Greetings all,
I've had an pseudonymous Trinitarian post mostly/ almost all quoted material to the comment boxes. The moderated posts number 25 so far and they're lengthy and somewhat misrepresent what I believe or have previously said.
Comment-box bombing is not welcomed here. If you don't want to dialogue on the subject-matter, please don't post and please try to get my position right too. Thanks.
144 comments:
I feel your pain, I keep telling strawman bullies that when it comes to my opinions I am the no.1 authority.
Trinitarians are really on the attack atm, I know of atleast 2 other "JW leaning" websites having similar issues
This site has been okay for years, but we have "troublemakers" from time to time. This is why I started moderating comments.
I don't mind talking with Trinitarians but long paragraphs of quoted material that really don't address the blog entries, well, that is not dialogue. For the record, I would not go on a Trinitarian site and return the favor.
1 Peter 3:15 ESV:
"but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with GENTLENESS and RESPECT,".
So many opposers don't get this. They love the theology elements of scripture, and will doggedly make sure to get their point across by any means necessary but are apparently blissfully unaware of what should be regulating their standards of behaviour and dialogue. In a way it humours me, the irony of defending Christian theology using methods that negate your claim to being a follower of Christ.
2 Timothy 3:5.
Not easy to be on the receiving end, though. I feel your pain, Edgar.
I respect your patience in running a site such as this.
Must be hard.
Thanks for moderating comments.
Why the need for a pseudonym, I wonder?
Psalm 26:4.
Its a stupid manner to go about it in, not only does it go against bible teachings, but trinitarians do the exact opposite to Jesus to what Jesus said..
I mainly get marketers vitamins, get rich quick schemes etc.
Terence: Thanks and I appreciate the scriptural thoughts. Some people still like to hide behind pseudonyms. On this blog, I have no problem with some commenters being anonymous, as long as they abide by the blog decorum. But commenters who basically spam the site, then hide behind a nom de plume are a different story. Psalm 26:4 is an apt verse.
Servant: I get all of that stuff in emails or on my phone :-)
Anonymous: Couldn't agree more
What's also interesting is I'm find trinitarians ignoring Greek grammar constructions in debates.
I like to leave that to people like you tho you leave them in the dust with your knowledge
Mr. Foster:
Instead of pushing aside the text you've recieved citing the poster's method, would you face their CONTENT and evaluate them as a scholar? But if you would at least read them through, the world would be a better place... :-)
Dear Anonymous,
Please accept my words in the spirit they were intended, in a spirit of peace.
I don't mind opposing views, but comment bombing gets me more. However, I do carefully read all posts submitted here. Best regards 😀
"However, I do carefully read all posts submitted here."
Good to know, Mr. Foster :-)
I want you to know that I wasn't posting to bother you or "flood" your pag, but I'm just intended to show you new perspectives.
I think that, based on its content, it is not unnecessary material, but thought-provoking.
Nincsnevem, thanks for clarifying your intent. It's hard to tell where people are coming from these days or whether they're relying on ChatGPT, etc. Just to let you know a little about me, while I am a JW and non-Trinitarian, my graduate work was chiefly in the Trinity doctrine, Christology with an emphasis on the Latin pre-Nicenes. I've read numerous books about the Trinity and Christology as well as systematic theology. Two of my favorite Trinitarian authors from the middle ages are Aquinas and Duns Scotus. However, there is always more that one can learn. Best, Edgar.
Mr. Foster, I am aware of your religious affiliation.
One question, I'll try not to put it offensively. Those JWs and ex-JWs who opened a theology book following the Watchtower Society publications were frustrated to feel that their theology was far less nuanced, and developed with great exactitude, let alone inferior. The Watchtower specifically suggests that it is not even necessary, and even harmful, to define doctrines exactly, because it is just "philosophy", ugh.
Let me recommend to your attention Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (whom I consider to be the greatest theologian of the 20th century) and his works.
When I discuss with JWs, I always suggest that we talk not about "the Trinity", but about the Nicene doctrine: was the Son begotten/born from the Father before all worlds/ages, or was he created at a certain time? What does it mean that the New Testament always consistently uses the verbs tikto / gennao and never the verbs poio / ktizo for the origin of the Son from the Father? Is fully God, or just possessing some ontologically inferior divinity?
The Trinity is just the subsequent conclusion that if we already have several persons who are real God, how do we now settle this with the principle that there is one God?
The other interesting topic of discussion is that not only the divinity of the Son is problematic in Watchtower theology, but also that of the Father: I think that their image of God is antopromorphic, "dynamic", contrary to the traditional Christian "actus purus" understanding. For the JWs, God is not timeless, he is literally in a specific place, he is not inherently omniscient, but he only has the "ability" to foreknow, if he wishes so. I believe that these can be refuted logically, and the Scriptures also refute them on many points.
This is such a mythical pagan image of God, as the Greeks imagined the gods living on Olympus, or as a 5-year-old child imagines God, sitting literally above the clouds in a literal chair, with a big beard, and gets angry if he finds out you ate the chocolate that Mommy forbade. Allegedly, Ottoman soldiers had similar conceptions about Allah, that since he is "up there", he does not see them if they drink alcohol or fornicate in a covered place.
In my opinion, the explanation for this is that the Watchtower originally wanted to offer a more easily digestible image of God for a post-Christian, secularized society, and thus was born an image of God that is appealing even to the rationalist mind, which is primarily based on taking the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic descriptions of God in the Old Testament literally. But this is an exegetical impossibility, and it is not by chance that even the Jewish translations (like Tragum) tried to "smooth" them out.
My other favorite topic of debate with JWs is ecclesiology, namely whether the Bible supports the Restorationist claim that true teaching will virtually disappear for thousands of years, that false teaching will take over the Church, and that the "original" Christianity had be "restored" in modern times. How can this 1800-year break be explained? What about Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18?
Because, of course, it is possible to debate what certain sections of the Holy Scriptures mean, but since the gospel is for everyone, and it is also just a modern phenomenon that anyone can have a Bible, I do not think that this could be the criterion of truth, who is able to do biblical "ping-pong" better. There should be a much clearer criterion that even the simplest people can assess. Russel saw clearly that the truth should leave traces in a continuously existing form, he saw this in the pyramids of Giza, and considered them as stone witnesses of God.
But why do we not see this in the Church that has existed continuously since the time of the apostles?
Truth is not determined by any man's preferences
John ch.17:17NIV"Sanctify them by d the truth; your word is truth."
Dear Nincsnevem,
I've read some Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. Personally, I like some of the the things he's written, even though we disagree theologically.
Regarding the actus purus understanding of God, you likely know that contemporary theologians have called that idea into question, and it has problems of its own. Even some of the early church fathers did not adhere to the actus purus idea, which I find most prominent in the middle ages.
You write:
"For the JWs, God is not timeless, he is literally in a specific place, he is not inherently omniscient, but he only has the 'ability' to foreknow, if he wishes so. I believe that these can be refuted logically, and the Scriptures also refute them on many points."
I know we probably have differing views of ecclesial authority and the role of Scripture in the ecclesia, but I do not find anyplace in the Bible where God is said to be atemporal (timeless) or not in a specific place. See Psalm 90:2; 1 Kings 8:43-45; Hebrews 9:24.
Where do Witnesses teach that God is not inherently omniscient? That is news to me. Sounds like you've created a strawman, which is easy to knock down or refute. Granted, JWs believe that God selectively foreknows indeterminata (i.e., future contingents), but that does not mean we reject the idea that Jehovah is intrinsically omniscient.
