Resurrection of the mentally incapacitated in Jehovahs Witness resurrection theory

[Clear]

My question seeks to compare Christian theology that believes in an intelligent spirit placed into a body with Christian theology that believes there is no spirit inside the biological body.


I was sent and read a pamphlet sent to me from a Jehovahs Witness friend regarding the world mankind will ultimately live in should they make it into God’s kingdom after this life. My question regards what happens to the mentally incapable in Jehovah’s Witness theology?


1) The context of the question in “spirit & body” vs “spiritless body” theology :

In a religious debates thread the concept came up regarding the ultimate status of those who died and were later resurrected and ended up “saved” in God’s kingdom in the context of J.W. theology (hereafter called “spiritless body theology”.)

It was explained that in “spiritless body” J.W. theology, there is no spirit in an individual that has an existence independent of the body. All intelligence, emotions and thoughts reside inside the physical body and once the body dies then all that is part of that body decays and is gone.

This is different than the Theology that believes in an intelligent and cognizant spirit that exists independent of the body it is placed in (hereafter called “spirit& body theology”). In “spirit & body” theology, the body may die and decay after death but the spirit with it’s attendant characteristics such as intelligence and emotion and memories continues on just as when the body was alive.


2) The resurrection in “spirit & Body” vs “spiritless body” theology

It was further explained that, in “spiritless body” Jehovahs Witness version of this theology, if that deceased is among those who are ultimately “saved” in God’s kingdom, God will then create (or re-create) that person who died and place within this second body all the memories and characteristics that had been associated with the first body that had been created. (i.e. an exact duplicate of the first person who lived and died and whose body decayed).


In the case of the mentally incapable (those without sufficient mental functioning to make moral choices, store memories, create typical relationships, etc., If they are among those who died but are resurrected and are saved, will God simply reproduce the copy of the person with defects included (I suspect not), or will he create another person similar to the prior defective person but without the same mental defects and save this different person?


In ancient (and most modern) “spirit & body” Christian theology, there is a spirit placed into each person which is immortal and separate from the body. In this model, the spirit itself may have no defect but the bodily manifestations of mental incapacities are with the body it inhabits.

In this case, the intelligent spirit can remain the same in the resurrection and it is merely the body which is modified and changed to allow for the resurrected person to manifest normal characteristics.


In “spiritless body” theology such as the Jehovahs Witness version (if there are other Christian versions?) if God modifies the “spiritless body” in the resurrection, then it is a different person with different characteristics that is being saved, (and not the original).

In typical “spirit & body” of early Christianity, this sort of conundrum does not exist. The original spirit whose body was defective is simply given a perfect body and thus, the original spirit with it’s original identity is saved.


Is there a Jehovahs Witness who can explain how this might work inside “spiritless body” theology. That is, is the original person with mental incapacities re-created after death with the same mental incapacities (and thus the original personality is saved) or will God change the mental status and recreate a different personality and intelligence and emotional being to save in the place of the defective one?



Thank you for any explanations that you can give.

Clear
τζ

 

[Bree]

2) The resurrection in “spirit & Body” vs “spiritless body” theology

It was further explained that, in “spiritless body” Jehovahs Witness version of this theology, if that deceased is among those who are ultimately “saved” in God’s kingdom, God will then create (or re-create) that person who died and place within this second body all the memories and characteristics that had been associated with the first body that had been created. (i.e. an exact duplicate of the first person who lived and died and whose body decayed).


In the case of the mentally incapable (those without sufficient mental functioning to make moral choices, store memories, create typical relationships, etc., If they are among those who died but are resurrected and are saved, will God simply reproduce the copy of the person with defects included (I suspect not), or will he create another person similar to the prior defective person but without the same mental defects and save this different person?


Is there a Jehovahs Witness who can explain how this might work inside “spiritless body” theology. That is, is the original person with mental incapacities re-created after death with the same mental incapacities (and thus the original personality is saved) or will God change the mental status and recreate a different personality and intelligence and emotional being to save in the place of the defective one?



Thank you for any explanations that you can give.

Clear
τζ

Hi,
We dont believe humans have a separate spirit inside us, the only 'spirit' we have is the the 'life force' given by God. This life force does not give us our personalities, likes, dislikes, talents etc.... it merely gives us 'life' and animates us. Its like the power source to a radio. The power source does not determine what music the radio will play....it simply gives the device its ability to play the music.


Humans are the same as that radio. God creates us as individuals with our own personalities and likes and talents and then he puts the power (spirit) into that individual to live.

In the resurrection of all those who have died, God will re create their bodies perfectly. The body will function as a perfectly healthy body and the personality that was originally in that person will be as it would have been with or without a disability or mental handicap.

The mentally handicapped do have their own personalities. They just cant function as they should while they are in that handicapped state. For example a blind person has eyes but cannot see, a deaf person has ears but cannot hear and a mentally disabled person has a brain that does not allow the full functioning of the mind and body to work as it should.
So when they are resurrected, they will be in perfectly functioning bodies and will be the person they always they would have been had they not been trapped in a damaged body.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Bree ; thanks for the insight.

Bree, your answer regards "The mentally handicapped do have their own personalities.". Although one can then ask what sort of "personality" an individual born without a brain has, the individuals who "have their own personalities" is not the group I am trying to describe.

Bree said : “God creates us as individuals with our own personalities and likes and talents and then he puts the power (spirit) into that individual to live.”

My question has to do with individuals who do NOT have physical brains and thus, cannot have personalities and likes and talents that are associated with physical brains.

For example, an infant born with Zika virus may have no functioning higher brain areas at all. Such areas of the brain are physically not present and thus those infants cannot have higher functions such as “likes and talents” or memories, or choices, etc. .

Some individuals may be born with only vestigial brains insufficient for even minimal function for lung and brain functions and thus may die after a few hours.

These individuals cannot have or develop a personality since they lack the physical brain for such functions.

Can I assume you see the difference?

IF such individuals will be resurrected in a social heaven, THEN they will have to be given a brain they did not have in this life, they will have to be given the potential for personality, for likes and dislikes and for talents, etc.

