swayed, I'm willing to just agree to disagree and part friends. JWs don't seem to be content to do that. They just have to keep up the argument (or call it something else, if you don't like that word) until you wear your opponent down to nothing. And then, 9 times out of 10, the JW concludes with an accusation that the other side just "ran away" because they couldn't support their position. (You didn't do that -- at least not yet, but it's not at all unusual for it to happen.)

In this thread, I have explained why Paul's comments about the body being physical first and then spiritual are in reference to something entirely different than the LDS position that God is the Father of our spirits and that we lived as His spirit offspring in Heaven with Him before we were born. I further explained that I believe Paul to have been referring to the fact that we are born as mortal beings prior to being born after our resurrections as immortal beings. I don't know what more I can say. You don't think my beliefs are biblical; I do. I think your beliefs are based on the Bible, but that you have interpreted certain passages incorrectly.

No hard feelings. Just frustration.

 

[Clear]

Hi @sojourner and @Deeje and other readers

1) Re the discussion whether “spirit” or “ghost” or “phantasma” or “phantom” or “apparition” are correct words to use for the spirit of a dead person that appears.

I don’t really care which one a person uses as it seems to be a semantical issue and not doctrinal in most cases.


2) sojourner said: ↑The ancient Judaic religion had no resurrection. (post #145)
Deeje replied : “As far back as Job, God's servants believed in the resurrection.” (post #147)

I agree with Deeje. Resurrection from the dead was a belief found in ancient Judaism. However, Judaism is schismatic and some Jewish movements, such as the saducees, did not believe in the resurrection.


3) sojourner said: ↑Hell and Sheol are completely different concepts. (post @145)
Deeje replied : “From God's perspective, they are not.” (post #147)

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

I have been thinking of @Katzpurs' concept of a three-part play with an intermission before the last act and this "spirit world/hades/sheol/grave/ etc." as the intermission before the last act. I think it is a very intuitive and insightful model.

I'm at work, so it will take me a bit of time to offer more historical data, but I think, since this thread is speaking to the ancient Judeo-Christian concept of spirits of mankind and their existence, their condition before their birth, we might as well speak about ancient Judeo-Christian beliefs regarding the conditions of spirit after the body dies and while they are awaiting resurrection. I'll get back to you during my lunch hour (or so...).


Clear
τωτωτζτωω

 

[sojourner]

2) sojourner said: ↑The ancient Judaic religion had no resurrection. (post #145)
Deeje replied : “As far back as Job, God's servants believed in the resurrection.” (post #147)

I agree with Deeje. Resurrection from the dead was a belief found in ancient Judaism. However, Judaism is schismatic and some Jewish movements, such as the saducees, did not believe in the resurrection.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sojourner]

3) sojourner said: ↑Hell and Sheol are completely different concepts. (post @145)
Deeje replied : “From God's perspective, they are not.” (post #147)

If one is speaking of the ancient Judeo-Christian religion, then Hell and Sheol are two of many names for the same place.

First of all, we’re not speaking of “Judeo-Christian religion.” We’re talking about the differences between Judaism and Christianity. Secondly, I offer this:

“Unsurprisingly, a culture that does not affirm life after death does not speculate about it. Unlike the surrounding cultures, Israel does not produce anything like the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh. Israel does have Sheol, which is envisioned as the abode fo the dead, but this is not life after death int he western, Christian sense [emphasis mine]. There is no elaboration or speculation about it. This is not a place of conscious or beatific life but a place of the dead, and reference to it occurs almost exclusively in wisdom literature.

As in death itself, in Sheol there is no praise of God, for only the living can praise God.”
(Scott, Bernard Brandon: The Trouble with Resurrection: From Paul to the Fourth Gospel; 2010, Polebridge Press; Pp 27-28)

In contrast, jesus describes hell as a “lake of fire,” where inhabitants wail and gnash their teeth. The dead cannot wail and gnash their teeth. Clearly the concept of hell in the NT comprises a belief in some afterlife. Sheol conveys no such thing.

 

[Clear]

It's lunch hour for me so I can only respond to a couple of points before I return to work.

1) REGARDING THE WORDS HELL AND SHEOL SHARING THE SAME RELIGIOUS MEANING
sojourner said: ↑Hell and Sheol are completely different concepts.
Deeje replied : “From God's perspective, they are not.”
Sojourner said : ”First of all, we’re not speaking of “Judeo-Christian religion.” We’re talking about the differences between Judaism and Christianity. “

You generalized instead of specified. This is partly why your initial statement is incorrect.
In the Judeo-Christian context of the thread, Deeje is perfectly correct that these two words reference the same concept.
I will explain and offer some historical data later.