Additionally, you uncharitably interpret Witness views as akin to Greco/pagan ideas (myths). Well, I guess if you caricature our views, that would be true. However, I've pointed you to verses in the Bible that speak of God being in heaven, being from olam to olam, and I've affirmed that God is omniscient and we believe he is omnipotent (Genesis 17:1). Please don't fault us for believing God dwells in the heavens--though not on a literal chair--and the Bible indicates that God is capable of some type of change. Many Bible verses attest to this fact.
As for "actus purus" vs. "dynamic" understanding of God, in particular, must be taken into account primarily in connection with Old Testament descriptions, that - as Augustine said - "God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion", and that the interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. At the same time, there are statements in the Scriptures that refer to God's immutability and thus to his "actus purus", such as Num 23:19, Ps 102:27, 33:11; cf. 1 Kings 15:29, Prov 19,21 Mal 3:6, James 1:17, Rom 1:23, 1 Tim 1:17, 6:16. The Scripture denies of God the moments of time: the beginning, the end, the succession, and confesses him to exist before all time: Ps 90:2; cf. 2:7, 102:27, Is 41:4; cf. Gen 1, Ps 93, 103:26–28, Deut 32:40, Dan 7:99 (attik yomim, antiquus dierum, the ancient of days, Rev 1:4–18. God and time are not comparable quantities: 2 Pet 3:8; cf. Heb 1:10 Gen 1:14–19, Deut 33:26, Job 36:26, Ps 74:16, 90:4, 119:89–91, Is 43:13, 48:2, Jer 10:10, 1 Tim 1:17, Rev 4:8–11, 10:6.
Reason also sees that eternity is the direct consequence of immutability. For time is the measure of change on the basis of succession; there is no change in God, therefore there can be no time. Time itself is the measure of change. When there was no creation, there was no change, therefore no time. There was only God, who could not change.
The early Greek philosophers denied the reality of time, thinking of existences as eternal. In contrast, according to the Scriptures, God created the time for man when He separated the days from each other (cf. Gen 1). The world was created in time, the history of salvation takes place in time, time is the form of existence in our world, which began with creation.
According to WTS theology, however, God also exists in time, so not in the unchanging eternity according to traditional Christian teaching, but in the flow of time. This is also absurd because both time and space are created realities, and God cannot exist according to the limitations of created realities. Related to this is their teaching that God is not inherently omniscient, but only has the "ABILITY to foresee", which he exercises as he pleases. In essence, they want to cut in front of the dilemma of predestination vs. free will but in this way they essentially reduce God.
"Similarly, if, in certain respects, God chooses to exercise his infinite ability of foreknowledge in a selective way and to the degree that pleases him, then assuredly no human or angel can rightly say: “What are you doing?” (Job 9:12 ; Isa. 45:9; Dan. 4:35) It is therefore not a question of ability, what God can foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “with God all things are possible.” (Matt. 19:26) The question is what God sees fit to foresee, foreknow, and foreordain,…”" (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, page 665)
“The ability to refrain from using foreknowledge can be illustrated with a feature of modern technology. Someone watching a prerecorded sports match has the option to watch the final minutes first in order to know the outcome. But he does not have to start that way. Who could criticize him if he chose to watch the entire match from the beginning? Similarly, the Creator evidently chose not to see how things would turn out. Rather, he chose to wait and, as events unfolded, see how his earthly children would conduct themselves.” (Watchtower, 1/1/2011, p. 13)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1970567
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001549
However, beyond the fact that this concept of divine knowledge contradicts common sense (an inherently not omniscient God cannot exist), it also contradicts the declarations of the Scriptures. The dilemma is that if God foreknows future actions, they must occur, as God's knowledge cannot be deceived. But if they must occur, they are no longer free. This has long troubled many. For this reason, Cicero and the Socinians denied this knowledge of God, and the Stoics and fatalists denied human freedom. But what is the solution to this?
In the face of divine eternity, there is neither past nor future; everything is constantly present before Him; eternity coincides with every moment of time and is with every point in time, just as the center of a circle is in the same relation to every point of its circumference. Consequently, God contemplates future things in the constant present of his eternity, and this contemplation does not influence their future occurrence, just as the watchman's view does not influence the direction of a squad that may be passing below. Just as our recollection does not alter or influence the past, so His foreknowledge does not influence the future. Therefore, we can say: Something does not happen because God "foreknows" it, but because it happens, He knows it.
However, this solution only stands as long as we are strictly looking at divine knowledge, disregarding the divine will. In fact, however, God does not merely play an observing role in the face of future things; they have no existence independent of His will, which would then determine the divine intellect. How freedom can then be reconciled with this divine predestination indeed requires investigation. But these two truths stand firm: God is inherently omniscient, thus know all of our future actions, and yet man has free will. Our understanding could fully reconcile these two truths only if we thoroughly understood how God cooperates with creatures, and what human freedom really is, and how it can stand alongside divine causality. However, both are beyond the created mind.
If there were something that God does not yet know, it could still be known to Him; therefore, He would still be potential with regard to it. However, this contradicts His pure actuality. If God could increase in knowledge, He would not be infinitely perfect. b) God created existing things, that is, He gave every aspect of their existence through absolute self-action: He conceived the content of being and made existence an act of will. Just as things would cease to exist if God's creative will no longer sustained them, they would also cease to be understandable, that is, to be specifically determined, if God were to cease thinking of them. Therefore, it is impossible for something to exist that God does not think of in its entirety, that is, does not know perfectly.
In the sight of divine eternity, there is neither past nor future; everything is constantly present before Him; eternity coincides with every moment of time and is with every point in time, just as the center of a circle is in the same relation to every point of its circumference.
The divine will is pure actuality, actus purus; that is, with the fullness of its content of being and the full intensity of its power, it embraces everything that is worthy of will with one undivided will. Therefore, in Him, there is no room for desires, inclinations, considerations, trials, and changes. All existence and all order of existence are appreciated and affirmed according to their value in God. Just as His knowledge cannot be surprised, so His will cannot be swayed.
"Jehovah has vast reserves of dynamic energy. (Isaiah 40:26) In the creation, he must have harnessed some of this energy when he formed all the matter that makes up the universe." (w92 2/1 pp. 8-13)
- - so God did not create from nothing (creatio ex nihilo), but from his own "energy reserves", which according to them are not infinite, but only "vast". It's good that they don't say that on the seventh day of creation he really had to literally "rest" because he was tired, and needed to recharge his "energy reserves".
The immeasurability of God directly follows from His simplicity and infinity. God, as a simple spirit, cannot be measured in comparison to extension, which presupposes complexity, neither with its individual elements (point, line, place) nor with the whole (space). For even the experiential spiritual, indeed, emotional life is incomparable with extension: truths, decisions, sorrows, virtues cannot be measured by weight or length or fixed in space. Augustine says: "God is truth. And the truth is not square, not round, not long or short; and is everywhere." Due to His infinity, God cannot be exhausted by any finite measure, even in thought. His universal presence follows from his universal causative existence. What exists in its entirety, in its ideal being content and real existence, in its individual nature and universal aspects, is God's conception and creation. Wherever something exists at all, God must also be present with His creative thought and creative power, that is, His power (per potentiam); and not just with His governing power, as Gnosticism thought with regard to the material world, but with His full creative power, which contemplates, creates and sustains everything (per praesentiam sc. cognitionis et gubernationis directae). Since God's activity is identical to His essence, God is present everywhere with His essence (per essentiam). Augustine hits the nail on the head again: "God is all eye, all hand, all foot. He is all eye because He sees everything; all hand because He does everything; all foot because He is everywhere."