This new individual God creates is not the original person.

Do you understand what I am asking?

Bree, Thanks in advance for any insights.

Clear
τωεινε

 

[Bree]

Hi @Bree ; thanks for the insight.

Bree, your answer regards "The mentally handicapped do have their own personalities.". Although one can then ask what sort of "personality" an individual born without a brain has, the individuals who "have their own personalities" is not the group I am trying to describe.

Bree said : “God creates us as individuals with our own personalities and likes and talents and then he puts the power (spirit) into that individual to live.”

My question has to do with individuals who do NOT have physical brains and thus, cannot have personalities and likes and talents that are associated with physical brains.

For example, an infant born with Zika virus may have no functioning higher brain areas at all. Such areas of the brain are physically not present and thus those infants cannot have higher functions such as “likes and talents” or memories, or choices, etc. .

Some individuals may be born with only vestigial brains insufficient for even minimal function for lung and brain functions and thus may die after a few hours.

These individuals cannot have or develop a personality since they lack the physical brain for such functions.

Can I assume you see the difference?

IF such individuals will be resurrected in a social heaven, THEN they will have to be given a brain they did not have in this life, they will have to be given the potential for personality, for likes and dislikes and for talents, etc.

This new individual God creates is not the original person.

Do you understand what I am asking?

Bree, Thanks in advance for any insights.

Clear
τωεινε

these individuals all have damaged brains. Im sure you'd agree that if they were born with their brains in tact, they would be like you and me....with the ability to think, feel, laugh, cry, dream, hope, plan etc etc But are you assuming that a person with out a full functioning brain has no personality?

I've worked with disabled kids and i can assure you that even those who cannot communicate and function like a normal person still have a personality...i've seen it. One loves bright pink unicorns and another gets exited by something else such as food. Im not claiming to have all the answers and Im no expert on how the human mind and personality develop, but it seems reasonable to conclude that God created humans with personality because we all have different personalities....even the disabled.

Perhaps the reason why God knows us all so intimately is because he can see into the DNA of each person and he can see exactly where that DNA will lead.

Psalm 139 :15 My bones were not hidden from you When I was made in secret,
When I was woven in the depths of the earth.+
16 Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; All its parts were written in your book
Regarding the days when they were formed, Before any of them existed.

Lets say God does recreate a disabled person.... all he needs to do is rewrite the DNA without the faults. Then that person will be exactly as they would have been.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Bree

Clear said in post #3 : My question has to do with individuals who do NOT have physical brains and thus, cannot have personalities and likes and talents that are associated with physical brains.

For example, an infant born with Zika virus may have no functioning higher brain areas at all. Such areas of the brain are physically not present and thus those infants cannot have higher functions such as “likes and talents” or memories, or choices, etc. .

Some individuals may be born with only vestigial brains insufficient for even minimal function for lung and brain functions and thus may die after a few hours.

These individuals cannot have or develop a personality since they lack the physical brain for such functions.”



Bree responded in post #4 : “I've worked with disabled kids and i can assure you that even those who cannot communicate and function like a normal person still have a personality...i've seen it. One loves bright pink unicorns and another gets exited by something else such as food. “


Bree, I have practiced pediatric specialty medicine with children for 28 years and I can reassure YOU that neither you nor anyone else has seen a child without a brain or higher brain functions recognize what a bright pink unicorn is, nor get excited about any object they do not and cannot know even exists, nor do such children have the capacity to eat food and must be fed through a tube since they lack the ability to swallow.

I Am asking about apples and you continue responding with oranges.



Bree said in post #4 : “Lets say God does recreate a disabled person.... all he needs to do is rewrite the DNA without the faults. Then that person will be exactly as they would have been.”

If God recreates a specific person who did not have a brain in this life, then the recreation will lack a brain.
However, if God creates a different person having DNA without faults at the resurrection, then this is a different person and not the same as the person with faulty DNA.

That has been my point all along.

In theology where there is no spirit inside the individual :
IF the personality and intelligence and emotions which make up the person named "bob" reside in the physical brain and "bob" is an infant is born without a brain this is a specific person "bob".
IF, at the resurrection, God creates a person WITH a physical brain and personality and intelligence and emotions, this is not the same person as "bob" regardless of what their name is.

In theology where there is a spirit inside an individual
IF The personality and intelligence and emotions which make up the person named "bob" reside in the spirit and NOT in the physical brain the process is different.
IF, at the resurrection, God places the normal spirit/person/personality/intelligence/emotional character into a different, a perfect body, the person saved is still the original spirit.

Do you see the difference?

Clear
τωφυσεω

 

[Bree]

Hi @Bree

Clear said in post #3 : My question has to do with individuals who do NOT have physical brains and thus, cannot have personalities and likes and talents that are associated with physical brains.

For example, an infant born with Zika virus may have no functioning higher brain areas at all. Such areas of the brain are physically not present and thus those infants cannot have higher functions such as “likes and talents” or memories, or choices, etc. .

Some individuals may be born with only vestigial brains insufficient for even minimal function for lung and brain functions and thus may die after a few hours.

These individuals cannot have or develop a personality since they lack the physical brain for such functions.”



Bree responded in post #4 : “I've worked with disabled kids and i can assure you that even those who cannot communicate and function like a normal person still have a personality...i've seen it. One loves bright pink unicorns and another gets exited by something else such as food. “


Bree, I have practiced pediatric specialty medicine with children for 28 years and I can reassure YOU that neither you nor anyone else has seen a child without a brain or higher brain functions recognize what a bright pink unicorn is, nor get excited about any object they do not and cannot know even exists, nor do such children have the capacity to eat food and must be fed through a tube since they lack the ability to swallow.

I Am asking about apples and you continue responding with oranges.



Bree said in post #4 : “Lets say God does recreate a disabled person.... all he needs to do is rewrite the DNA without the faults. Then that person will be exactly as they would have been.”

If God recreates a specific person who did not have a brain in this life, then the recreation will lack a brain.
However, if God creates a different person having DNA without faults at the resurrection, then this is a different person and not the same as the person with faulty DNA.

