The thief on the cross and jesus.Did they go to paradise underground?

[YoursTrue]

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

Hi @YoursTrue

I am not sure what you think I disagree with.

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


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

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

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


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

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


Clear
τωδρειφυω

Before I go into any of your other points, I must tell you that I generally only discuss one topic at a time.
When God infused life into Adam's body, perhaps you know that the soul is strongly associated with breath, or the breath of life. It is not an individual, let's say, from heaven, that God implanted in Adam's body. There are several variations or nuances to the word soul that you might want to look up. So the soul can be and is the life that God gives anyone in order for them to live. I hope you will take the time to read the following, it shouldn't take long and is extremely helpful.
What Is a Soul? | Bible Questions (jw.org)

 

[Clear]

Hi @Deeje :


1) EARLY JUDEA-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE IS PRE, PERI, AND POST COMMEN ERA

Deeje claimed : "The documents from which you quote were written after the first century. (post #119)

This is incorrect.

Clement, who speaks of the resurrection is the Clement described INSIDE the New Testament. Clement taught the earliest Gospel WITH Paul the apostle. Paul, in Phill 4:3 described Clement as being among those whose names were written in the Book of life. .
Clements letter to the Corinthians was written before 72 a.d..
Clements letter was written concurrent with the writing of the Book of Revelations.
Clements letter was included in the early New Testament (C. Sinaiticus and P6).
Also, remember, the many New Testament quotes from sources such as 1st Enoch were written long before the New Testament.

Thus, “Early Judeo-Christian literature” comes from several centuries before Jesus, during the time of Jesus and from several centuries after Jesus.




2) THE CLAIM TO USE “ONLY SCRIPTURE” IS INCORRECT


Deeje claimed : "Scripture is what we accept...not the apocryphal writings of men in later times.
Deeje claimed : "We rely on scripture alone to furnish our beliefs (post #119)

Of course you do not rely on scripture alone to create and support your beliefs. No one does.
This is simply more posturing and it is the same claim that some other Christianities use to support doctrines that conflict with your own.

ALL individuals rely on other principles such as their own intelligence and their own bias and their own historical background and their own interpretation of texts

Your religious movement and it’s leaders create and use non-biblical “writings of men in later time” (such as the WatchTower and other writings).
Your religious movement accepts a bible created in the main by Frederick Franz.
Your prior and present leadership continues to write and speak about and expound on doctrines.
Even forum posts offered by Jehovahs Witnesses are mostly commentary and opinion and do not consist simply of quotes from the New Testament.
Such literature produced by Jehovahs Witnesses represent their literary witnesses explaining their beliefs and why they believe their beliefs are correct just as early Christian literature tell us what early Christianity believed.

Of COURSE you both create and accept writings of individuals in “later times” and it is silly to claim otherwise.

Also, remember, your modern, edited, scripture is not the same, untainted versions read anciently. For example, how do the Jehovahs Witnesses explain the original Genesis 1:31 as described by the Massorets (those Jews who produced the official orthodox Jewish Bible)?



3) APOSTASY APPLIES TO THE JEHOVAHS WITNESSES AS MUCH AS TO ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY

Deeje said : “I said that "Christendom" represents apostate religion. (Post 119)


The claim to “apostasy” that you keep using is a two way street.

While the Jehovahs Witnesses see early Christianity as apostasy, Early Christianity saw and predicted your doctrines would be part of the predicted apostasy as well.


EXAMPLES OF JEHOVAH WITNESS APOSTASY AS SEEN BY EARLY CHRISTIANITY

The early Christians would be aghast that Jehovah Witnesses abandoned the early Doctrine of the existence of a spirit being associated with the body and replaced that doctrine with that of an atheistic model of mankind having a purely physical nature.

The early Christians would have condemned your abandonment of the ancient concept of Hades/Sheol/world of spirits as a way station to which these spirits went after their bodies died and replaced that doctrine by the physical grave and annihilation of the person.,

The early Christians would have condemned the apostasy which produced your abandonment of the resurrection of this same spirit into a new body and the replacement of that doctrine by a doctrine where a clone or copy of the original person is resurrected instead of the original person.

While the Early Christians witness in Matthew 27:52, that after the resurrection of Jesus “The tombs broke open and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised after jesus resurrection when they had come out of the tombs and entered into the holy City and appeared to many. (Berean) These Earliest Christians would have been completely disgusted at the dismissal by the Jehovahs Witnesses of their christian testimony of the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and replacement by the Jehovahs Witnesses by a doctrine that has a resurrection only after Armageddon.

The early Christians would have been incredulous that the texts they held sacred would have been changed by a later Christianity who re-interpreted and changed their written witnesses to support their own system of doctrines.

To the early Christians (And to much of modern christianity as well), the Jehovahs Witnesses are part OF apostasy from true early Christian religion.



4) IF EARLY CHRISTIANITY REPRESENT COMPLETE APOSTASTY, THEN SIMILAR JEHOVAHS WITNESS DOCTRINES REPRESENT APOSTASY AS WELL.

While you may claim that early Christendom/Christianity was an apostate religion, you need to recognize that early Christendom also shares certain doctrines with the Jehovahs Witnesses. If the early Christians were wrong to believe similar doctrines to the Jehovahs Witnesses, then the Jehovahs Witnesses are apostates right along with the early “apostates” for teaching some of the same doctrines as the people the Jehovahs Witness are calling “apostates”.

Another problem with simply relying on the claim that early “Christendom” represents “apostate religion” is thzt your current canon was picked by a religion you say was "apostate". You are then using literature that was chosen by an apostate religion to best represent its doctrines.



5) THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS MOVEMENT AND INTERPRETATIONS ARE NOT PART OF HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY.

Deeje said : "We do not accept what you quote as pertinent to our arguments. (post #119)

This is also incorrect.

Some Jehovahs Witnesses do use early Literature in the cases when the literature supports specific arguments.
For examples, tigger2 and HockeyCowboy have made some wonderful, impressive, and correct points using early literature.

However, there is a reason why you feel this specific early literature does not apply to Jehovahs Witnesses.