This second statement is still an over-generalization. WHICH “Judaism” are you speaking of and of WHICH time period?
If a Jewish Christian of 50 a.d. is a Greek speaking Jew, they may use the term “hades”. If a Jewish Christian of 50 a.d. is a Hebrew speaking Jew they may use the term “sheol”. Both are speaking of the same place. If you are speaking of a reform Jew of 2020, then the answer is different. These are not the same religions having the same doctrines.



2) REGARDING THE CONCEPT THAT A CULTURE OR RELIGION TENDS NOT TO SPECULATE ABOUT A DOCTRINE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN.
Sojourner said : “ Secondly, I offer this: “Unsurprisingly, a culture that does not affirm life after death does not speculate about it.

I very much agree with this Statement by Scott. This was my point as well. I used Jehovahs Witness theology as an example where a theology (culture) that does not believe in a doctrine such as a spirit existing within mankind, as it creates its theology and interpretations, tends not to “speculate” about that doctrine they do not believe in.


3) REGARDING THE STRANGE STATEMENT THAT ISRAEL DID NOT PRODUCE RELIGIOUS LITERATURE LIKE THE EGYPTIAN CULTURE (Book of the Dead, etc.)
Sojourner said : “...Unlike the surrounding cultures, Israel does not produce anything like the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh. Israel does have Sheol, which is envisioned as the abode fo the dead, but this is not life after death int he western, Christian sense [emphasis mine]. There is no elaboration or speculation about it. This is not a place of conscious or beatific life but a place of the dead, and reference to it occurs almost exclusively in wisdom literature.”

Unlike his first, logical statement, this is a very strange and historically, incoherent comment by Bernard Scott. However, Scott is not an egyptologist nor does he seem very familiar with Books of the dead. If you are going to research ancient Egypt, use an egyptologist as a source.

Let me give you some examples.

4 )_ HISTORIANS HAVE LONG NOTED PARALLELS BETWEEN EGYPTIAN LITERATURE AND JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

Judeo-Christian historians who study creation council histories (i.e. where the Lord God councils with all other spirits regarding the creation of the earth and his purposes of creation, etc.) have long noted parallels in ancient Egyptian theology. In fact, it happens that the oldest Creation council document IS Egyptian (it is actually the oldest religious document in the world).

The Shabako stone (Memphite theology) tells of the “war of heaven” in an egyptian idiom.

The Book of the Dead (BoD – budge and Wallis translation] ALSO refers back to this same Christian war in heaven when referring to the time when the Father God (Geb) judges between two pre-eminent sons (Horus and Set) and, then casts set, the troublemaker out of heaven. The B of D says “[where] thou didst judge between Horus and Set in the Great Hall. Thou art the Head of the Great Company of the gods, the only one, who hast no second” (p110 of BoD) “Through whose divine plans the earth came into being” (p113) “who maketh decrees for millions of millions of years...whose statutes fail not..” (Ibid).

This is the God who and "who casted out Seth" (sic) with the mesu betshet, those who followed him who, in the B of the Dead are called the “children of rebellion” or “sons of impotent revolt”. These are those who carried out Sets commands and became powers of evil on this earth, an obvious parallel to the Judeo-Christian version of the 1/3 of spirits cast out of heaven with Lucifer. These are parallel histories that simply are told in different idioms of the different cultures.

The “war in heaven” of Christian idiom is often referenced as “rebellion of the night” in the BoD.

Such Egyptian histories from Books of the Dead refer to the most common early Jewish/Christian/Islamic literature that describes the war in heaven and the casting out of Lucifer/Satan/the Devil which explains his presence in the Garden of Eden and his enmity against God and mankind.

Your source, Bernard Scott seems unaware of any such vast parallels when he make his naïve statements on Egyptian theology and the book of the dead. That naivete will extend to his readers who read his book and think they know ancient Egyptian theology as well.



5) JUDEO-CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES IN THE BOOK(S) OF THE DEAD EGYPTIAN IDIOM

PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SPIRIT WITHIN MAN

In the Papyrus of Ani, Budge translates the line “Thou shall exist for millions of millions of years,” and he comments (p69) that: “the infinite duration of the past and future existence of the soul, as well as it’s divine nature, is proclaimed by Ani in the words: - I am Shu of divine company. My soul is God, my soul is eternity” (“Soul” is the idiom for “spirit” in Judeo-Christian literature).
By identifying himself with Shu, he makes the period of his existence coevel with that of Temu-Ra..