That has been my point all along.

In theology where there is no spirit inside the individual :
IF the personality and intelligence and emotions which make up the person named "bob" reside in the physical brain and "bob" is an infant is born without a brain this is a specific person "bob".
IF, at the resurrection, God creates a person WITH a physical brain and personality and intelligence and emotions, this is not the same person as "bob" regardless of what their name is.

In theology where there is a spirit inside an individual
IF The personality and intelligence and emotions which make up the person named "bob" reside in the spirit and NOT in the physical brain the process is different.
IF, at the resurrection, God places the normal spirit/person/personality/intelligence/emotional character into a different, a perfect body, the person saved is still the original spirit.

Do you see the difference?

Clear
τωφυσεω

\
Yes i see what you are saying and agree that it makes sense that, if the spirit was something separate to the body, then it seems perfectly logical that the spirit could be put into any recreated body and it would be the same person. Yes i agree with what you are saying there.

The problem with this idea about the spirit is that it implies the spirit exists outside the body. It implies that the spirit always exists and it implies that the spirit cannot die. The bible clearly says otherwise. Humans are not eternal and they are not godlike.

So we must find an alternative explanation for how the resurrection of an individual can bring the same person back to life.

All i can tell you from what I understand as a JW who does not believe that spirits exist eternally or that the spirit is something separate from the body is this:

God is aware of every individual conceived and born. He knows each of us very well and understands our makeup. I dont believe he has revealed exactly how he recreates a human who has not developed a brain or even if he will, but i do trust that he knows how to fix such a problem.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Bree

1) The concept of creating and saving an entirely different individual than the original
Bree said : “Yes i see what you are saying and agree that it makes sense that, if the spirit was something separate to the body, then it seems perfectly logical that the spirit could be put into any recreated body and it would be the same person. Yes i agree with what you are saying there.” (post #6)

Thank you so much Bree for recognizing the profound difference between resurrecting the original person and saving THAT person versus creating a different individual that saving THAT new individual that never existed before.


2) The difference between Ancient Christian religion and the relatively modern Jehovahs Witness movement - Spirit existed anciently, Spirit doesn't exist in the later religious movement
Bree said : “The problem with this idea about the spirit is that it implies the spirit exists outside the body. It implies that the spirit always exists and it implies that the spirit cannot die. The bible clearly says otherwise. Humans are not eternal and they are not godlike.” (post #6)

While the Jehovahs Witnesses developed an interpretive framework of the biblical text that excludes the spirit inside individuals, it is clear from the ancient Judeo-Christian texts that early Judeo-Christianity DID believe in the concept of a spirit existing inside individuals. They certainly describe their beliefs and their interpretations in many, many, many of the early texts.

We must keep in mind that the earliest Christian movement was a different religion with different doctrines and different interpretations than the relatively modern Jehovahs Witness Movement with its texts and interpretations.

Keeping this historical fact in mind will help in making the distinction.

Thus, while ancient Judeo-Christianity that did believe in a spirit inside an individual will not have any logic problem with resurrecting the original individual (which is the case in their interpretations), I agree that any religious movement that has abandoned the ancient Judeo-Christian concept of a spirit within an individual is going to have a logical problem since it is not the original person that is resurrected and saved, but instead, a new person that never existed before is saved.



3) The jehovahs Witness doctrine creates a dilemma that needs to be solved
Bree said : “So we must find an alternative explanation for how the resurrection of an individual can bring the same person back to life.” (post #6)

I agree that, any Christian movement that abandons the ancient belief in a spirit within an individual “must find an alternative explanation for how the resurrection of an individual can bring the same person back to life.”.

I do not see how Jehovahs Witnesses are going to be able to create “an alternative explanation” or interpretive framework to solve this problem their doctrine and interpretations created.


In any case, thank you so much for your insights Bree.

Clear
τωνετωω

 

[Bree]

2) The difference between Ancient Christian religion and the relatively modern Jehovahs Witness movement - Spirit existed anciently, Spirit doesn't exist in the later religious movement
Bree said : “The problem with this idea about the spirit is that it implies the spirit exists outside the body. It implies that the spirit always exists and it implies that the spirit cannot die. The bible clearly says otherwise. Humans are not eternal and they are not godlike.” (post #6)

While the Jehovahs Witnesses developed an interpretive framework of the biblical text that excludes the spirit inside individuals, it is clear from the ancient Judeo-Christian texts that early Judeo-Christianity DID believe in the concept of a spirit existing inside individuals. They certainly describe their beliefs and their interpretations in many, many, many of the early texts.

You would agree that the belief of Jesus Christ and the early Jews was based on the Hebrew Scriptures, correct? We cant deny that.

And when we look at the Hebrew scriptures, we can see that at death, the spirit ceased to exist and the person was awaiting a resurrection. In fact, in the days of Jesus, there were 2 opposing religious sects. 1 believed in the resurrection to come and the other did not believe in the resurrection at all so we can say that people have not always interpreted scripture in the same way whether it was in ancient times or modern.

Job 14 expresses the hope of the resurrection beginning in vs 13 O that in the Grave* you would conceal me,+
That you would hide me until your anger passes by,That you would set a time limit for me and remember me!+
14 If a man dies, can he live again?+I will wait all the days of my compulsory service
Until my relief comes.+15 You will call, and I will answer you.+
You will long* for the work of your hands.

There were also accounts in the hebrew scriptures of resurrections taking place by some prophets such as Elijah and Elisha. (1Ki 17:17-24; 2Ki 4:32-37; 13:20, 21

So the fact is that some jewish sects did not believe in a resurrection, even though they had the scriptures stating otherwise. A similar situation occured later within chrisitanity where they began to believe in something that the was contrary to scripture. Lazarus was resurrected in the gospel account after being dead for 4 days. But there was no mention in the gospel account of where his spirit was while he was dead. What a perfect opportunity to describe where the spirit goes to when the body has died, yet not a word about where lazarus was while he was dead????

Does that not seem odd to you??