My friend, with all due respect, I know what the Aid book says about these matters and older WTs. You still have a lot to understand about JW beliefs, please take the time to learn them better. I also like how the actual purus idea is assumed to be true in your response. It's a philosophical concept that's imposed on the biblical text. All the best.
Does the Bible teach God's omnipresence? The Scripture teaches that a) God is above every place and extent; He is higher than heaven, deeper than the underworld, longer in measure than the earth, and wider than the sea. (Job 11:8–9) "If heaven and the heavens of heavens cannot contain you, how much less this house!" (1 Kings 8:27, cf. Is 40:12) However, in the spirit of its concrete speech and perspective mode, the Scripture primarily celebrates God's universal royal presence: "Do I not fill heaven and earth, declares the Lord?" (Jer 23:24.) "Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I descend to the underworld, you are present. If I take the wings of the dawn, and settle on the far side of the sea, there your hand would guide me." (Ps 139:7; cf. Deut 4:39, Is 66:1, Mt 5:34, Eph 4:6, Rom 11:36, Col 1:16) It proclaims that He operates in every event: "He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:24–28; cf. Heb 1:3, 1 Cor 12:6)
Mr. Foster, the WTS did not publish "new light" on this matter, the Insight book containst the same about the "selective foreknowledge", also some new Watchtowers:
“If God truly had foreknown that this perfect couple would sin, what would this imply? Such a notion would attribute many negative traits to God. He would seem to be unloving, unjust, and insincere. Some might label it cruel to expose the first humans to something that was foreknown to end badly. God might seem responsible for—or at least an accomplice to—all the badness and suffering that followed throughout history. To some, our Creator would even appear foolish.” (Watchtower, 1/1/2011, p. 13)
"I know we probably have differing views of ecclesial authority and the role of Scripture in the ecclesia"
I think the JW and the Catholic view are not very different in this regard. Only what the Catholics call the Magisterium, the JWs call it "faithful and discreet slave". Actually, none of them are "sola Scriptura", but practically "prima Scriptura", but the Catholics do not even claim this, and the JWs are in principle a community with a Protestant background (even if they do not use this term for themselves).
But I wasn't talking about that, but about the Restorationist claim that true Christianity burst like a soap bubble a few decades after the apostles, followed by a 1,800-year hiatus from practice, and then a modern-day movement must "restore" it. Question: Does the Scriptures speak of this break? Who gives authority to the "restorers"? What about the promise in Matthew 16:18, doesn't it suggest continuity?
* hiatus IN practice
---
"It's a philosophical concept that's imposed on the biblical text."
1. Prove that this concept was specifically how pagans thought of their gods. Who? The polytheists?
2. Prove that the Catholic has specifically ADOPTED this. This is the great weakness of all religious historical derivations: the faintest analogy is immediately translated into genealogy.
3. Prove that it is inherently wrong or sinful in itself to "adopt" anything. What if philosophers thought something that was right and that could lead to a better understanding of divine revelation and God? Is that be out of the question? When the apostle Paul spoke about the "unknown god" of the Greeks, he did not rule out that they also had a concept of God that could be based on. Why don't we treat it as 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says: "examine everything; hold firmly to that which is good"?
4. Why should everything that can be described with the word "philosophy" be prohibited? Philosophy itself is nothing more than common sense at a higher level. Do you know 'Fides es Ratio'? I recommend it to your attention, it deals with this, the relationship between Christianity and philosophy:
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html
JEHOVAH Cannot foreknow a thing if it is not foredetermined. As he is the only eternunally pre-existing cause he is the only cause that can eternally foredetermine the eternal future
Either so if evil is eternally foredetermined then logically JEHOVAH Alone is to blame.
"Vast" and "Infinite" are not mutually exclusive categories
Infinite potential would indeed be vast the scriptures use terms like "mighty" "strong" and thus can also be selectively quoted in a way that might suggest to the those unfamiliar with its contents that it's writers thought that JEHOVAH was less than almighty see Psalm ch.24:8
1. The Catholic Encyclopedia states about actus purus: "A term employed in scholastic philosophy to express the absolute perfection of God."
Look at the notes in the entry. Whose names appear? At least part of the inspiration for this concept in scholasticism comes from Aristotle.
2. You want me to prove that Catholicism adopted the actus purus concept? Of course, it did. The notion that God is actus purus did not develop in a vacuum. Aquinas is famously known as the "Christian Aristotle": he was clearly influenced by Aristotle's Metaphysics.
https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/2618/etd-tamu-2005B-PHIL-Gehring.pdf
3. I never said that adopting an idea/concept was necessarily bad. As Origen and Justin Martyr believed, the Greeks got some things right: not everything they thought was wrong or unscriptural. My problem is with the adoption of concepts that take us away from the divine will. Witnesses do endeavor to apply 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and Proverbs 14:15.
4. I'm familiar with Fides et ratio, have read parts of it, and still have my copy on the bookshelf. Of course, I'm sure you know that philosophers and theologians avidly debate the relationship between faith and reason. The main concern for Witnesses is letting human reason override the dictates of God's will. We're not the only ones who have expressed concern for how philosophy might lead us away from Christ if we're not careful.
Awake 2/2009, page 12:
The Bible leaves us in no doubt as to God’s having foreknowledge. He knows “from the beginning the finale,” says Isaiah 46:10. He even used human secretaries to record many prophecies. (2 Peter 1:21) What is more, those prophecies always come true because God has both the wisdom and the power to fulfill them in every detail. Hence, God can not only foreknow but also foreordain events whenever he chooses to do so. However, does God foreordain the destiny of every human or even the total number who will gain salvation? Not according to the Bible.
The Bible teaches that God is selective when it comes to foreordaining the future.
Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 1:789:
Describing God’s observation of the actions of all men, Jeremiah wrote that His “eyes are opened upon all the ways of the sons of men, in order to give to each one according to his ways.” (Jer 32:19) Of Jehovah’s omniscience and his purpose to exercise justice toward all, the apostle Paul wrote: “There is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting.” (Heb 4:13; 2Ch 16:9; Ps 66:7; Pr 15:3) Of the searching quality of God’s examination of men, the psalmist says: “His own eyes behold, his own beaming eyes examine the sons of men.”—Ps 11:4.
JEHOVAH actively uses his sovereign power to secure man's free moral agency so he actively caused certain aspects of the future to remain objectively undetermined hence objectively unforseeable in keeping with his exalted morality So it is actually your position that JEHOVAH is not at leave to exercise sovereign power to determine the future in this manner that does injury to his majesty especially his moral perfection.
Dear aservantofJehovah,
"JEHOVAH Cannot foreknow a thing if it is not foredetermined."
This is a very poor "solution" for the problem of how free will and divine predestination relate to each other. The way WTS theology handles this issue, and the end result they got out of it (a God who is not inherently omniscient, therefore existing in the flow of time) clearly shows how absurd the biblicist approach is.
But okay, let's say that inherent omniscience implies that there is no free will (as Calvinism - according to many - follows). Well, then there is no free will, because the believer does not absolutize the truths concerning man against those concerning God, but vice versa.