Your religion cannot USE this specific historical literature on these points because yours is NOT a historical religion on these points of spirit and resurrection. None of the earliest Christian literature describes these Jehovahs Witness interpretations we are discussing.

These specific interpretations of spirit or resurrection that are used by the modern Jehovahs Witness movement simply did not exist in or apply to ANY of the earliest Judeo-Christian literature.

Surely readers see that you are making my point that the Jehovahs Witness religion is not in agreement with ancient Christianity regarding the doctrine of the spirit and resurrection.

Jehovahs Witness religion CANNOT enter the world of early Christian literature regarding these specific points, but they MUST remain outside of early Judeo-Christianity and it’s literature and instead must stay firmly inside the world of arguments about interpretation.



In any case Deeje, though we disagree on these historical points, I hope your spiritual journey is insightful and wonderful

Clear
τωφισιφυω

 

[Deeje]

Clement, who speaks of the resurrection is the Clement described INSIDE the New Testament. Clement taught the earliest Gospel WITH Paul the apostle. Paul, in Phill 4:3 described Clement as being among those whose names were written in the Book of life. .
Clements letter to the Corinthians was written before 72 a.d..
Clements letter was written concurrent with the writing of the Book of Revelations.
Clements letter was included in the early New Testament (C. Sinaiticus and P6).
Also, remember, the many New Testament quotes from sources such as 1st Enoch were written long before the New Testament.

Early ecclesiastical writers confirm that Paul wrote his letter “To the Ephesians.” For example, Irenaeus, of the second century C.E., quoted Ephesians 5:30 as follows: “As the blessed Paul says in the epistle to the Ephesians, that we are members of his body.”

Clement of Alexandria, of the same period, quoted Ephesians 5:21 in reporting: “Wherefore, also, in the epistle to the Ephesians he writes, Be subject one to another in the fear of God.”

Origen, writing in the first half of the third century C.E., quoted Ephesians 1:4 saying: “But also the apostle in the epistle to the Ephesians, uses the same language when he says, Who chose us before the foundation of the world.”

Eusebius, another authority on early Christian history (c. 260-342 C.E.), includes Ephesians in the Bible canon, and most other early ecclesiastical writers make references to Ephesians as part of the inspired Scriptures.

So what? Supporting what Paul wrote is not the same as their own writings becoming equal to scripture. That was my point. You quote these writers as if they were authors of scripture when they are not.

Your religious movement and it’s leaders create and use non-biblical “writings of men in later time” (such as the WatchTower and other writings).

Again our literature explains scripture...it is never used as a substitute for it.

To be quite clear, Clement taught what Christ did not....to quote...
“All souls are immortal, even those of the wicked . . . Punished with the endless vengeance of quenchless fire, and not dying, it is impossible for them to have [an end] put to their misery.” (Clement of Alexandria, a writer of the second and third centuries C.E.)
According to this quote Clement was a 2nd-3rd century writer. Assuming that he was born around 150CE, he lived after the apostolic period. IOW, he did not witness any of the apostles teaching first hand. All the apostles were dead by the end of the first century. Jesus never taught that the soul was immortal or that there was a fiery hell of eternal punishment....all that came from Platonic Greek influence.

According to Wiki...
"Clement of Alexandria (Greek: Κλήμης ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς; c. 150 A.D.–c. 215 A.D.),[4] was a Christian theologian and philosopher who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Among his pupils were Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem. A convert to Christianity, he was an educated man who was familiar with classical Greek philosophy and literature. As his three major works demonstrate, Clement was influenced by Hellenistic philosophy to a greater extent than any other Christian thinker of his time, and in particular, by Plato and the Stoics. . . .
Clement is usually regarded as a Church Father. He is venerated as a saint in Eastern Orthodoxy, Coptic Christianity, Eastern Catholicism, Ethiopian Christianity, and Anglicanism. He was revered in Western Catholicism until 1586, when his name was removed from the Roman Martyrology by Pope Sixtus V on the advice of Baronius."

This speaks volumes to me....1) as a convert to Christianity, he was raised by pagan parents, so what was in his own conception of things that tainted his ideas?
2) his education in classical Greek philosophy and literature opened him up to still entertain pagan thinking with regard to the Immortality of the soul concept, which was missing in all of Christ's teachings. If he was "influenced by Hellenistic philosophy to a greater extent than any other Christian thinker of his time, and in particular, by Plato and the Stoics" then that would explain his adherence to pagan concepts such as immortality of the soul, as the apostasy took place.
3) The fact that he is revered by Christendom's diverse churches, including Roman Catholicism (until 1586) says it all to me.

The "weeds" were sown and grew "while men were sleeping". What do you think that means?

Your religious movement accepts a bible created in the main by Frederick Franz.
Your prior and present leadership continues to write and speak about and expound on doctrines.
Even forum posts offered by Jehovahs Witnesses are mostly commentary and opinion and do not consist simply of quotes from the New Testament.

I quote frequently from scripture. It forms the basis for all that I believe.

Here is some material on the NWT for your information.....
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1970927?q=new+world+translation+scholars&p=par

 

[Deeje]

Of COURSE you both create and accept writings of individuals in “later times” and it is silly to claim otherwise.

Its not the acceptance so much as the origin of the written material. Jesus and his apostles explained the scriptures to those who wanted to become disciples. His explanations and those of the apostles became part our Christian scripture...but the apocryphal writings did not...and for good reason IMO.

We firmly believe what Daniel wrote about our times, that God would cleanse a people at this juncture in order to have fit representatives of his word and purpose (Daniel 12:4, 9-10)....those who obeyed Paul's words at 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. We identified the "unclean" things that crept into Christian teaching from pagan sources and eliminated all of them. Daniel said that the wicked would be given no insight or understanding and so would stay in their spiritually "unclean" condition. Christendom is a fractured misrepresentation of everything Christ taught. I was raised in it...but could not accept the hypocrisy I saw. I have made it my life's work to study the scripture deeply and to understand the important aspects of 'the big picture', without which, Christendom's teachings make no sense.

Also, remember, your modern, edited, scripture is not the same, untainted versions read anciently. For example, how do the Jehovahs Witnesses explain the original Genesis 1:31 as described by the Massorets (those Jews who produced the official orthodox Jewish Bible)?