 

[Clear]

Hi @Bree – The holidays are here and I apologize for not responding earlier.


Bree said : “You would agree that the belief of Jesus Christ and the early Jews was based on the Hebrew Scriptures, correct? We cant deny that.”

I think the Jews were like the various Jewish movement and Christian movements today.
They read the various texts but come away with conflicting beiiefs because of differing interpretations.
Thus, I think that most individuals, Jews and Christians still filter the text through personal or organizational interpretations OF the text to justify their beliefs.


Your own doctrines are an example of using personal and organizational interpretations to justify your movements doctrines.
For example, you said “And when we look at the Hebrew scriptures, we can see that at death, the spirit ceased to exist…” , this sentence applies to Jehovahs Witnesses, but does not apply to Ancient Christianity nor to many (maybe most) Christian movements that have entirely different interpretation of their texts, come away with differing beliefs, yet use their various bibles (which may be similar) to justify and support their conflicting beliefs. My point is not that the ancient Judeo-Christians were correct and you are wrong, merely that the two religions are different and interpretations are different.


Bree said : "There were also accounts in the hebrew scriptures of resurrections taking place by some prophets such as Elijah and Elisha."

Could be. However, if ones body truly dies, the mechanism of any return is different for "spiritless body" versus "spirit & body" religion.

For example, IF these are "resurrections", and the body died and all memories, emotions, moral choices, etc. of the original person are gone, then in the "spiritless body" theology, God must place a copy of the prior person into the new Body whereas in "spirit & body", God simply places the original spirit into the new Body rather than making a copy of the original.

For example, Matthew 27:50-53 speaks of Jesus yielding up his spirit at the moment of his death. The text reads : When Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He yielded up His spirit. 51At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. 52The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.

In spiritless body theology, all of these individual who had been dead and arose are copies of the originals while in spirit & body theology, the original persons spirit is placed into the new body and the original person is saved, rather than a copy.

Christian Decensus literature relates that it wasn’t simply Jesus who “gave up” his own spirit in dying, but all of these individuals who had died has likewise, given up their spirits at death and their spirits were reunited with new, resurrected bodies.


Clear
δρφιακω

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF THREE

Hi @Bree and readers.

It occurred to me that examples from the early Judeo-Christian literature would be helpful in demonstrating the value of simply reading what the early Christians said they believed rather than simply offering competing interpretations of texts.

I mentioned that the Judeo-Christians themselves left us a great deal of literature that describe their various canons, sacred and non sacred texts which describe what they believed and how they interpreted the biblical narratives.

Most individuals simply try to debate pet scriptures and apply anachronistic and provincial and personal meaning to proof texts from a bible and do not consider that the early Christians themselves described what the early sacred texts meant to them.

For example, if a Christian quotes Gal. 5:17 where the “flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh” to show that individuals have both flesh and spirit, again, one is still confronted by having to interpret the scripture according to some sort of bias and/or limited knowledge.

The advantage of looking at the historical comments of the early Judeo-Christians is that we can see what such statements things meant anciently to the ancient Christians themselves (as opposed to interpretations created by the various later Christian movements such as the Jehovahs Witnesses).

It so happens in this case, that there are MANY writings they have left us that tell us specifically and clearly that they did believe in the existence of a spirit that existed before man was born.

Thus, if one can see the early Christian doctrines FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS, then one can better understand scriptures that refer to the spirit in man in the way THEY understood them.
for examples :

Ps. 16:10 (or Acts 2:27, 31) where the psalmist rejoices that God “thou wilt not leave my spirit in hell”
James 4:5 spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy
Job 14:22 his spirit within him shall mourn
Ps. 22:29 none can keep alive his own spirit
Matt. 10:28 fear him which is able to destroy both spirit and body
James 1:21 engrafted word, which is able to save your spirit
1 Pet. 1:22 ye have purified your spirit in obeying
Ezek. 11:19 (36:26–27; 37:14) I will put a new spirit within you
Luke 24:39 spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me
Acts 7:59 Stephen ... saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit
Acts 23:8 Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit
Rom. 8:16 spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit
1 Cor. 6:20 glorify God in your body, and in your spirit

While such texts witness to us that there is a spirit associated with individuals, it does not tell us how the ancient Christians themselves interpreted such texts and how they used such concepts in their belief system.

However, the Christians use and describe and explain their usage of such themes in much of the early Judeo-Christian texts. We can even look into metaphorical descriptions or idiomatic descriptions.

Many, many, many of the earliest Judeo-Christian sacred Texts, relate the expansive doctrine of the nature of spirits before, during and after life.

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.



Enoch, in his vision of pre-creation heaven, relates :

”... 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)

Frequently, translators used the term “soul” as a synonym for “spirit” (since a “soul” is not really the same thing as a “spirit”). However, this should not be particularly disorienting since, as the phillipian text tells us : “The soul of Adam came into being by means of a breath, which is a synonym for spirit."

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 souls, a midrashic explanation is given us by Enoch regarding these many souls “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

This is simply another of the many versions of the doctrine expressed in Ecclesiates 12:7 : and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. (NIV)

This same ancient doctrine is mirrored in multiple other early Judeo-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”.

It is simply a rephrase of Ecclesiastes 12:7.

And this principle is repeated in many different texts and in mature doctrinal forms.
For example, the Rechabites describe the journey of the righteous soul at death, saying : “9 And then the soul of our blessed brother leaves the body in which it had settled; and with joy far removed from mourning it approaches and comes to the holy angels and ascends up to God with joy." History of the Rechabites 15:9-10; “

And while we are looking at that holy and spotless soul, the holy angels carry it away and salute it, and thus it ascends and goes up from us in glory....1b And when the highest order of cherubim and seraphim receive it, they rise to the gate of the holy Trinity. Then the Son of God receives that soul from their hands and brings it (forward) so that it may worship the father....7a And then God sends that soul to a stately mansion (to await) the day of resurrection for (the rest of our) community. History of the Rechabites 16:1; 1b,7;

“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)

“78 Now, concerning death, the teaching is: When the decisive decree has gone forth from the Most High that a man shall die, as the spirit leaves the body to return again to him who gave it, first of all it adores the glory of the Most High. 79 And if it is one of those who have shown scorn and have not kept the way of the Most High, and who have despised his Law, and who have hated those who fear God – 80 such spirits shall not enter into habitations, but shall immediately wander about in torments....” Fourth Book of Ezra 7; 75-87;

The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra is also consistent in its description, When the prophet Ezra asks God about this point, God tells Ezra : “… 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.” 6:26 & 7:1-4;

The Early Christian usage of Ecclesiastes 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)


POST TWO OF THREE

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF THREE

In explaining the relationship of this life to the pre-mortal realm of spirits, the messiah explained

“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 doctrine of the existence of the spirits of men took the arbitrariness out of God have created spirits unequally.
IN this model, the spirits are partly responsible for their nature upon entering this life.