Don't like the end result? Chapter 9 of the Epistle to the Romans is the answer for you.
In church history, the following solutions were basically created:
1. Pelagianism
2. Semipelagianism
3. Molinism
4. Thomism
5. Calvinism
I have given the order not in the order of the development of the given theology, but in the extent to which human free will is absolutized at the expense of divine order. In this regard, WTS is Pelagian.
Does God's foreknowledge influence our free actions? In theory, we must answer no, otherwise we cannot talk about free will. However, how this foresight is compatible with freedom is answered by different theories – as we have seen – the Thomists and Molinists have different views. Before the Thomist-Molinist debate, answers were usually given that viewed divine knowledge separately from divine will.
They said that if we contemplate God's foreknowledge in itself, it cannot influence people's actions. Jerome writes, "Something will not happen in the future because God knows it will happen in advance; but God knows it in advance because it will happen" (Dial adv Pel 3 6). Similar statements are made by Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Augustine, etc.). Modern analogy: I look at my watch and find that a train will arrive at the railway station in half an hour; it does not arrive because I know it, but I know it because it will arrive. Augustine says that just as our reminiscences do not alter or influence past events, so God's foreknowledge does not influence future events (Lib arb III 4 4; cf. Civ V 10).
However, this solution holds only as long as we are solely considering divine knowledge, disregarding divine will. In reality, God does not merely observe future things; they do not have an existence independent of His will that would determine divine understanding.
God does not weigh our actions after the fact, their motives, and the responsibility for them. He foresaw all this, and everything happened as he saw. In His knowledge, things and actions appear with their full causality, hierarchy of values, and interaction.
So why God's foreknowledge does not influence us? The full answer depends on answering another question: in what does God foresee our free acts of will? There are three answers to the latter question: either the Thomists', the Molinists', or the one that it is an unfathomable mystery for us.
"Either so if evil is eternally predetermined then logically JEHOVAH Alone is to blame."
This is also a very poor solution to the theodicy problem. With this much power, God is to blame because he kept the murderer alive, even though if he hadn't kept him alive, he would have fallen back into the primordial chaos.
(to be continued)
This difficulty persists only as long as we view divine will one-sidedly, that is, from the perspective of objects distinct from it. However, considered in itself, the divine will encompasses everything that can be willed according to the degree of its will-ability, and naturally, it does not extend beyond that. Evil is not willed by God, just as impossibility is not understandable; God's knowledge does not extend to impossibilities, without thereby impairing his omniscience. That God wishes to realize some finite things and not others does not affect the infiniteness of his will, just as the infiniteness of divine existence is not altered by either the addition or (in thought) the removal of created realities.
Of course, God does not desire evil, but it can be said that in some way, he still wills it (so that greater good may come from it), since what God does not want does not occur. Therefore, God does not will evil in itself and for itself. In the current world order, God can and indeed does will evil incidentally, but only for the sake of the good associated with it.
I suggest a book about it: https://docdro.id/KDFs0eO
""Vast" and "Infinite" are not mutually exclusive categories"
Generally yes, but this statement that "he must have harnessed some of this energy" specifically refers to at least the quantification of this "energy". This idea is absurd anyway, since although in the natural sciences we talk about matter and energy, in the theology, the energy is also matter, and energy is not spirit. In theology, all material that can be quantified. God is a simple and pure spirit, not something with great energies.
Mr. Foster (3:24 PM)
1. These are pretty big leaps:
a) "Actus purus" is an term of scholastic theology - does the fact that this term took shape there perhaps rule out that it was part of the Christian faith anyway? Perhaps the image of God of Eastern Orthodox Christians (who have always had an aversion to Western scholasticism) is different in terms of content in this respect?
b) The fact that scholastic theology ALSO applied Aristotle, where does it prove that this concept was specifically taken from him, and moreover, overriding divine revelation?
2. I did not argue that Aquinas' theology was "influenced" by Aristotle, the question here was that specifically the concept of God's "actus purus" was taken from him. Thomas Aquinas is said to have "baptized" the pagan Aristotle, that is to say, he used all his discoveries, methods and ideas, developed them and integrated them into the Christian thought system, which were compatible with the latter, and sifted and set aside everything that was not, with respectful criticism. In fact, it was this "baptizing"-purifying work that scholasticism did that made the ancient Hellenic-Roman philosophers indispensable pillars of European culture.
3. "I never said that adopting an idea/concept was necessarily bad." - This is good to hear, despite this, the Watchtower often uses this reasoning technique, the association fallacy:
a) The "pagans" believed / practiced X thing
b) Therefore the thing X is bad
"My problem is with the adoption of concepts that take us away from the divine will." - However, it would need to be concretely proven that this concept would "take us away" from anything.
4. "The main concern for Witnesses is letting human reason override the dictates of God's will." - Well, this would indeed be a problem, but why should we assume that "philosophy" in Catholic theology "overrides" God's will? I assume you know the saying "philosophia est ancilla theologiae".
Mr. Foster (3:31 PM and 3:33 PM)
I did not dispute that the term "foreknowledge" is used in the Watchtower publications, and they even speak of "omniscience", but in terms of content it still means a selectively, willfully exercised foreknowledge, rather than real inherent omniscience. After all, it is still a cornerstone of Watchtower theology that God did not know "in advance" that Adam and Eve would sin, saying that they were given a "real chance", which we believe can only be ensured if God almost "closed his eyes".
From the absurd theory of "selective foresknowledge ability" comes the view that the fall of man into sin somehow caught God by surprise, and therefore he came up with redemption as a kind of "backup plan".
On the contrary, "before" He created the world, time did not exist, but God did not create the grid of time for Himself, so that the clock starts "ticking" "over" Him from now on, this only applies to the created world.
When talking about time in theology, it is important to logically define the concept of time. The concept of time is nothing more than that time is the measure of change. So the passage of time measures the degree of change, just as a video recording consists of frames. And the Bible says this about God in this regard: "He never changes or casts a shifting shadow." (James 1:17)
Now if time is the measure of change, it follows that where/who does not change, time does not apply. For God, every moment of the entire created world condenses into a single moment, a cosmic "now": From God's perspective, the fall of man into sin occurred at the same "time" as the present moment. For God, there is no past, present, and future. For Him, it is always "today", always "now", there is no passage of time for Him, He doesn't have time, so from His perspective, it makes no sense to talk about "seeing into the future", because for Him, what is future for us is present for Him.
And from this follows the JWs proposition that redemption is not more than the restoration of the Garden of Eden (at the same time, it is still more, since if Adam and Eve had not sinned, then the 144k "anointed" would not have gone to heaven, based on their logic), so the two-class redemption regime it ultimately follows.
Most of the stuff you're bringing up has been discussed here before. For more on actus purus, see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/
Read Aristotle's Metaphysics XI and XII.
My statement that a thing cannot be foreknown unless it is foredetermined is not a solution to any problem, it's a derivative of basic logic and commonsense ,every effect has a pre-existing cause(s) sufficient to explain it. The only cause(s) sufficient to explain an accurately foreknown fact would be precise foredetermination of said fact and knowledge of said foredetermination.