In Judeo-Christian idiom, the spirit is that part of man which was believed to come from the aeons prior and exists here in mortality and will exist in the aeons future. In early idiom this was the meaning underlying “forever and ever” (forever past and forever future).

The same concepts exist in multiple expressions in the Book of the Dead.

The Egyptologist Budge explains that “To that part of man which beyond all doubt was believed to enjoy an eternal existence after the death of the body, the Egyptians gave the name Ba...always hitherto been translated by “soul” or “heart-soul”. “It is stated to be exceedingly refined or ethereal.” “It was eternal.” p. 76 This is different than the second part of the spirit (the Khu) which he says “may be defined as a “shining” or translucent Spirit-soul. For want of a better word Khu has often been translated ‘shining one’, ‘glorious’, ‘intelligence’ and the like.”

It’s not just Egyptian and Christian idiom, but the various literatures such as Judeo-Christianities use various idioms for the same concept.

For example : The early Sophia Christi, relates "All spirits are ageless and equal as to creation, but differ in degrees of power."

This sentiment is a substantial thread woven into so many ancient sacred Jewish and Christian texts. Enoch testifies : "Write all the souls of men, however many of them are born, for all souls are prepared to eternity before the foundation of the world." (2nd book of Enoch)

The Hebrew Zohar, gives us the same testimony : "All men before they lived on earth were present in heaven in the identical form they possess in this life, and everything they learn on earth they knew already before they came to this world."

This early Christian and Jewish doctrine of pre-existence of spirits was widespread among the ancient Egyptian culture as well and exists in the Books of the dead in multiple versions. For example, The Egyptian pyramid and coffin texts continue on similar themes without even causing ripples in this doctrine: "I existed before I was born, when the gods did not exist, when as yet there was no bird trap, when the cattle were not yet lassoed. I was formerly; I was of yesterday, a great one among the great and noble ones."

The fact that this doctrine was ALSO Egyptian means that it was shared by multiple nations and NOT simply the ancient Jews and Christians. (It’s taught very clearly in the Bhagavad Gita as well) Doctrinal correlations are easily made if one is willing to allow the different idiom to speak for itself.

For example, Jewish idiom refers to a time : "when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy." (Job 38:7)
whereas Egyptian personal idiom refers to the same time period : "Before I was born by hand or born of woman, he created me in the midst of his perfection, which caused to jubilate those who shared in the secrets."

Whether "shouting for joy" or being caused to "jubilate" before being born, the themes of pre-creation occurrences keep repeating themselves.

Such literature with obvious parallels debunks Scotts silly claim that "Israel does not produce anything like the Egyptian Book of the Dead". They are not only LIKE Books of the Dead, but many of the israeli literature parallels of Book of the Dead themes.


REGARDING WHERE WE CAME FROM - A SIMPLE COMPARISON OF THEOLOGIES.

The recurring religious emphasis on pre-existence in ancient Jewish, Egyptian, Christian and other literature seems to represent the obvious realization that knowing who we really are (i.e. where we came from; our purpose here and what our ultimate destiny is, etc...) is the only thing that can put everything else into its proper perspective. Our current existence cannot make proper sense without understanding what went on before this life. Other examples might include :

The Gospel of Thomas says: "When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will know that you are the sons of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty."

Jesus says in this same writing : "... blessed are the solitary elect. For you shall find the kingdom because you came from it. You shall go there again.”

Regarding our origins, both Thomas and Jesus are only restating Ecclesiastes : “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”

I only quoted part of Jesus speaking to the apostles. There is more. : “If they say to you from where do you have your origin, say to them, We have come from the light where the light has originated through itself.” (From Thomas) however there is more.

When asked: “ Lord, do I and man belong to the material world?” Jesus clarifies : “... you and your children belong to the Father who existed from the beginning. Your spirit came down from above from the imperishable light ... all who have known this road are immortal amidst mortal men".

 

[Clear]

post two

Ancient Pre-existent Christian theology forms a consistent theological bridge between many ancient theologies that modern Ex-nihilo theologies cannot form.

It is not just ancient Christianity that was concerned with our origins. A common egyptian pyramid text (of thousands that exist) typically reads "”The pharaoh was conceived by his father when there was as yet no heaven, nor earth, nor people... nor were there any dead. And every individual existed when the plan of the ancient Lord of heaven was not yet formulated."”