Instead of arbitrarily creating spirits with defects (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 its heavenly abode over vast periods of time. For example 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)

“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 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.”

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

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 which 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 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. In this wise, the Holy One, be blessed, possessed a son from the matron, that is, the supernal holy soul. He dispatched it to a village, that is, to this world, to be raised in it, and initiated into the ways of the King’s palace. Informed that his son was now come to maturity, and should be returned to the palace, the King, out of love, sent the matron for him to bring him into the palace THE ZOHAR


As I mentioned, ancient Judeo-Christian literature contains multiple traditions regarding the characteristic of spirits.

One can also look at ancient metaphorical and idiomatic usages underlying the ancient Judeo-Christian belief that individuals have spirits and that the spirit is “clothed” by the body.

For example, the text of 2nd Enoch relates regarding how the Prophet Enoch leaves his mortal body and enters heaven : ”And the Lord said to Michael, “Go, and extract Enoch* from [his] earthly clothing. And anoint him with my delightful oil, and put him into the clothes of my glory*. 9 And so Michael did, just as the Lord had said to him. He anointed me and he clothed me. ...10 And I looked at myself, and I had become like one of his glorious ones, and there was no observable difference.” 2nd Enoch 22:8-10

This imagery of extracting a person from his garment is close to the terminology of Daniel 7:15, “my spirit was upset inside its sheath.”

The same idea is found in the Dead Sea Scroll textual traditions. 1QapGen 2:10, “and my breath within its sheath.” The historian who knows Hebrew will recognize “The clothes of my glory” as a Hebraism.

Philip, in his prayer before martyrdom, and evidently anticipating the heavenly condition (cf. Acts 6:15), says, “Clothe me in thy glorious robe and the seal of light that ever shineth” (James, ANT, p. 450),

One can look to the Talmud’s explanation of the relationship between the Body and the Spirit that was taught anciently :

For examples: The rechabites taught : “ the appearance of the soul when it leaves the body is the likeness of a glorious light, and formed and imprinted in the likeness and type of the body,...”. (History of the Rechabites 15:9-10).

Similarly, Jewish Naphtali explains the early belief that “the Lord forms the body in correspondence to the spirit, and instills the spirit corresponding to the power of the body.” (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Naphtali 2:2-5).

The wonderful Jewish Zohar explains that “each soul was formed into the exact outline of the body she was destined to tenant." (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul)

It is because of this relationship of the spirit to the body that they are both reunited upon the resurrection and in the judgement, the responsibility of the deeds done by the body are shared by the spirit.

“The body says, ‘The spirit sinned, for from the day it separated from me, behold, I have been lying like a silent stone in the grave.’ Also the spirit can say, ‘The body sinned, for from the day I separated from it, behold I have been flying in the air like a bird.”....So the Holy One, blessed be he, brings the spirit and placing it in the body, he also judges them as one. For it is said, ‘He will call to the heavens from above and to the earth, so he might judge his people.’ ‘He will call the heavens from above’ – this to the spirit. ‘And the earth so he might judge his people’ ( from the babylonian talmud, Sanhedrin 91a,b;

The apocryphon of Ezekiel Frag one quotes this same explanation. The example occurs here when a Lame Man is compared to a spirit who cooperates with an otherwise healthy, but Blind man (who is likened unto a body) in a garden. The lame asks to ride on the back of the Blind man and together, they commit offenses. The text continues :

“What did he (the king) do? He made the lame man ride upon the blind and he judged them as one. .So the Holy One, blessed be he, brings the spirit and placing it in the body, he also judges them as one. For it is said, ‘He will call to the heavens from above and to the earth, so he might judge his people.’ ‘He will call to the heavens from above’ – this to the spirit. ‘And the earth so he might judge his people’ –this to the body.” Apocryphon of Ezekiel Frag one, (ch2 - explanation from the Babylonia Talmud, Sanhedrin 91a,b)

POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF THREE
In another version of this story from the Apocryphon of Ezekial, the same story is told thusly.
“What then does the just judge do? Realizing in what manner both had been joined, he places the lame man on the blind man and examines both under the lash. And they are unable to deny; they each convict the other. The lame man on the one hand saying to the blind man, “Did you not carry me and lead me away? And the blind man to the lame, “Did you yourself not become my eyes? In the same way the body is connected to the soul and the soul to the body, to convict (them) of (their) common deeds. And the judgment becomes final for both body and soul, for the works they have done whether good or evil.” Apocryphon of Ezekiel frag 1 vs 6-11;

Not only did the ancients believe in a spirit inside of individuals, they used this underlying belief to explain the relationship between the body and spirit in multiple other ways.

I have to stop somewhere in giving examples, (if you want more, let me know) otherwise I will not get other things done.

The underlying principle is that the Judeo-Christians themselves left us many, many records describing their belief in the doctrine that there is a spirit within individuals that is intelligent and cognizant and independent of the body and they had very mature theology over long periods of time and over large geographical distances that are very consistent and repetitive of this historical fact.

We can read what the earliest Christians themselves say THEY believed by reading THEIR literature and THEIR descriptions about THEIR beliefs and THEIR interpretation of biblical text rather than be dependent upon historically incoherent belief systems created in the later centuries.