The issue therefore is not JEHOVAH'S omniscience or lack thereof but rather does JEHOVAH have the right and the might to create a future that is undetermined in certain respects with the aim of securing the free moral agency of His intelligent creation and in harmony with his own moral perfection in other words is he truly omnipotent. The contention that JEHOVAH lacks the power/wisdom to engineer a future where certain aspects are left undetermined is what injures his majesty not denial of a man made standard of omniscience
Again my statement that only JEHOVAH could precisely foredetermine an eternal future from an eternal past is a deduction based on commonly accepted premises of cause and effect JEHOVAH Would logically be the only cause sufficient to serve as an explanation of such an effect. The standard first cause argument(s) for the existence of God are based on based on these premises e.g the absolute necessity of prior potential to account for later effects. The notion of a finite time undermines these premises as there can be no temporal distinctions outside of time therefore there would be nothing illogical about an effect causing itself under such circumstances especially if something can magically be made to spring from nothing.
The statement that a discrete amount of a reserve was harvested in no way necessarily implies the reserve is finite.
Where there is no free moral agency there can be no logical moral evaluation of any sort. Thus once every act and and thought of JEHOVAH and his intelligent creation has been fore-determined from eternity to eternity morality itself would have been banished.
Dear aservantofJehovah (6:43 PM),
there is no question that in WTS theology this "selective" foreknowing (and not inherently omniscient) God is used to cheaply bypass the dilemma of predestination.
It is ironic that the Watchtower theology is fideist-biblicist in certain respects, but at the same time applies the opposite approach to other issues (e.g. predestination, hell, Trinity).
So it does not start from the revelation, and I try to find a solution to how it can be explained and reconciled with common sense, but almost before "opening" the Bible at all, it uses a rationalist 'a priori' approach.
For example, Russel thought about eternal damnation like this: "Is it reasonable for a good and loving God to punish with eternal damnation? Hmm, that sounds pretty drastic, a good and loving God _cannot_ do that. So it can't be true!". And then you just have to find some "one-liner" "proof" verse for this, oh, we already foundEcclesiastes 9:5, here we are, mission accomplished, that's all. However, this is the wrong approach and poor theology.
In the same way, they want to "save" the issue of free will. If God knows what we will decide in the future, then the will is not free. Incidentally, this is also one of the arguments of atheists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will
But this is not a solution, but a circumvention of the dilemma, and it creates a God that is contrary to both common sense and revelation about God.
There are much more sophisticated solutions in theology than this, first of all it should be noted that the fact that God sees our future and "wills" it in a certain sense does not preclude that what is a fait accompli from God's point of view is future from our point of view. and from our point of view it should be a function of our free will. However, by definition, compared to the divine absolute and objective point of view, the human point of view is relative and subjective.
That temporality, the flow of time, the change of creatures itself is a created reality is the biblical teaching. However, if temporality is the property of the created world, it also follows that God is not subject to temporality, God is above time. What unfolds in time from our point of view is a constant present from God's point of view. Therefore, it is meaningless to talk about the "future" from God's point of view. Therefore, by definition, God necessarily knows everything that has happened, is happening, will happen, or even could have happened in the created world. And if he knows, _in a certain sense_ he naturally wants to. It follows from this that he also wants evil _in a certain sense_ (not for himself and does not approve), since it is part of the divine plan, the goal of which is to achieve a greater good.
And if that doesn't mean that our decisions, or life doesn't matter anyway, this awareness is not debilitating, but very liberating. I can use an analogy like a little boy sitting in the car and his father driving on a bad, dangerous, serpentine road. Then when they ask him how and were you not afraid? Then the little boy can say that "I wasn't afraid because my father was at the wheel". So everything that will happen is "calculated" into the divine plan, in which everything is bad and painful for us, it has a final purpose that is much better than what we can imagine.
You continue mischaracterise the issue JEHOVAH is absolutely omniscient and all powerful the issue whether the future is foredetermined from eternity . You can dance away from it all you like, if every thought ,act and event is unchangeably foreknown then the liberty that makes morality possible is nonexistent.
The scriptures primarily reveal JEHOVAH as the epitome of moral excellence a thing that would be impossible in the absolutely deterministic universe you are describing, he is also revealed as one with unlimited power and wisdom the scriptures further reveal that he has always used that power in harmony with his moral standards. Using his power to deny mankind the liberty that makes true morality Possible and then blaming his creatures for the resultant amorality would be the opposite of what is revealed in scripture about JEHOVAH. Thus it is our evaluation of JEHOVAH that is harmony with the divine revelation not yours
Time is purely abstract like math thus is inescapable it can neither be created nor destroyed has no beginning or end is neither cause nor effect the change we see in created order is on account of the limited potential of the creation it is not caused by time abstractions never cause anything they merely describe reality both caused and uncaused. The dilemma to which you allude is nonexistent we do not live in the mechanistic deterministic universe of Christendom's theologians.
Mark ch.12:30NIV"Love the LORD your God ... with all your mind ...’" Reason and logic are not dirty words to JEHOVAH.
Nincsnevem,
You wrote:
So it does not start from the revelation, and I try to find a solution to how it can be explained and reconciled with common sense, but almost before "opening" the Bible at all, it uses a rationalist 'a priori' approach.
For example, Russel thought about eternal damnation like this: "Is it reasonable for a good and loving God to punish with eternal damnation? Hmm, that sounds pretty drastic, a good and loving God _cannot_ do that. So it can't be true!". And then you just have to find some "one-liner" "proof" verse for this, oh, we already found Ecclesiastes 9:5, here we are, mission accomplished, that's all. However, this is the wrong approach and poor theology.
EGF Reply: You totally mischaracterize what Russell and the other Bible Students did. Have you ever read Russell or Rutherford, or just read what others say about them? One reason Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah "cannot" torture people forever in Hades is because of what divine revelation tells us about the kind of God that Jehovah is: see Jeremiah 7:31; 1 John 4:8; Lamentations 3:31-33. It's not just Eccl. 9:5 that made Russell turn the hose on Hell. See also Psalm 146:3-4; John 11:11-14 and many other verses that include Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 18:4. The belief in a non-fiery Hades is based on numerous verses and reflections on the kind of God that Jehovah shows himself to be. Did you know that Jesus was also in Hades but he was not left there? What about Jonah being in the belly of Sheol?
Dear Mr. Foster,
of course, I don't make irresponsible or bold claims without any basis, I know the Watchtower literature well, I have everything from 1879 that was ever published, including the "secret" internal documents that ordinary rank-and-file members can't even read.
By the way, I would be happy to have a theological discussion with you in a more manageable forum, because this is hindered here due to the brevity of the text and the pre-moderation.
I'm sorry that you didn't go into my offered debate about ecclesiology, even though in the key of all things is there. Biblical "ping-pong" can also be fun, but if we grasp the question from here, we can immediately give a scholar's mate.
JWs basically claim that the current belief of the Watchtower (Why exactly the current one? Maybe any kind of "new light" will be announced tomorrow...) isthe same as the belief of the early apostolic church ("congregation"), then it is perfectly appropriate to look at extrabiblical sources, whether they suggest this at all. Well, the answer is absolutely not.
Of course, you can push aside all the church fathers, that they were all "apostates", but then were your "non-apostate" church fathers, who are testifying about the alleged Watchtowerite beliefs of the primitive church? Or do you think that this wicked "apostate" church is such a perfect falsifier of history that it was able to completely disappear all traces of the alleged anciente JW-like Christianity together with the "Jehovah" from all NT manuscripts? That just sounds like a silly conspiracy theory.