Genesis 1:31....Tanakh.
"And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day."
NWT....
"After that God saw everything he had made, and look! it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day."

According to the Tanakh, Genesis 1:31 is virtually the same as the NWT.....so what are you talking about?

The early Christians would be aghast that Jehovah Witnesses abandoned the early Doctrine of the existence of a spirit being associated with the body and replaced that doctrine with that of an atheistic model of mankind having a purely physical nature.

You have not grasped what we believe at all if that is what you think.....? I know who would be "aghast" at what passes for Christianity today.

We did not abandon anything, rather Christendom abandoned the resurrection in favor of the Greek notion of an immortal soul (accepted by Clement apparently)....this was something Jesus never taught because he was Jewish....the ancient Jews had no belief in an immortal, spiritual part of man that departed from the body at death. Death was the opposite of life and the dead slept in their graves awaiting a physical resurrection. (Ecclesiastes 9:5,6, 10) Hence why Jesus said in John 5:28-29 that he was going to call ALL the dead from their tombs. He will do that because they are all still in them.

The early Christians would have condemned your abandonment of the ancient concept of Hades/Sheol/world of spirits as a way station to which these spirits went after their bodies died and replaced that doctrine by the physical grave and annihilation of the person.,

Where did Adam go when he died? What did God tell him about death? Where did God mention a "heaven or hell" scenario? Please answer that question.

There is no "way station" in Jewish or Christian scripture. The dead did not go anywhere. From God's perspective they are all just 'sleeping'. Where did Jesus say Lazarus was? (John 11:11-14) And where did his resurrection take place? Jesus did not pluck his soul from the spirit realm, he merely put the breath back into his lungs, repaired the damage of physical decay after four days in the Middle Eastern heat, and woke him up, returning him to his family. That is a demonstration of the general resurrection of the dead, not to be confused with the "first resurrection". (Revelation 20:6) I hope you understand the difference.

The early Christians would have condemned the apostasy which produced your abandonment of the resurrection of this same spirit into a new body and the replacement of that doctrine by a doctrine were a clone or copy of the original person is resurrected instead of the original person.

You seem very hung up on this cloning thing. If you have a new physical body every seven years because of the natural process of cell renewal, but you still see yourself as yourself, how are you a clone? What if you woke up one morning and found yourself in a young and healthy body.....would you still be you if you retained all the personal traits and memories that identify you as a soul? This is what is promised in the resurrection....a new physical body but with an identity that is unmistakably you. God does not need a single molecule of your original body to re-create you.

While the Early Christians witness in Matthew 27:52, that after the resurrection of Jesus “The tombs broke open and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised after jesus resurrection when they had come out of the tombs and entered into the holy City and appeared to many. (Berean) These Earliest Christians would have been completely disgusted at the dismissal by the Jehovahs Witnesses of their christian testimony of the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and replacement by the Jehovahs Witnesses by a doctrine that has a resurrection only after Armageddon.

Can you tell me why such a momentous event was not recorded by anyone other than Matthew...and only in passing? The resurrection of the "holy ones" was not to take place on earth but with Christ's return and a commanding call, they were to be raised as spirit beings, not human beings.

This passage is not what it appears to be.....the phrasing is letting it down in this instance I believe. The earthquake simply thrust the bodies of the holy ones out of their tombs, as has happened many times before in earthquake prone places....and the people who witnessed this went in to Jerusalem to report it. The scripture is not specific as to who "they" were. What is told to us by the rest of scripture? That this was NOT a resurrection of God's elect. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17)

 

[Deeje]

The early Christians would have been incredulous that the texts they held sacred would have been changed by a later Christianity who re-interpreted and changed their written witnesses to support their own system of doctrines.

Well that is a bit dramatic since none of the changes made were out of line with the original language interpretations. Early Biblical scholars had their own biases that found their way into scripture through faulty interpretation.
A case in point is John 1:1 and John 1:18 from the KJV. It calls Jesus "God" in verse 1, but then calls him "the son" in verse 18.....same word, different rendering.

"In the beginning was the Word [logos], and the Word was with God [ho theos], and the Word was God [theos]."
"No man hath seen God [ho theos] at any time; the only begotten Son [theos], which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

If they can translate "God" [theos] in verse 1, why not in verse 18? Which says "only begotten god", not "the only Son". How can "God" be "begotten"? Its an uncomfortable turn of phrase so they altered it to fit their trinity....

So please tell us where JW's changed any rendering to so biastly infer that something is true when when it in nowhere to be found as a statement from either God or his Christ, in any part of the Bible? Please...I want to know.

To the early Christians (And to much of modern christianity as well), the Jehovahs Witnesses are part OF apostasy from true early Christian religion.

Ah...the apostates calling the resistors of apostasy...."apostates". Jesus himself was an apostate to Judaism.....and so were his apostles and disciples. They were made to feel the wrath of the Pharisees who ordered the execution of their innocent leader in order to uphold their treachery.....but none of that made them right...did it?

Roman Catholicism did exactly the same thing....the "Grand Inquisitor" brought accusations and forced confessions under torture for anyone who dared to question the teachings or conduct of "the church", in order to uphold their unchristian doctrines and practices. You can't see the parallel? I saw it many years ago. Same problem...same instigator. You take God's people down by introducing an counterfeit version of their worship so that the counterfeit that offends God is taken as gospel. Satan does not change his tactics.

While you may claim that early Christendom/Christianity was an apostate religion, you need to recognize that early Christendom also shares certain doctrines with the Jehovahs Witnesses.

Please give examples of any teaching in the Bible that is upheld by Christendom. It was apparent to me when I actually studied the Bible instead of church doctrine, that everything Jesus taught was thrown away by the church and a justification offered for why they don't do what Jesus told them to do.

If the early Christians were wrong to believe similar doctrines to the Jehovahs Witnesses, then the Jehovahs Witnesses are apostates right along with the early “apostates” for teaching some of the same doctrines as the people the Jehovahs Witness are calling “apostates”.

There are no similar doctrines......we accept only what is taught in scripture. What are these similarities that are doctrines? Please tell us.

Another problem with simply relying on the claim that early “Christendom” represents “apostate religion” then your current canon was picked by a religion you say was apostate. You are then using literature that was chosen by an apostate religion to best represent its doctrines.