Any later religious movement that abandons such early doctrines are simply different religions with different interpretations and different framework of beliefs. This is not to say one is better or worse than the other, merely that they are not the same religions.

In any case @Bree, thank you so much for your insight regarding Jehovahs Witness theology. I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful.

Clear

 

[Bree]

POST ONE OF THREE

Hi @Bree and readers.

It occurred to me that examples from the early Judeo-Christian literature would be helpful in demonstrating the value of simply reading what the early Christians said they believed rather than simply offering competing interpretations of texts.

I mentioned that the Judeo-Christians themselves left us a great deal of literature that describe their various canons, sacred and non sacred texts which describe what they believed and how they interpreted the biblical narratives. ...
While such texts witness to us that there is a spirit associated with individuals, it does not tell us how the ancient Christians themselves interpreted such texts and how they used such concepts in their belief system.

Hi Clear, thankyou for the thoughtful discussion, i hope i can do more then just disagree with you . But i must point out that what you've done is shown that people, including yourself, apply your own interpretation to the scriptures.

The word 'spirit' is used in the bible in various ways...sometimes the word means 'wind' and as you point out from the book of Enoch (not a christian text btw) it means breath.

So like all who read the bible, it does require some thought as to how a word is being used in a verse...what meaning is being attributed according to the context etc etc

However, the Christians use and describe and explain their usage of such themes in much of the early Judeo-Christian texts. We can even look into metaphorical descriptions or idiomatic descriptions.

Many, many, many of the earliest Judeo-Christian sacred Texts, relate the expansive doctrine of the nature of spirits before, during and after life.

Im not sure you can really call the apocryphal writings 'Christian'. The only writings that should be used as a basis for Gods Word and christian teaching are those inspired by God through the appointed representatives, ie apostles of Jesus.

Using apocryphal texts really tells us nothing about what early chrsitians believed because they were not writing under the direction of Jesus or God. In many cases these apocryphal writings contradict the bible.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Hi Clear, thankyou for the thoughtful discussion, i hope i can do more then just disagree with you . But i must point out that what you've done is shown that people, including yourself, apply your own interpretation to the scriptures.

The word 'spirit' is used in the bible in various ways...sometimes the word means 'wind' and as you point out from the book of Enoch (not a christian text btw) it means breath.

So like all who read the bible, it does require some thought as to how a word is being used in a verse...what meaning is being attributed according to the context etc etc

I am not sure you can really call the apocryphal writings 'Christian'. The only writings that should be used as a basis for Gods Word and christian teaching are those inspired by God through the appointed representatives, ie apostles of Jesus.

Using apocryphal texts really tells us nothing about what early chrsitians believed because they were not writing under the direction of Jesus or God. In many cases these apocryphal writings contradict the bible.

Apocryphal Texts only differ in that the compilers of the Bible did not consider them to fall in line with their own concept of Christianity. " they were select out from the many texts used by the early churches" However they were not considered "so far out" as to be totally discarded, and are considered, even today, as being "Instructive" while not being in line with the rest of the Christion Canon.

Other writing of the time such as those of the Gnostics and others were as far as possible destroyed utterly. Some forms of Arianism still flourish to this day, despite being persecuted even before the The Council of Nicea.

To a large extent JW's are revisiting some of the ideas of the many early christian sects. and interpreting the Texts accordingly.

Every possible variation of the relationship between god and Jesus, the nature of the soul, and all aspects of resurrection have been believed and taught by one Christian sect or another. most of them since ancient times.
These Discussions have continued to the present day, as evidenced by this thread.

 

[Bree]

Apocryphal Texts only differ in that the compilers of the Bible did not consider them to fall in line with their own concept of Christianity. " they were select out from the many texts used by the early churches" However they were not considered "so far out" as to be totally discarded, and are considered, even today, as being "Instructive" while not being in line with the rest of the Christion Canon.

Other writing of the time such as those of the Gnostics and others were as far as possible destroyed utterly. Some forms of Arianism still flourish to this day, despite being persecuted even before the The Council of Nicea.

To a large extent JW's are revisiting some of the ideas of the many early christian sects. and interpreting the Texts accordingly.

Every possible variation of the relationship between god and Jesus, the nature of the soul, and all aspects of resurrection have been believed and taught by one Christian sect or another. most of them since ancient times.
These Discussions have continued to the present day, as evidenced by this thread.

If we allowed anyone to write on behalf of Jesus or God, then we would have millions of pieces of writing that are considered scripture.

So what determines if a piece of writing should be considered part of the 'holy writings' in your view?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If we allowed anyone to write on behalf of Jesus or God, then we would have millions of pieces of writing that are considered scripture.

So what determines if a piece of writing should be considered part of the 'holy writings' in your view?

I would suggest that that is impossible to define.
As in the past, we choose what ever meets our criterion and expectations.

It is said that the new testament bible books were chosen as to their authorship connection to the Apostles.
However it has since be shown that none of them have a proven connection and most if not all were written by others.

All the actual Authors were men. and all the selectors were men. neither God nor Jesus were involved in the writing or choices. Some books like Revelation have been both in and out of the canon.
And not all churches subscribe to the same canon or number of books.

There has never been a consistent way to define or choose "Holy Writings"

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO


TWO JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEORIES
Bree said : “The word 'spirit' is used in the bible in various ways...sometimes the word means 'wind' and as you point out from the book of Enoch (not a christian text btw) it means breath.”

These two claims are, historically, incoherent. For examples


#1) THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEORY THAT ENOCH WAS NOT USED BY CHRISTIANS

You claim that Enoch is not “a Christian text” yet it is used extensively by the Christians, including the writers of the New Testament.

For example :
Jude 1:14-15 (approx 60 a.d.) : “Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all...,”
1 Enoch (approx 350 b.d.) : Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them...”
Jude in a.d 40-80) is simply quoting 1 Enoch, written approx. 400 + years earlier)

Laurence found over 127 references in the New Testament referring to Enochian references. I understand you are not a religious historian but to imply the Christians did not use enoch is not a historically coherent theory.