It was difficult for Christians to accept even theologically insignificant translation changes (for example, the changing of the Latin term used for 'qiqayon' (likely castor oil plant) in Jonah 4:6 from 'cucurbita' (“gourd”) to 'hedera ' ("ivy"), and a bishop had caused a great disturbance just by reading it aloud, and had nearly lost his flock), which is why it took centuries until Jerome's Vulgate finally replaced the Vetus Latina in Western Christianity. Don't you not that the theologically fundamental changes in the Bible about the identity of God would have passed without a word, without it being noticed by any one, and causing considerable rebellion?
What we are talking about about the afterlife, the monistic/dualistic perception of man and its Scriptural foundation is also an interesting topic, let me recommend a good book on this subject: http://ia804709.us.archive.org/14/items/christiandoctri04salmgoog/christiandoctri04salmgoog.pdf
It's worth noting that the WTS publications typically refer to the Old Testament when discussing the state of the dead. If we look at the full biblical background, we must see that many questions were gradually revealed by God. What was not clear to the people of Israel during the Old Testament times became clearer with the newer revelations of the New Testament. The Society should be aware of this principle, as it often refers to Proverbs 4:18: "But the path of the righteous is like the bright morning light That grows brighter and brighter until full daylight." (NWT). But they barely distinguish between the Old and New Testaments, promise and fulfillment, and even reject the terms Old and New Testament, replacing them with the expressions "Hebrew Scriptures" and "Christian Greek Scriptures".
We can talk about the "knight's jump" method (jumping from one place to another in the Scripture like a knight moves on a chessboard), without regard to the context of salvation history.
However, it is not possible to blindly tear out a part of the Bible and say: this is the truth, because if this were possible, then it would also be possible to extract from it that there is no God, because "this is what the fool said in his heart: There is no God." This is exactly the problem with the oft-cited part of the book of Ecclesiastes, since this part reflects the pessimistic mood of the narrator, and the work is nothing more than the author's contentious debate with himself, a work like a piece of music with counterpoint.
So this part of the book of Ecclesiastes cannot be considered a final doctrinal revelation. He also writes that man has nothing better to do than to eat, drink and be merry. Well, then, how much of an authority will he be on the afterlife? Anyway, the statement that "the dead know nothing" does not mean, based on the context, that they are unconscious, but that they have no knowledge of "what happens under the sun."
Compare this with other verses where the same expression is found. "Two hundred men went with Absalom ... they went in their innocence and knew nothing." 2 Samuel 15:11. Another example: "The boy knew nothing; only Jonathan and David knew the matter." 1 Samuel 20:39. Paul says about a conceited teacher: "he is puffed up and knows nothing." 1 Timothy 6:4. So, were they completely devoid of thought or consciousness? No. It simply means they knew nothing about the matters at hand. The same applies to Ecclesiastes 9:5. The context explains it: "and they will never again have a share in anything that happens under the sun." Verse 6.
Let's see Psalm 146:4: The original text in the quote reads as follows: "bayyōwm hahū āḇəḏū eštōnōṯāw", which roughly means, "on that day, his (shining) plans/thoughts are destroyed/lost." I don't know how it can support anything. It only proves that his plans no longer exist, which is quite logical if the person is dead. The term "eshton" does not refer to a person's entire intellectual (mind) activity, but only to a very small slice of it. So, "bright, great thoughts," or something similar. Comparing it with similar verses from the scriptures, it's much more likely that these bright thoughts refer to plans related to earthly life. The scriptures speak in many places about the fragility of man's plans for earthly life, if they ignore the will of the God, and the finite nature of earthly life.
His thoughts, his plans. In the margin of the Revised Version, it says, "plans." The Greek word for thoughts is DIALOGISMOI. Greenfield interprets it as, "argument, reasoning, thought, meditation, plan." If we trust in earthly nobles, when they die, their plans fail and we are left without help. This psalm contrasts confidence in the flesh with trust in God.
By the way, it is not Sheol / Hades that is fiery, but Gehenna. The King James Version caused lasting confusion by translating both Greek words hades and gehenna as “hell.” This is often reflected in older liturgical texts which say that "Christ descended into hell." However, properly speaking, "hell" is theologically equivalent to gehenna or to "the lake of fire" of the "second death" (Rev. 20:14; 21:8). On the other hand, hades is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew sheol – the common place or state of the reposed. Paradise (Luke 23:43) or Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22) were understood as places or conditions within hades-sheol. Hence, the spirits of the righteous of old, as well as that of the repentant thief and of our Lord himself went into hades, but not into hell (gehenna or "the lake of fire").
By the way, it is not Sheol / Hades that is fiery, but Gehenna is. The King James Version caused lasting confusion by translating both Greek words hades and gehenna as “hell.” This is often reflected in older liturgical texts which say that "Christ descended into hell." So how can you ask, did I know that Jesus was in Hades? Every Christian who knows the Apostles' Creed knows it. While Jesus was dead, the human soul descended into "Hades", within that to Abraham's bosom, also known as paradise, also known as "limbus patrum".
However, properly speaking, "hell" is theologically equivalent to gehenna or to "the lake of fire" of the "second death" (Rev. 20:14; 21:8). On the other hand, hades is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew sheol – the common place or state of the reposed. Paradise (Luke 23:43) or Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22) were understood as places or conditions within hades-sheol. Hence, the spirits of the righteous of old, as well as that of the repentant thief and of our Lord himself went into hades, but not into hell (gehenna or "the lake of fire").
Then there's another problem. The Septuagint ca. It was created around 250 BC. At that time, the Greeks understood two things by the word "hades". Hades, the god of the underworld, one of the sons of the god Zeus, and the realm over which the god Hades ruled, i.e. the Underworld, where, according to their belief, the souls of the dead go. This was the Greek world of faith, the Greeks believed in this. My question is: why did the Jewish translators who first translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek translate the Hebrew sheol into "Hades"? Hehehe, good question, right? Perhaps the Watchtower-like answer could be that the translators were not inspired, and apostate copyists inserted the same words into the New Testament. I am already waiting for a 'Brand New World Translation' to be published, in which, in addition to the 237 mentions of Jehovah, the ten mentions of Sheol will finally regain their "rightful place"...
Ezekiel 18:4 - Here, the Hebrew term 'nephesh' obviously does not mean what Christian theology means by the soul, and thus by definition does not teach the death of IT. Such phrases in the Bible: "may my soul die with the death of the righteous", are Hebraisms. The Scriptures describe the origin of man not philosophically, but illustratively, and therefore attribute the נָפֶשׁ (nefesh, the principle of life manifested in warm breath) to both man and animal. The nefesh often replaces the reflexive and personal pronouns in Hebrew; thus such statements should be understood: "my soul shall die" = "I shall die". With regard to the terminology of the Old Testament, it is not new, it is even included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (363):
"In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" _often_ refers to human life or the entire human person (Cf. Mt 16:25-26; Jn 15:13; Acts 2:41) But "soul" _also_ refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him (Cf. Mt 10:28; 26:38; Jn 12:27; 2 Macc 6 30.), that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man.""
The term "onoma" (=name) plays a similar role in the New Testament, e.g. Acts 1:15: "the number of names" = "the number of people".
Anyway, although JWs often accuse us of taking our concept of the soul from Plato, in fact, the Platonist understanding of the soul was condemned as heresy by the Catholic Church in 1312 at the Council of Vienne, where extreme monist and extreme dualist conceptions of man were condemned.