LOL...Now that is funny.....who's word is it again? I thought it was God's word. It was HE who decided what was to be included in his word and the vehicle he used to compile it makes no difference. I can assure you that not a single word in the Bible was written by a Catholic or any other person in Christendom......God can use even his enemies to accomplish his will.....He has done it before.

None of the earliest Christian literature describes these Jehovahs Witness interpretations we are discussing.

Yes I know...that is how we know we have the truth. At the harvest time, the "wheat and the weeds" do not resemble one another at all. We say....Viva la difference! You can say whatever you please.

These specific interpretations of spirit or resurrection that are used by the modern Jehovahs Witness movement simply did not exist in or apply to ANY of the earliest Judeo-Christian literature.

They exist right throughout the Hebrew scriptures which is what Jesus and the apostles taught and quoted from.....the ancient Jews did not believe what they do now about the soul and sheol. That is the thing with apostasy...it just keeps getting more and more corrupt, but gradually so you don't really notice unless things are brought to your attention. The devil uses no new tactics because he knows what works. The "earliest Judeo-Christian literature" that truly matters to us is in the accepted scriptures....no truth from any man comes from outside of them. God chose his authors and content for a reason.

Jehovahs Witness religion CANNOT enter the world of early Christian literature regarding these specific points, but they MUST remain outside of early Judeo-Christianity and it’s literature and instead must stay firmly inside the world of arguments about interpretation.

And that is the beauty of the truth as revealed by God.....once God has opened your heart to the truth, there is no going back. False religion is like having a stash of counterfeit money in a bank vault thinking that you will be fine if a financial crisis hits....but then when you try to spend it, you find it is completely worthless.
But for genuine Christians, they have been putting truly valuable treasure in their bank vault all along, according to their deeds. (Matthew 6:19-21) Nothing can devalue this treasure.

Look back over the history of "the church" from the second century onward, and tell me when Christ would have set foot in any of their institutions? They have too much blood on their hands for him to have had anything to do with them. (Isaiah 1:15) To this day the church is so busy being "friends with the world" (James 4:4) and supporting its bloodshed to have any regard for what Jesus taught. Unless we are "doing the will of the Father" we will be rejected as lawbreakers at the judgment....ones Christ says he "never knew". Never means "not ever". (Matthew 7:21-23)

In any case Deeje, I hope your spiritual journey is insightful and wonderful

It has been for the last 50 years....and every day my faith grows stronger, because of talking to people like yourself. You probably feel the same way.....so we will let Jesus do his job and judge what is truth and what is God dishonoring falsehood. This is not a competition, but a choice of traveling one of two roads.....only one leads to life...the other to certain everlasting death. (Matthew 7:13-14)

I also wish you well in your choices.....

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

1) EARLY JUDEA-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE IS PRE, PERI, AND POST COMMEN ERA

Deeje claimed : "The documents from which you quote were written after the first century. (post #119)
Clear replied : “This is incorrect.
Clement, who speaks of the resurrection is the Clement described INSIDE the New Testament. Clement taught the earliest Gospel WITH Paul the apostle. Paul, in Phill 4:3 described Clement as being among those whose names were written in the Book of life. .
Clements letter to the Corinthians was written before 72 a.d..
Clements letter was written concurrent with the writing of the Book of Revelations.
Clements letter was included in the early New Testament (C. Sinaiticus and P6).
Also, remember, the many New Testament quotes from sources such as 1st Enoch were written long before the New Testament.
Thus, “Early Judeo-Christian literature” comes from several centuries before Jesus, during the time of Jesus and from several centuries after Jesus. (post #122)
Deeje replied : “According to this quote Clement…. (post #123)


Deeje, you are quoting from the wrong Clement of the wrong time period.

I Clement who is mentioned in New Testatment Phillipians as the co worker with the Apostle Paul (and a colleague of the apostle Peter) is Clement OF ROME.

You are quoting from clement OF ALEXANDRIA from a different Century.

I hope readers can see why at least a basic knowledge of history is helpful if one is going to try to discuss history.




2) HISTORICAL LITERATURE PROVIDES HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE

Deeje claimed : "Supporting what Paul wrote is not the same as their own writings becoming equal to scripture. That was my point (post #123)

Your point is irrelevant since no one claimed that non-scripture is scripture.




Clear pointed out : “Your religious movement and it’s leaders create and use non-biblical “writings of men in later time” (such as the WatchTower and other writings).” (post #122)
Deeje claims : “Again our literature explains scripture...it is never used as a substitute for it. (post #123)

This is irrelevant, since no one is claiming non-scripture is a substitute for scripture.

However, the Jehovahs Witness movement is just like any large religious movement in their use of non-scripture literature.

Your literature (such as the Watch Tower magazine, pamphlets, internal church memos and church manuals) explains scripture and doctrines, educates your members, and proselytes and educates non-members, early Christian literature explained scripture and doctrines, educated their members and was a tool for proselyting.

Historians in the future can refer to such Jehovahs Witness literature to learn about what the Jehovahs witness movement believed, taught, and did. That is how historical literature works.



Deeje said : “To be quite clear, Clement taught ….. (post #123)
what is not clear is how you can think you are speaking of I Clement of ROME who was a colleague of the Apostles Peter and Paul and who was mentioned in the new testament when quoting Clement of ALEXANDRIA of a later century. This is historical ignorance.



Deeje said : “I quote frequently from scripture. It forms the basis for all that I believe. (post #123)
Good for you. This religious posturing simply means you do what many, many other Christians do.

Scripture typically forms the basis for most of the Christian movements and their various conflicting beliefs. This claim does not set you apart nor does it mean your opinions and interpretations are superior to the most original and earliest Christians and their beliefs.



2) THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS MOVEMENT USES LITERATURE JUST AS OTHER RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS DO AND IN THE SAME WAY OTHER MOVEMENTS USE LITERATURE


Deeje claimed : "Scripture is what we accept...not the apocryphal writings of men in later times.
Clear replied : “Of course you do not rely on scripture alone to create and support your beliefs. No one does.
This is simply more posturing and it is the same claim that some other Christianities use to support doctrines that conflict with your own.
ALL individuals rely on other principles such as their own intelligence and their own bias and their own historical background and their own interpretation of texts
Your religious movement and it’s leaders create and use non-biblical “writings of men in later time” (such as the WatchTower and other writings).
Your religious movement accepts a bible created in the main by Frederick Franz.
Your prior and present leadership continues to write and speak about and expound on doctrines.
Even forum posts offered by Jehovahs Witnesses are mostly commentary and opinion and do not consist simply of quotes from the New Testament.
Such literature produced by Jehovahs Witnesses represent their literary witnesses explaining their beliefs and why they believe their beliefs are correct just as early Christian literature tell us what early Christianity believed.
Of COURSE you both create and accept writings of individuals in “later times” and it is silly to claim otherwise. (post #122)
Deeje replied : “Its not the acceptance so much as the origin of the written material…” (post #124)


The origin and context and content of the writings of your church leaders is typically their personal interpretation and personal opinion of what the scriptures mean to them, just as with most other Christian movements.

The opinions and interpretations of your leaders and members are based on their own bias and intelligence and historical knowledge and language skills and prior experience, etc, just as with most individuals in other Christian movements.

For example, Even new world text (bible) created by Frederick Franz originated from a man who had zero, zip, nada formal education in Koine specific Greek but, like other translators, had his opinion as to what a bible should say and created a bible that said what he thought it should say if his interpretations were correct.

Your prior and present leadership originate their writings from their personal opinions and personal interpretations just like other Christian movements.

The forum posts and opinions offered by Jehovahs Witnesses are writings that reflect opinions of the writers just like other Christian movements.

Your Church literature originates from individuals who have their opinions and interpretations of what content should be included in their literature and how it should be said just like other Christian movements.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO


3) IGNORANCE OF HISTORICAL BIBLICAL TEXT LEADS TO IGNORANT BASIS OF ERRONEOUS CLAIMS

Clear said : “Also, remember, your modern, edited, scripture is not the same, untainted versions read anciently. For example, how do the Jehovahs Witnesses explain the original Genesis 1:31 as described by the Massorets (those Jews who produced the official orthodox Jewish Bible)?” (post #122)

Deeje then simply quoted Genesis 1:31 from the modern Tanach and a second quote from the nwt text instead of the original text according to the Massoretes who created the orthodox Jewish Massoretic bible.

Deeje, neither quote is the text the massoretes tell us was the original text of the bible they, themselves created and which you say you base your beliefs on.

IF you do not know enough history about the bible to even know what the original biblical text was, how can you claim to follow the original text?
The point here is that you don’t even know what the original text said but, instead, you create opinions and interpretations and doctrines based on the text you have instead of the best and most authentic and earliest biblical text. The earliest judeo-Christians were using an earlier text that was more original than yours. Why would your text be better than their text (which was different)?




4) EXAMPLES OF JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEOLOGY AS PART OF THE APOSTASY PREDICTED BY ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY


a) MODIFICATIONS OF THE BIBLE THAN CHANGE THEIR ANCIENT WITNESS TO THE RESURRECTION

Clear said : While the Early Christians witness in Matthew 27:52, that after the resurrection of Jesus “The tombs broke open and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised after jesus resurrection when they had come out of the tombs and entered into the holy City and appeared to many. (Berean)
These Earliest Christians would have been completely disgusted at the dismissal by the Jehovahs Witnesses of their christian testimony of the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and replacement by the Jehovahs Witnesses by a doctrine that has a resurrection only after Armageddon. (post #122)
Deeje said : “This passage is not what it appears to be (post #124)”


Of course this original text IS just what it appears to be. That is the point.

The early Christians believed in this bible text and that it really WAS what it appeared to be.
To them, it really MEANT what it appeared to mean.
Their early doctrine was based on the actual text as it stood and they did not need to modify this text as the Jehovahs Witness Movement had to do.


MATTHEW 27:52-53 AS AN EXAMPLE OF JEHOVA AND Jehovahs Witness method of interpretation and creation of doctrine

Matthew 27:52, says that, after the resurrection of Christ : “… the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And, coming out of the tombs after his rising, went into the holy city, and appeared to many."

The early Christians interpreted the text to mean just what the text says : “The bodies of the saints in the graves/tombs arose.

Deeje interpreted this to mean : “The bodies of the "saints" were thrown out of their graves by an earthquake. None of those were resurrected, they were still dead bodies. It was the people who saw them that reported what happened in the graveyard to the people in the city." (post #192 different thread)

The earliest Christians tell us in their early literature that they believed this text meant exactly what it says.
That is, in their literature, they tell us that the bodies of many of the saints actually “arose” in the same manner that Jesus “arose” and they “went into” Jerusalem (the Holy City) and appeared to many. (They were individuals who were resurrected with Christs resurrection...). Why not allow the original interpretation a priority over your "Dead Body Throwing Theory" interpretation?

The early literature contains stories of some of these resurrected individuals who spoke with people in Jerusalem. The early Christians and their movement, did not need to add, nor subtract information or words or concepts to the text that are not found in it.

Your “Body Throwing Theory” is yet another apostasy away from early Christian religion and from the text. While you USE a similar text to the early Christians, your INTERPRETATION is different. In speaking of early Christian literature, we are speaking of interpretations of text.




Deeje said : “The scripture is not specific as to who "they" were (post #124)

Of course the text is specific in its subject.
It refers to “the bodies of the saints” which arose.

YOU do not read Greek and so you do not have the right to tell us the sentence is not “specific” and you’ve told us you have no interest in early Christian history so YOU do not have the right to tell us what the historical meaning is.

The Greek text TELLS us who the subject “they” were. I have underlined and bolded who “they’ were in the text below and it is the “bodies” of the saints who had died and were inside their graves (tombs).

greek Και τα Μενμεα ανεωχθησαν και πολλα σωματα των κεκοιμημενων αγιων ηγερθη και εχελθοντες εκ των μνημειων μετα την εγερσιν αυτου εισηλθον εις την αγιαν πολιν και ενεφανισθησαν πολλοις.



b) CHANGING THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE AS APOSTASY FROM ORIGINAL TEXT

THE NEW WORLD "TRANSLATION" OF MATTHEW 27:53 AS APOSTASY FROM THE ORIGINAL TEXT

This verse in the NWT is not at all an authentic translation of ANY version of the Greek New Testament. Instead, it seems to be a commentary by Franz or whoever created this paraphrase of the bible, presumably to support their theory of what was happening. I don’t think I’ve seen ever seen an actual “bible”, depart from the Greek so blatantly.