#2) THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEORY THAT THE WORD FOR “SPIRIT” ALWAYS MEANS “BREATH”.

Similarly, you theory that “spirit” always means “breath”, in Enochian and other early Judeo-Christian literature is not a historically coherent theory.


If we this Jehovahs Witness Claim as a working theory one can immediately see that the theory is incoherent. Lets compare translations and simply take out “spirit” or “spirit” and insert “breath” into these texts to see if the Jehovahs Witness theory has validity.


Original meaning : “... write all the spirits of men, whatever of them are not yet born, and their places, prepared for eternity. 5 For all spirits are prepared for eternity… 2nd Enoch 23:4-5

Jehovahs Witness meaning : “... write all the breaths of men, whatever of them are not yet born, and their places, prepared for eternity. 5 For all breaths are prepared for eternity…2nd Enoch 23:4-5

The Jehovahs Witness theory doesn’t work here as it is not as rational and does not cohere with the text and the context of the surrounding narratives. A “breath” is not “born” though a “spirit” IS born into a body.




Original meaning : “Come and I will show you the spirits of the righteous who have already been created and have returned, and the spirits of the righteous who have not yet been created.”

Jehovahs Witness meaning : “Come and I will show you the breaths of the righteous who have already been created and have returned, and the breaths of the righteous who have not yet been created.”

The Jehovahs Witness narrative that breaths can be “shown” and that they can communicate and have an existence independent of God (as the surrounding narrative and context indicates) creates an irrational and incoherent narrative.



Original meaning : “the spirit shall clothe itself in my presence” refers to the spirits of the righteous which have already been created in the storehouse of beings and have returned to the presence of god; and “the spirits which I have made” refers to the spirits of the righteous which have not yet been created in the storehouse.” 3rd Enoch 43:1-3

Jehovahs Witness meaning : “the breath shall clothe itself in my presence” refers to the breaths of the righteous which have already been created in the storehouse of beings and have returned to the presence of god; and “the breaths which I have made” refers to the breaths of the righteous which have not yet been created in the storehouse.” 3rd Enoch 43:1-3

The Jehovahs Witness theory creates the incoherence that a billions of ”breaths” that will be born and inhabit bodies are stored up in a storehouse, waiting for bodies and it creates a narrative that indicates a moral quality (righteousness) is associated with “breaths”. This is incoherency and creates an irrational narrative and contextual inconsistencies.



Original meaning : “Go, take the spirit 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).

Jehovahs Witness meaning : “Go, take the breath 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).

The Jehovahs Witness translation creates the irrational and incoherent narrative of a “breath” that is being placed in a womb. This is incoherency at it’s core. The early Judeo-Christian version places a spirit in the womb of a mother which is, historically, coherent and logical.



Original meaning : “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,” … (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Napthali 2:2-5)

Jehovahs Witness meaning : “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 breath,” ….

The Jehovahs Witness translation infers that the breath has shape and form which is illogical and incoherent and conflicts with the surrounding narratives while the ancient Christian belief that a spirit has form just as the body does is historically coherent to early Christian beliefs (The apostles think they see a spirit when Jesus appears after the resurrection…)


Original meaning : “The spirit 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 spirits, saying, “Bring me the spirit 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 spirit, and she bows down when she appears in the presence of God, and prostrates herself before him.”

Jehovahs Witness meaning : “The breath 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 breaths, saying, “Bring me the breath 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 breath, and she bows down when she appears in the presence of God, and prostrates herself before him.”

The Jehovahs Witness translation is incoherent and illogical since a “breath” itself, has no cognizance to obey to a call of an angel; a breath doesn’t have a specific “name” by which it is called (it is a breath, not an intelligence…); a breath doesn’t have a cognizance and intelligence nor the ability to “bow down” when it “appears in the presence of God”; a breath doesn’t prostrate itself before God.

Simply put, the Jehovahs Witness translation creates many, many, many incoherencies and irrational statements whereas if we use the ancient Judeo-Christian translation the all is logical and historically coherent.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO


Original meaning : At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, he decided to fashion all the spirits which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men, and each spirit 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 spirit 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 spirit, realizing it could not disobey, would unwillingly descend and come into this world.” The Zohar


Jehovahs Witness meaning : At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, he decided to fashion all the breaths which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men, and each breath 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 breath 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 breath, realizing it could not disobey, would unwillingly descend and come into this world.” The Zohar

The Jehovahs Witness meaning creates a shape, a "form" for a breath (again, an incoherent concept to the ancients). The Jehovahs Witness meaning applies intelligence and cognizant to a mere breath that it can communicate and reply and even desire to disobey or realize what that is. It creates an intelligence and gives characteristics of a spirit to that intelligence, but cannot bring itself to call that intelligence, a spirit.

The original Judeo-Christian meaning never created any of these logical and rational problems. They simply recognized that the word for spirit, actually meant what it said.....spirit.




Original meaning : “the spirit of the female and the spirit 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 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.”THE ZOHAR

Jehovahs Witness meaning : “the breath of the female and the breath 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 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. THE ZOHAR

As with a multitude of other examples that could be given (literally hundreds…), the Jehovahs Witness translation is incoherent to the narrative. A breath, without intelligence or some other mechanism, cannot BE preeminent above a heavenly host and A breath cannot be educated since it has no intelligence. The Jehovahs Witness theology simply creates incoherence and an irrational narrative, even to the point of assigning gender to "breath".




#3 A CLAIM REGARDING "APOCRYPHAL" WRITINGS

Bree said : “Im not sure you can really call the apocryphal writings 'Christian'. (post #13)

I did not offer a single quote from the apocrypha. Are you sure you know what the apocrypha is?

Regarding whether Christians that read or wrote texts are "Christian".
Clement was a convert of the apostle Peter and a fellow laborer with the apostle Paul and one Paul says whose name is written in the book of life, his diary and writings are certainly “Christian” though he is not an apostle.