The historical fact is that in the time of Jesus, with the exception of the Sadducees, the Jews believed in the afterlife, and Jesus did not reprimand them for this, and in an interesting way he told a parable in which the rich man suffers in a fiery place. If a JW used such illustrations in his preaching work today, I would certainly not praise him for it. Because maybe he meant it symbolically and not literally. However, it is impossible that these symbols will only be "deciphered" by JWs after 1900 years and for 1900 years everyone will be forced to explain this as if this parable has a realistic basis.
Dear 'aservantofJehovah' (9:49 AM)
I'm not mischaracterizing the question, I'm just drawing the conclusion that your publications write. God is not inherently omniscient, but can only see into the future IF HE WANTS. However, this is not omniscience, but rather like a Greek god who - when he feels like it - looks into the magic ball. The fact that you can't imagine human free will in any other way than that it is only possible to surprise God himself is not my problem. The fact that God obviously knows our future from his point of view, because for him it is not even the future, but a constant "eternal present" - that means that the future is still future from our point of view, and free will only applies to the human point of view. If you want to defend the goodness of God against the evil of this world, with this image of God closing his eyes, you have not solved it, you have only bypassed the dilemma. After all, if a tragedy befalls someone, he can still say why God didn't look into his magic ball if he could have.
The concept of time is also defined on the basis of change, the unit of measure of time is also defined on the basis of change of matter, cf. International System of Units (SI) definition of second.
So time is the unit, the measurement of change, and since there is no change in God (cf. James 1:17), there is no temporality in Him.
I guessed that you were bringing up God's omnipotence, but what does divine omnipotence cover? Could He not be saint? Could He destroy himself? In fact, God's omnipotence does not extend to conceptual impossibilities, this is also the answer to the mocking question of atheists, whether he can create such a heavy stone that he cannot lift himself; or can he create a square circle. The omnipotence of God is bound by logic and ethics: God cannot undo what has once happened, cannot create a square circle; cannot sin, cannot annihilate Himself, etc. Omnipotence extends only to everything, that is, to the totality of the real. Logical and metaphysical contradictions are not real, but null; therefore, they cannot be realized. And for this reason "it is more correct to say that these cannot be realized than to say that God cannot realize them." (Thom I 25, 3 c; cf. Anselm. Prosl. 7.)
"Reason and logic are not dirty words to JEHOVAH." - Certainly not, and neither is philosophy. But where did I say that? I criticized the rationalist approach, which is not the same as rationality.
@Nincsnevem JEHOVAH creates the future(and can even change it) he does not merely "know" it .so it is not as your "strawman" implies a matter JEHOVAH'S "closing" his eyes but of JEHOVAH'S exercising his omnipotence in a moral manner.
To say that JEHOVAH has chosen to use his power to make the future undetermined in certain respects is no violation of logic.
Time is an abstract value that can describe rates of change it never produces change and it is not identical to the things it measures. A square circle is a far less violent assault on logic than any attempt at reconciling the mutually exclusive notions of absolute determinism and free moral agency.
The bible does indicate that JEHOVAH is capable of mental and emotional change as distinct from moral change.
On account of his infinite power he is not subject to decay however.
Any "philosophy that requires the abandonment of logic and commonsense is philosophy in name only.
Dear aservantofJehovah (3:36 AM),
The fact that there is free will from the point of view of creatures does not mean or exclude that there is predestination on the part of God. The fact that you cannot imagine this is not an argument, I recommended a book on the subject above.
It's not a simple topic, but the JW solution is the complete impossibility.
Here it is said that the modern man, who is born in the post-Christian secularized society, does not know what to do with the mysteries. Therefore, the WTS fabricated an image of God that is easier to digest at first, but this - considered from all angles - causes more problems than it solves.
The fact that God does not even "foresee" the future in the default case, perhaps you feel that you have "absolved" God of the weight of "participating" in sin and suffering, but in doing so you have practically placed him in temporality, and of course you have set him up as quasi-powerless.
Because if for example a tragedy happens to you, e.g. a loved one dies, what does the JW explanation say? "Oh, well, God didn't even know about it in advance, because he wanted to give freedom to the sinner", and this is supposed to be solved in no other way than by closing his eyes.
You can criticize that I used this wording, that he "closed his eyes", but in terms of content, maybe this is not the WTS view? Isn't that what this "selective foresight" means? He is not omniscient, necessarily and inherently, but only - according to his wishes - he can see into the future IF he feels like it. Ergo, you may get surprises, experience new twists and turns, etc. For example, according to the WTS view, God did not know in advance that Adam and Eve would sin, and therefore the plan of redemption was born AFTER that.
It is a serious mistake that God had a separate "original plan" and a second, disaster plan, backup plan: he knew very well that man would fall, and that is why he ordained Christ in the first place as an atoning sacrifice (Romans 3:25, cf. Ephesians 1:4). The fall did not come to him unexpectedly, nor did he come up with the idea of the salvation as a plan B.
It is much more comforting to know that although God did not wish evil for himself, it is all part of a much bigger plan for us, because God loves us more than we love ourselves. Becaus
"where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" (Romans 5:20)
And we often don't understand it, we even struggle against it, like the molded one in Rome 9, because it is a mystery.
You write:
"Any "philosophy that requires the abandonment of logic and commonsense is philosophy in name only."
I totally agree with that. However, scholastic Christian philosophy is really nothing more than common sense at a higher level. It cannot overwrite what God has revealed, but is aimed at reaching the deepest possible understanding in the light of revelation, as well as synthesizing faith and reason, as far as our limited human comprehension allows.
Nincsnevem,
Other duties command my attention right now, so I'm going to be brief. I discuss Psalm 146:4 and Eccl. 9:5, 10 here: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/07/ecclesiates-95-comments-death-is-deep.html
Your escape plan does not work when one digs deeper into both verses.
You mention ecclesiology, but the reason I did not pursue that debate is because I'm out of the debating game and I have debated ecclesiology with Catholics in the past. Lots of time and energy were exerted and it was a learning experience for me, but I cannot repeat it now. I would rather spend my time doing other things pertaining to the Bible and teaching others about Scripture. Blogging is part of my life, definitely not my whole life. Best regards.
Concerning nephesh (nepes):
The word "soul" (Hebrew nepes and Greek psyche) apparently has three primary meanings in the Bible:
(1) A human person (Genesis 2:7).
(2) An animal.
(3) The life enjoyed by a person or animal (Genesis 9:3-5).
Genesis 2:7 describes Adam becoming a "living being" (Amplified Bible) or a "living soul" (New World Translation 1984). The Apostle Paul invokes this account when reproving some in the Corinthian ecclesia (1 Cor. 15:45). Furthermore, the Bible calls animals "souls" in Numbers 31:28; Ezekiel 47:9; Revelation 8:9; 16:3. For an example of psyche denoting "life," see Matthew 16:25; 20:28.
Technically, I do not believe there is a metaphysical dichotomy between the body and the soul in the OT or NT. A number of biblical commentators have noted this point:
"The Jewish origin of the word [psyche] is determinative: Nephesh is the living quality of the flesh. The soul belongs to man's earthly existence. It does not exist without physical life. It is not, say, freed by death, then to live its untrammelled purity. Death is its end. The word psyche can also mean the person, and this is related to SWMA, SARX and PNEUMA (Rom. 16:4: hUPER THS YUXHS MOU 'For my life')" (An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. Hans Conzelmann. 179).