The authentic bible version says “… the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints which slept arose. And, coming out of the tombs after his rising (Jesus), went into the holy city (Jerusalem), and appeared to many."

The apostate version from the NW Text reads : “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”

In the original version, the subject (“they”) is the bodies of the saints, while the apostate Jehovahs Witness version adds the words “and people coming out from among the tombs”.

The original Greek does NOT read as the Jehovahs Witnesses have changed it to read and there is no greek variant in NA-28 or GN-4 or any other source I have that lists a variant that says what the Jehovahs Witness movement changed the text to mean.


MAKING ONES' THEOLOGY CONFORM TO THE BIBLICAL TEXT RATHER THAN MAKING THE BIBLICAL TEXT CONFORM TO ONES' THEOLOGY
Deeje, You cannot simply claim that your doctrines and interpretations “come from the bible” if you are willing to change the authentic biblical text to conform to your theology. Making the bible say what you want it to say is creating a bible to correspond to your theology, rather than making your theology correspond to the bible.

It is such changes that I am referring to when I said that “These Earliest Christians would have been completely disgusted at the dismissal by the Jehovahs Witnesses of their christian testimony of the doctrine of resurrection of individuals at the time Jesus was resurrected and replacement by the Jehovahs Witnesses by a doctrine that has a resurrection only after Armageddon.
The early Christians would have been incredulous that the texts they held sacred would have been changed by a later Christianity who re-interpreted and changed their written witnesses to support their own system of doctrines.” (Clear in post #122)


These and other reasons are why the early Christianities predicted that apostasy would occur and that these examples provided by the Jehovahs Witness movement are examples of that apostasy.


So, Deeje, when you speak of apostasy of early Christianity, you must understand that early Christianity had good reason to describe your apostasy as well.

NONE of your examples explain why your interpretations should take priority over that of individuals who actually knew an original living apostle in the earliest Christianity we have records of.


Deeje asked : “So please tell us where JW's changed any rendering to so biastly infer that something is true when when it in nowhere to be found as a statement from either God or his Christ, in any part of the Bible? Please...I want to know (post #125)
I just did.



Please understand Deeje that I started out speaking HISTORICALLY. I was simply pointing out how the Jehovahs Witness theology was different than and not found in the literature of any early Christianity. I was not trying to imply that one Christianity was superior to another.

YOUR insistence that the early Christians were "apostates" was what underlie this historical discussion regarding the fact that Early Christianity would have regarded the Jehovahs Witness movement as part of the apostasy the early Christians predicted and described.

In any case, I hope your own spirit journey is good and insightful and, if you should ever become interested in religious history, I hope it becomes a wonderful experience for you.

Clear
τωφυτωτωω

 

[Muffled]

A good point you bring up.
The Fact is--- There is a comma error in that passage in trinity translations--The following.

Truly i tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise. = error

Truly i tell you today, you will be with me in paradise= correct.

The bible is 100% clear--Jesus was in the grave( Hades) for 3 days. He could not be in Paradise that day of his death.

Revelation is clear on the ressurection, It occurs after Har-mageddon occurs.

I believe everyone assumed Jesus was in the grave three days and expected Him to still be there but found out that He wasn't.

 

[Muffled]

Basically the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are in the Bible. Now it is true that Jesus took the disciples aside and explained illustrations to them. The major application of Christian principles do not change.

I believe JW beliefs are what JW's think the Bible says as opposed to what it actually says.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe everyone assumed Jesus was in the grave three days and expected Him to still be there but found out that He wasn't.

His burial clothes were left behind. Don't you find that interesting? In other words, they were still there in the cave. Notice what it says at John chapter 20 about that: (I quote from John 20:3-8)
"Then Peter and the other disciple set out for the tomb. The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent down and looked in at the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Simon Peter arrived just after him. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. The cloths that had been around Jesus’ head was rolled up, lying separate from the linen cloths. Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in. And he saw and believed. For they still did not understand from the Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead."
So do you think he really died? (It says Jesus had to rise from the dead.) and -- how come the burial cloths covering his body were in the cave?

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe JW beliefs are what JW's think the Bible says as opposed to what it actually says.

I'll just wait for your answer about Jesus' death, the cloths in the case, and if you think he really died.

 

[Clear]

Muffled said : "I believe JW beliefs are what JW's think the Bible says as opposed to what it actually says." (post #129)

Hi @Muffled

While I agree with this statement, I do not think the Jehovahs Witnesses are guilty of anything the rest of us do not also have a tendency to do. I think ALL of us (myself included), tend to make errors in our theological assumptions.


THE TENDENCY OF ALL OF MANKIND TO MAKE MISTAKES, TO GET THINGS WRONG, TO APOSTATIZE FROM CORRECT THEOLOGY

A thread a few years ago, tried to examine Jewish’s motives to “turn away” from the gospel. Another Christian poster offered the insightful question for Christians : “Do you really think we do any better?” .

I think this self-admission that we ALL tend, as individuals, to accumulate some degree of errors, IS an appropriate and profound observation if Christianities are to ever gain insight into why Christians also “turn away” from truths, since, only a small portion of the many conflicting Christian theories on a specific doctrine CAN be correct and the rest must represent some degree of error.

Yet Christianities continue to innovate and develop new and different theological theories and move away (or “turn away”) from the more ancient christian traditions. It is as though Christianity has not avoided making the same mistakes as the Jews (in terms of abandoning and innovating away from early, original, revealed religion.)