#4) WRITINGS THAT CAN BE USED BY THE HISTORIAN TO DETERMINE WHAT THE EARLY CHRISTIANS SAY THEY BELIEVED

Bree said : "The only writings that should be used as a basis for Gods Word and christian teaching are those inspired by God through the appointed representatives, ie apostles of Jesus." (post #13)

While I understand the claim, it is naïve.
We are talking of the BELIEFS that the early Judeo-Christians say they had and THEIR descriptions of the texts and THEIR interpretations of the text and comparing them to YOUR interpretations.

Of course THEIR diaries and THEIR letters, and THEIR lectionaries, and THEIR mishnas, i.e. THEIR literature is very important to come to an understanding of THEIR beliefs. We are not talking about YOUR beliefs. We are talking about THEIR beliefs.

For example, we do not have a single text whom we know and can demonstrate came from an apostle of Jesus. All of the sacred texts are pseudoepigraphical since we do not know who wrote them nor can anyone prove who the author was.

The second point is that while the multiple Christian movements may use a similar text, they use different interpretations and come to different conclusions, resulting in different doctrines.

Why should YOUR personal interpretations of the texts with their resulting doctrines take priority over the interpretation of the same texts and the resulting doctrines of say Clement, who was a colleague of the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul?



#6) BIBLICAL TEXT IS OFTEN CREATED TO AGREE WITH DOGMA RATHER THAN DOGMA CREATED TO AGREE WITH AUTHENTIC TEXT

While I think your claim that the biblical text is a priority, the problem is that Jehovahs Witnesses tend to elevate the priority of their doctrines to the point where they take precedence over the text, to the point that they will change the text to agree with their doctrine instead of creating doctrine to agree with the text that they have.

For example :

Authentic Matt 27:52-53 the authentic biblical text relates “…the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints which had slept were raised and came out of the tombs after he arose and went into the holy city and appeared to many. “

Jehovahs Witness corrupted text of Matthew 27:52-53 : 52 And the tombs* were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised up 53 (and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered into the holy city), and they became visible to many people.
Because the original text did not agree with Jehovahs Witness doctrine, the text and it’s narrative is changed (The Phrase in Red is added to original text)

There is NO greek version among thousands that reads the way Franz translated it in his Jehovah Witness New World Translation.

Such changes corrupt the narrative and it’s witness.

In the original text, many saints themselves are resurrected and appear to individuals in the Holy City (consistent with the early Christian Ascension literature).

The Jehovahs Witness textual corruption has individuals being raised up and normal, living individuals came out of the tombs rather than the dead who had become alive again.

To remove such profound witnesses from the text is NOT showing respect for the text and is contrary to a claim that following the actual text is a priority.


@ Bree, I honestly appreciate your insights into Jehovahs Witness Theology but it is not the same religion as Ancient Christianity. We are talking apples and oranges. This does not mean one religion is better or worse than the other religion, but at this point, they are simply different.


Clear
φιτωσεω

 

[Clear]

Bree asked Terrywoodpic : “So what determines if a piece of writing should be considered part of the 'holy writings' in your view?” (post #15)

Terrywoodenpic responded : “I would suggest that that is impossible to define. As in the past, we choose what ever meets our criterion and expectations.” (post #16)


Hi @Terrywoodenpic

I have to agree with you that “whatever meets our criterion and expectations” is probably the most commonly used determination as to what constitutes an “inspired” writing.

Perhaps this is partly because the spirit may inspire different people in their minds and hearts when they are being exposed to so many different types of writing.

If the writer was inspired by the spirit to make a specific point ( C.S. Lewis comes to mind as a common example, or poems, or music, etc. ) then the reader may also find insight and inspiration by the concept within the text itself and / or the spirit of God may also illuminate the mind and heart of the reader when he is reading several types of texts.

The various reasons why, and conditions under which, an individual may receive inspiration from the Holy Spirit to illuminate their minds and hearts seem to me to be so diffuse and so different, that I think it is impossible to determine what sort of specific writing or speech is associated with authentic inspiration of the Spirit of God to the heart and mind of the person who is in tune with the spirit.

I do like the concept underlying the narrative in 2 Tim 3:16, where “Every divinely inspired writing is profitable and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,…”.

In this context, a writing need not be in any specific canon of any specific religion, but this concept allows any writing where the author was inspired (or the reader is being inspired) to be useful for gaining insight and wisdom concerning spiritual principles.


I think your comments are insightful @Terrywoodenpic .

See you


Clear
φιτωσεω

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Bree asked Terrywoodpic : “So what determines if a piece of writing should be considered part of the 'holy writings' in your view?” (post #15)

Terrywoodenpic responded : “I would suggest that that is impossible to define. As in the past, we choose what ever meets our criterion and expectations.” (post #16)


Hi @Terrywoodenpic

I think that I have to agree with you that “whatever meets our criterion and expectations” is probably the most commonly used determination as to what constitutes an “inspired” writing.

Perhaps this is partly because the spirit may inspire different people in their minds and hearts when they are being exposed to so many different types of writing.

If the writer was inspired by the spirit to make a specific point ( C.S. Lewis comes to mind as a common example, or poems, or music, etc. ) then the reader may also find insight and inspiration by the concept within the text itself and / or the spirit of God may also illuminate the mind and heart of the reader when he is reading several types of texts.

The various reasons why, and conditions under which, an individual may receive inspiration from the Holy Spirit to illuminate their minds and hearts seem to me to be so diffuse and so different, that I think it is impossible to determine what sort of specific writing or speech is associated with authentic inspiration of the Spirit of God to the heart and mind of the person who is in tune with the spirit.

I do like the concept underlying the narrative in 2 Tim 3:16, where “Every divinely inspired writing is profitable and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,…”.

In this context, a writing need not be in any specific canon of any specific religion, but this concept allows any writing where the author was inspired (or the reader is being inspired) to be useful for gaining insight and wisdom concerning spiritual principles.


I think your comments are insightful @Terrywoodenpic .

See you


Clear
φιτωσεω

We seem to be in tune on this.
In the Church of England that "2 Timothy passage" is in the forefront when it comes to many references for sermons and teaching.
Inspiration wisdom and truth is not limited by any canon.
The spirit transcends any limits anyone might impose.