This theme continues into the later Egyptian coffin texts without a doctrinal ripple : "I existed before I was born, when the gods did not exist, when as yet there was no bird trap, when the cattle were not yet lassoed. I was formerly; I was of yesterday, a great one among the great and noble ones."

These are the same themes. They simply are expressed in different cultural idiom.

For example, Whereas a coffin text might read: "Before I was born by hand or born of woman, he created me in the midst of his perfection, which caused to jubilate those who shared in the secrets.”

One can hardly avoid recognizing the similarities between pre-earth “sons of God shouting for joy” of Jewish literature (O.T. Job 38) and pre-earth sons of God “caused to jubilate ... who shared in the secrets” of Egyptian literature.

The claim that “the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (eccl 12:7) is common to many ancient religions. In such theology, God was not being rhetorical in telling Old Testament Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” - 1:5). It is not merely allegorical knowledge God has of what Jeremiah would become, but what Jeremiah’s spirit was before Jeremiah was even born.

The same pattern repeats itself over and over in the Book of the Dead and in ancient Egyptian literature. Much of that literature tells the same story as the Judeo-Christian literature. With such obvious data available, Scotts claim is even more incredulous. He is not an egyptian historian.



BODILY RESURRECTION : Budge (p5) says, of the cult of Osirus that “The preservation of the body was of vital importance, because the dogma of Osiris taught that from it would spring the translucent...envelope in which the Spirit-soul...would take up it’s abode with all his mental and spiritual attributes."

Even the symbology of Egyptian theology has parallels. For example, The three symbols that are almost always found together in pallates are the Ankh; the was’ scepter and the djed symbol.

a) The Egyptian symbol for eternal life
The Christian Ankh was borrowed from the Egyptian ank and symbolized eternal life for Egyptians just as it did and still does for Christians. Even vignetes of pharaoh’s baptism sometimes show the water being poured as symbols of ankhs (i.e. baptism in it's association with eternal life).


b) The Egyptian symbol for resurrection
There is a frequent mention in the BoD of “the uniting of his bones, and of the gathering together of his members, and the doing away with all corruption from his body”.

Another example is “Rise up, O thou Teta! Thou hast received thy head, thou shast knitted together thy bones, thou hast collected thy members." (From Recueil de Travaux, p 40)

or “I shall possess my flesh for ever and ever, I shall not decay, I shall not crumble away, I shall not wither away, I shall not become corruption.” (p70)


c) The Egyptian symbol for hades/Sheol/world of spirits
Even the Egyptian concept of a spirit going to “Amentet” is equivalent doctrine to ancient Christian “Amente”. In Discourse on Abbaton, “Amente” is the word used to refer to the place where the dead are taken before resurrection. And in both theologies, men are to “make their way” through this “beautiful hidden land” and progress further to judgement and reward.



d) The Egyptian cosmology of Heaven
Even the early descriptions of heaven are similar between ancient Judeo-Christian literature and the Egyptians.

For example,after translating an appropriate portion of the Papyrus of Ani, Budge then explains what is being described thusly: “When the Osiris of a man has entered into heaven as a living soul,...he walks among the living ones, [symbolized by three anks], he becomes ‘God, the son of God,’ and all the gods of heaven become his brethren...Nut makes him to rise up as a god without an enemy in his name’God’, and God calls him by his name.” (p85) Budge indicates that the identification of the deceased by the appellation “God” indicates that the deceased becomes a “ruler”. (It does NOT mean he is above or equal to the LORD GOD.)

(P88) “He [the dead] is clothed in the finest raiment, like unto the raiment of those who sit on the throne of the living right and truth...Not only does he eat and drink of their food, but he wears the apparel which they wear,...he is clothed in white...and ‘never-failing gods give unto him [to eat] of the tree of life of which they themselves do eat”.

This is a close parallel to the description from the Christian history of the Rechabites literature.

Budge, after observing that many Egyptologists, including Champollion-Figeac, de Rouge, Pierret and Brugsch agreed, points out that Neter refers to God, but the plural neteru (Gods) indicated “a class or classes, of celestial beings who possessed some attribute which is usually associated with the diety.” (P 105 BoD) This a close parallel to 4Q Dead sea Scrolls thanksgiving scroll literature.

There are many other parallels to Christian doctrines which historians recognize, such as baptism, religious priesthood and it’s connection to resurrection and eternal life, etc. The egyptian material even offers clarifications on the Enuma Elish creation hymn where "tiamat" is clarified to be the personification of chaos by the parallels.

For example, in Ancient Christianity, three main principles (of many) regarding Jesus deity were his authority granted him by the Lord God, his father; the resurrection of the body which he was to bring about; and redemption to eternal life which was to be obtained in it’s fullness through him.