Christians rarely flirt with this admission (which is so obvious to other religions as they correctly criticize Christians for having so many conflicting theories), yet occasionally we’ll have the tacit admission that Christians are “not above guessing at those traditions, adding to them, misunderstanding them, or even altering them.” (as another poster correctly pointed out in another thread)

Such words remind me of Pseudo-Hecateus when he says “We throngs of men go astray in our hearts when, to gain solace from misery, we set up as statues of gods figures worked from wood, or images of copper, gold or ivory. We imagine we are religious when we enjoin in their honor sacrifices and evil festivals. (#2 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 5.113)

This principle that man innovates and then adopts changed religion has ALWAYS been true whether speaking of Jews or Christians. Prophets reveal authentic religion. Men then go astray. Other prophets attempt to reform them to authentic religion to mankind, which correction men then apostatize from, which other prophets attempt to reform them, ad nauseum.

I think that this is one of the great lessons that God seems to be trying to teach mankind from the beginning, that is, that none of us; neither Jews nor Christians are immune to this specific weakness. ALL mankind tend to apostatize to some extent. We innovate, we imagine, we theorize. And as we do, we get certain things wrong. And, as we repetitively adopt increasing numbers of errors, they both accumulate and magnify the tendency to evolve away from original religion.

So, I think that while the Jehovahs Witnesses make mistakes in the creation of their theology, the rest of us tend to be guilty of this as well.

Muffled, I hope your own spiritual journey is good.


Clear
τωσιτζειω

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe JW beliefs are what JW's think the Bible says as opposed to what it actually says.

Examining the scriptures can be detailed, including understanding of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words and their implications. Therefore, in order to understand such things as what is the soul or the end of the world requires due diligence both from commentators and students.
What Is a Soul? | Bible Questions (jw.org)

 

[YoursTrue]

Muffled said : "I believe JW beliefs are what JW's think the Bible says as opposed to what it actually says." (post #129)

Hi @Muffled

While I agree with this statement, I do not think the Jehovahs Witnesses are guilty of anything the rest of us do not also have a tendency to do. I think ALL of us (myself included), tend to make errors in our theological assumptions.


THE TENDENCY OF ALL OF MANKIND TO MAKE MISTAKES, TO GET THINGS WRONG, TO APOSTATIZE FROM CORRECT THEOLOGY

A thread a few years ago, tried to examine Jewish’s motives to “turn away” from the gospel. Another Christian poster offered the insightful question for Christians : “Do you really think we do any better?” .

I think this self-admission that we ALL tend, as individuals, to accumulate some degree of errors, IS an appropriate and profound observation if Christianities are to ever gain insight into why Christians also “turn away” from truths, since, only a small portion of the many conflicting Christian theories on a specific doctrine CAN be correct and the rest must represent some degree of error.

Yet Christianities continue to innovate and develop new and different theological theories and move away (or “turn away”) from the more ancient christian traditions. It is as though Christianity has not avoided making the same mistakes as the Jews (in terms of abandoning and innovating away from early, original, revealed religion.)

Christians rarely flirt with this admission (which is so obvious to other religions as they correctly criticize Christians for having so many conflicting theories), yet occasionally we’ll have the tacit admission that Christians are “not above guessing at those traditions, adding to them, misunderstanding them, or even altering them.” (as another poster correctly pointed out in another thread)

Such words remind me of Pseudo-Hecateus when he says “We throngs of men go astray in our hearts when, to gain solace from misery, we set up as statues of gods figures worked from wood, or images of copper, gold or ivory. We imagine we are religious when we enjoin in their honor sacrifices and evil festivals. (#2 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 5.113)

This principle that man innovates and then adopts changed religion has ALWAYS been true whether speaking of Jews or Christians. Prophets reveal authentic religion. Men then go astray. Other prophets attempt to reform them to authentic religion to mankind, which correction men then apostatize from, which other prophets attempt to reform them, ad nauseum.

I think that this is one of the great lessons that God seems to be trying to teach mankind from the beginning, that is, that none of us; neither Jews nor Christians are immune to this specific weakness. ALL mankind tend to apostatize to some extent. We innovate, we imagine, we theorize. And as we do, we get certain things wrong. And, as we repetitively adopt increasing numbers of errors, they both accumulate and magnify the tendency to evolve away from original religion.

So, I think that while the Jehovahs Witnesses make mistakes in the creation of their theology, the rest of us tend to be guilty of this as well.

Muffled, I hope your own spiritual journey is good.


Clear
τωσιτζειω

Do you believe Jesus?
Thank you for the thought but I would like to mention that upon first reading or examination it is not so easy to clarify everything, and Jehovah's Witnesses have made amendments from time to time regarding the clarification of scripture. This in itself tells me how honest they are, rather than sticking to something that may be inaccurate as far as interpretation goes. (Such as eternal torture in fire for the "unsaved," and other such false teachings promoted by many established religions.)
In reference to my first question, Jesus did speak about the Flood. I bring that up because I was just thinking today that everyone drowned except Noah and his family. Also, there are major doctrines that other religions claim to be ok about, such as the wrong teachings of the churches about such things as hellfire, and immortality of the soul. These are thoroughly examined in light of the scriptures by Jehovah's Witnesses. There have been occasional clarifications over the years, but I have learned much from them and never thought it wrong to make changes when considered necessary rather than sticking to teachings that I believe are simply wrong.

 

[Clear]

Hi @YoursTrue

1) REGARDING THE CHANGE OF THE TEXT IN MATTHEW 27:52 BY THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS MOVEMENT AND IT'S ASSOCIATION WITH APOSTASY FROM EARLY RELIGION

YoursTrue said : "Thank you for the thought but I would like to mention that upon first reading or examination it is not so easy to clarify everything, and Jehovah's Witnesses have made amendments from time to time regarding the clarification of scripture." (post 134)

To the earliest Christians, the meaning of their text of Matthew 27:52 was perfectly clear.
The text needed NO ammendment nor clarification.

In early Christianity, when Matthew 27:52 said : “… the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and, coming out of the tombs after his rising, went into the holy city, and appeared to many.”, the text meant just what it said.
Bodies of the saints rose up, and went into Jerusalem, and many people saws these resurrected saints.
(Resurrection MEANS a rising again.)


a) MATTHEW 27:52 AS A SACRED WITNESS TO THE FULFILLMENT OF AN ANCIENT AND SACRED PROMISE BY GOD
In the earliest Christian Literature, the witness of Matthew 27:52, that “…many bodies of the saints which slept arose and, coming out of the tombs after his rising, went into the holy city, and appeared to many” was a profound and sacred witness to the reality of the promise of resurrection.