In the early Egyptian theologies, these same principles are reverenced in the same way.

I mentioned the symbol of the was’ scepter, which represented (among other things) authority delegated by deity to accomplish his religious purposes.

I mentioned the djed symbol which was (among other things) a symbol of an erect spinal column, representing the resurrection and the ability to stand erect.

I mentioned the ankh symbol, which (among other things), represents eternal life (In a vignette, three anks in a row may represent the neteru - or Gods, whom the worthy will someday become)

I mentioned the symbol for Amentet (Imentet, Amenti, etc) who was the symbolic personage who welcomes the dead to the netherworld (i.e. “neter” world or world of the Gods). This is the same word the ancient christians used as the Greek hades (which was NOT the same as the later Christian torturous “Hell” whjch was developed in later eras). It was the best literary symbol they had with which to associate the characteristics of Amenti of The Book of the Dead

Thoth, is the Secretary of the Gods and protector of scribes and truth for the Egyptians. The parallels with the Christian “Holy Spirit” (Holy Ghost, Spirit, etc) are many and they are profound.

If the Judeo-Christian concept of the gospel/torah being offered to all nations is correct, then it would exist in various versions in various degrees of clarity in early literature and it makes perfect sense as to why there are so many close connections between religions that point back to this original, single, original set of religion concepts. Perhaps your author Bernard Scott simply is among the non-historians and non-egyptologists who have difficulty trying to make their way through the “translation” of such differing idiom and corruption of symbols that it is difficult to see the common threads. More importantly, they must also make their way beyond their own personal bias as well.

I hope it makes sense why Bernard Scott, a non-egyptologist is incorrect his his naive assumption that Israel (and Christianity) did not produce literature like the Book of the Dead and other similar great literature when historically, the data shows so many parallels that demonstrate Scott is wrong.

@sojourner, with so much data that shows b. Scott is incorrect and so many parallels that have been given as examples, do you still believe there are no parallels?

My lunch hour is over and I have to get back to work. I will comment on other stuff later. I simply ran out of time.

Clear
τωτωφιτζω

 

[nPeace]

Right. But we're not even on the same page when it comes to what constitutes scripture. Furthermore, you don't accept any prophets or apostles who lived after Jesus' day, whereas I believe God is still speaking to us through prophets and apostles. When you stop to think about it, it's no wonder we have such opposing views. The biggest hurdle to our ever being able to have a productive dialogue, though, is that you continue to insist that my beliefs aren't in the Bible. Your implication that I don't believe the Bible to be God's word is, quite frankly, insulting. And I say that the vast majority of my beliefs actually are in the Bible -- maybe not in words we could not possibly dispute the meaning of, but stated every bit as explicitly as yours are. We are simply interpreting the Bible differently. You think it means one thing and I think it means something else. I'd be okay with that if you could just admit that there really is more than one way to understand many of the verses in the Bible. You can't though. As far as you're concerned, Watchtower has the final say and it absolutely beyond the realm of possibility that your beliefs could be wrong.

Once again, you are implying (even if subconsciously) that I don't think we should be paying attention to Jesus' words. Yes, Jesus did fulfill the Messianic prophesies, and I believe everything Jesus had to say. I don't appreciate your implying that I don't, or that I put someone else's words above His.

I'm sorry if you see aggression in my responses. I certainly don't feel as if I'm being aggressive. If anything, I believe you are. I'm simply frustrated and that frustration probably shows. I honestly just don't seem to be able to have a conversation with a JW that ends well. When it becomes evident that neither side is going to be swayed, I'm willing to just agree to disagree and part friends. JWs don't seem to be content to do that. They just have to keep up the argument (or call it something else, if you don't like that word) until you wear your opponent down to nothing. And then, 9 times out of 10, the JW concludes with an accusation that the other side just "ran away" because they couldn't support their position. (You didn't do that -- at least not yet, but it's not at all unusual for it to happen.)

In this thread, I have explained why Paul's comments about the body being physical first and then spiritual are in reference to something entirely different than the LDS position that God is the Father of our spirits and that we lived as His spirit offspring in Heaven with Him before we were born. I further explained that I believe Paul to have been referring to the fact that we are born as mortal beings prior to being born after our resurrections as immortal beings. I don't know what more I can say. You don't think my beliefs are biblical; I do. I think your beliefs are based on the Bible, but that you have interpreted certain passages incorrectly.

No hard feelings. Just frustration.

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