Matthew 27:52 was a profound witness that God would fulfill the sacred promises mankind, that after death, individuals would live again.

To the early Christians, the original and authentic text was sacred and it was improper to inappropriately add to or take away anything from those words.

YoursTrue, you used the word “ammendments”.
However, an “amendment” is a minor change to improve a text.
This is NOT what Franz did when he changed this original text in creating the Jehovahs Witness bible.

The modification of this sacred text by Jehovahs Witnesses adds words and change the basic context of the text.
This is NOT a minor change to the sacred text.

b) The nature of the changes made to this text by the Jehovah's Witness modifications to sacred text.

The modification of the biblical text by Jehovahs Witnesses removes the reference to resurrection.
This modification denies the sentence it’s value as a profound witness of the resurrection.
This modification removes evidence of fulfillment of a promise God made to mankind (resurrection).
In modifying this text, Franz created a different text which is not supported by nor even exists in any Greek source text (of thousands that exist). NONE of the greek texts support this modification.

I think this is why the early Christian movement would have seen the Jehovahs’ Witness modifications to this text as apostasy.

You also used the word “Clarification”.
However, a Clarification is to make something LESS confused and MORE clear, and MORE comprehensible.

The Jehovahs Witness modification to the bibles’ text in this instance does NOT clarify, but obscures the original meaning.
It makes their text LESS clearly a witness to the resurrection.
It makes their text LESS clearly a witness to the fulfillment of Gods promise to mankind.

There are important reasons why we are not to make inappropriate and inaccurate modifications to an authentic biblical text.

Clear
τωνετζφιω

 

[YoursTrue]

Hi @YoursTrue

1) REGARDING THE CHANGE OF THE TEXT IN MATTHEW 27:52 BY THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS MOVEMENT AND IT'S ASSOCIATION WITH APOSTASY FROM EARLY RELIGION

YoursTrue said : "Thank you for the thought but I would like to mention that upon first reading or examination it is not so easy to clarify everything, and Jehovah's Witnesses have made amendments from time to time regarding the clarification of scripture." (post 134)

To the earliest Christians, the meaning of their text of Matthew 27:52 was perfectly clear.
The text needed NO ammendment nor clarification.

In early Christianity, when Matthew 27:52 said : “… the tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and, coming out of the tombs after his rising, went into the holy city, and appeared to many.”, the text meant just what it said.
Bodies of the saints rose up, and went into Jerusalem, and many people saws these resurrected saints.
(Resurrection MEANS a rising again.)

....
Clear
τωνετζφιω

Looking at the text in many translations, it is clear that it does not mean that the saints were raised to life on the earth and went into the city. But it must be looked at properly. Here's why: it says the 'bodies' of the saints were raised. Not body and soul. Also, and very importantly, it says these bodies were -- sleeping. So what did you think, that God took their souls and placed them in their raised bodies, which are said to be sleeping?

 

[Clear]

Hi @YoursTrue

Regarding the statement of the bodies of the saints that had SLEPT. I suspect that, if you study the useage of this term for"slept", you will find that the earliest Judeo-Christians used this term, in this phrase to mean death, rather than napping.

My interest does not really lie in trying to describe how the Jehovahs Witness religion interpreted these sentences, but instead, I was describing what the sentences meant to the ancient Judeo-Christians who read these sacred textual witnesses.

In the early Christian literature, the spirits of the dead were placed into resurrected bodies. Thus, for them the sentence meant just what it appears to mean "many of the bodies of the saints who had slept (died) arose...after Jesus arose, and went into Jerusalem and appeared to many. " To them, it was a sacred witness that the promise of resurrection associated with the Messiah, was literal and true. This interpretation is literally woven into much of the earliest Judeo-Christian literature.

For example, one story from the early literature concerns the 2 sons of Rabbi Symeon who were among those who had resurrected.

The story speaks of their experiences in the world of spirits after they died. There is a great deal of Judeo-Christian literature that describes the descent of the spirit of the Messiah into the world of Spirits and the fulfillment of the promise to David (and others) that they would not be left in Hades (i.e. Sheol/the Grave/world of spirits - whatever one wishes to call this place) and it describes the resurrection of these individuals described in Matthew 27:52-53.

While you are free to describe how the Jehovahs Witness religion interprets Matthew 27:52-53, such a description will simply serve to show readers that your religion with it's interpretations of the text (as well as the changes the Jehovahs Witness made to this sacred witness in the text of Matthew) is different from the beliefs of the ancient Christians.

The source greek text uses the phrase "πολλα σωματα των κεκοιμημενων αγιων ηγερθησαν,....μετα την εγερσιν αυτου" "many of the bodies of the saints who had slept arose...after he (jesus) arose". The only variant I could find in GN-4 or NA-28 is a passive form of arising (ηγερθη) as it applied to the dead saints in verse #52.

What might be of value to readers is for us to discuss the Jehovahs Witness interpretation of the perfect tense of the koine greek used for the word "slept" versus the early Christian use of that term in this text (if you want to go through that exercise).


In any case YoursTrue, I honestly hope your own spiritual journey is full of insights and is wonderful.

Clear
δρειτωφιω

 

[Muffled]

His burial clothes were left behind. Don't you find that interesting? In other words, they were still there in the cave. Notice what it says at John chapter 20 about that: (I quote from John 20:3-8)
"Then Peter and the other disciple set out for the tomb. The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent down and looked in at the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Simon Peter arrived just after him. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. The cloths that had been around Jesus’ head was rolled up, lying separate from the linen cloths. Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in. And he saw and believed. For they still did not understand from the Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead."
So do you think he really died? (It says Jesus had to rise from the dead.) and -- how come the burial cloths covering his body were in the cave?

I believe He teleported out of the grave without the graveclothes. Remember the stone was blocking the grave entrance. He is the creator after all because when he appeared no one said he was naked. Teleportation also explains how he could just appear in their midst.

 

[Muffled]

I'll just wait for your answer about Jesus' death, the cloths in the case, and if you think he really died.

I believe the body died. The Spirit of God never dies.