Notice where the "souls" are located in Rev. 6:9; they are "at the foot of the altar" (Amplified Bible), and this description reminds one of Lev. 4:7 where the Aaronic priest is commanded to pour out the blood of a bull at the "base of the altar" (Amplified Bible). Why was the priest to pour out blood at the foot of the altar? Because the life ("soul") of the flesh was in the blood (Lev. 17:14). That's why there is no remission of sins unless blood is poured out (Heb. 9:22ff).
Another use of nephesh is the carcass itself.
There is objective free moral agency not merely from the point of view of creatures that is what you need to understand free moral agency is an objective reality ,and I see we are going to be continuing with the strawman bullying . Determinism is the illusion not free moral agency. It's not a question of JEHOVAH closing his eyes as you continue mischaracterise the issue ,JEHOVAH is not the passive observer of a self made future he is the active creator of a future that will honour him, so what we really have from determinists is a projection of human type insecurities upon JEHOVAH, the reason that JEHOVAH can confer GENUINE liberty upon his creatures is that ,unlike human rulers, he is utterly invincible in fact that is the real meaning of Christ resurrection. He can undo any damage done by those who choose to misuse the ACTUAL liberty with which he has blessed his intelligent creation. So we are comforted that full restoration is coming and honoured to do our part in sharing in Christ's suffering for the sake of vindicating JEHOVAH'S name so although our individual sufferings are not predetermined the blessings that follow are
Your presupposition that Adam and Eve were destined to sin is what is blinding you. Our first parents were OBJECTIVELY Free as determined by JEHOVAH only with such OBJECTIVE Free moral agency could sin be justly charged to them. We don't make any charge of wrongdoing on hurricanes and earthquakes or even on the microbes that are responsible diseases because these are inherently amoral. If our first parents were predestined from eternity to a certain course then the fulfillment of that destiny could not possibly leave them open to any just charge of wrongdoing.
Psalms ch.119:165NIV"Great peace have those who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble."
For those who humbly allow themselves to be instructed by JEHOVAH there are no faith threatening dilemmas,we know our heavenly Father to be the giver of GENUINE liberty and that no one who chooses to use that liberty to honor his God will loose his reward.
The Bible never says that Christ's soul "descended" into Hades nor are we told that the soul is immaterial. I agree that Gehenna = the lake of fire (language employed in Revelation) but is the fire of Gehenna literal or symbolic? Are there also immortal worms in Gehenna? One thing's for sure: the God of love does not punish people forever. What loving human father punishes his child by letting them roast in the oven to teach a lesson?
Nincnevem, here are some thoughts I once posted here:
I would now like to post some quotations from Paul Johnson's book entitled _A History of Christianity_ and obtain your input:
He writes: "Ambrose [of Milan] was a superstitious and credulous man, with a weird cosmology. He distinguished between paradise and the superior Kingdom of Heaven, already inhabited by Constantine and (after his death) Theodosius. He thought, in fact, there were seven heavens. Then there was Hades, where people waited for the last judgment, and purgatory, a place of second baptism or furnace of fire, where the precious metal in a soul was tested to rid it of the base alloy. Finally, there was Hell, divided into three regions, of increasing horror" (p. 107).
On pages 340-342, Johnson's comments are a bit long to type at this point, so I will just summarize them. The historian points out that Scotus Eriugena denied the existence of an eternal or material hell, and substituted "pangs of conscience" in its place. But despite having misgivings about an eternal hell, he refused to believe that such ideas should be taught pastorally. Why not? So that the parishioners would be frightened into serving God by being told that an eternal hell existed (whether it, in fact, did exist or not). This is why "the three most influential medieval teachers, Augustine, Peter Lombard, and Aquinas, all insisted that the PAINS of hell were PHYSICAL as well as mental and spiritual, and that REAL FIRE played a part in them" (caps. for emphasis).
Johnson also reports that "the general theory was that Hell included any horrible pain that the human imagination could conceive of, plus an infinite variety of others . . . Jerome said that Hell was like a huge winepress. Augustine said it was peopled by ferocious flesh-eating animals, which tore humans to bits slowly and painfully, and were themselves undamaged by the fires." In view of the observations above (1) how can some professed Christians say that Catholicism does not presently espouse a different view than what has been expressed in the past, when one reads about contemporary discussions concerning Hell which exclusively refers to it in terms of separation from God? (2) What kind of God is this described by the previously-mentioned writers? What type of God could carry out such punishments? The God of the Bible evidently could not torture souls for eternity (Jeremiah 7:31; 1 John 4:8).
Dear Mr. Foster,
If you look into any theology book, you will see that the JWs have discovered nothing new when they point out that in that much quoted Old Testament passages like Ezekiel 18:4, 'nephes' does not mean the "immaterial part" (spiritual substance), but the person. When the text talks about the death of this 'nephesh', do not deny the afterlife, even according to JW logic, since here the death of the 'nephesh' is nothing more than the death of the person.
Whether the fire of Gehenna is symbolic or not is another question, but it is certain that even if it's symbolic, it does not mean annihilation. In order to be able to talk about a symbol or a symbolic meaning, it is necessary that there is a conceptual or logical connection between the symbol and the symbolized thing. For example, a skull may represent death, a schematic drawing of an ear may represent hearing, but to claim that what the Scriptures say about eternal punishment actually means annihilation is no less distorted than saying that a halved lemon "symbolizes" a racehorse. When JWs resort to the "symbolic meaning" defense, it is a simple misrepresentation, an attempt to evade the concrete statements, and the Scriptures are completely specific about this, just listen: Mt 8:12, Mt 25:41, Mt 25:46, Mt 3, 12; Lk 3,16-17, Mk 9,43-49, Lk 13,28, Rom 2,6-9, 2 Thess 1,6-9.
If Jesus' soul didn't go down to Hades, then what? Because 'hades' is not the grave, there is a separate Greek word for it. In the New Testament, Hades NEVER means the grave. It's the "mnemeion", which is the Greek word for grave. The soul or spirit is never said to go to the grave 'mnemeion'. The body is never said to go to 'hades' or 'sheol'. By the way, you are wrong, Acts 2:27 specifically says that Jesus' soul (psyche) went to Hades.
You write this:
"the God of love does not punish people forever." - this is exactly the approach I was talking about that Russel used and that I criticized. If the Scriptures say that God punishes the wicked with eternal punishment, we cannot overwrite it with such reasoning that it seems too drastic, it surely cannot be true. We cannot subordinate our understanding of justice to divine pronouncement. How eternal punishment is compatible with divine goodness is the subject of a subsequent discourse. In short: God's goodness means his mercy. God is just AND merciful. If He only was just, everyone would go to hell. Compared to this, it is mercy, it is grace that with redemption he opened the door at least for the elect to be saved.
In the Old Testament, there wasn't much else clearly promised other than the usual: long life, offspring, wealth. This perspective ultimately suffered shipwreck in the Book of Job (Eliphaz made a lot of similar arguments) and in Ecclesiastes. You are reverting back to these Old Testament promises of limited validity in large numbers, while the apostle says that eye has not seen, ear has not heard, heart has not imagined what God has prepared for those who love him - in other words, obviously a much higher aiming promise than eternal life on a paradise earth. I guess the "heavenly class" of you may be the one that can actually partake in this promise, the others will only partake in this certain (often seen, heard, contemplated) promise.
The distinction between the New and Old Testament perspectives is valid, although not typically held by your denomination. (This is how they usually prove with Ecclesiastes that the dead know nothing, and pass by without blinking the fact that he also states: there is no better thing for a person under the sun than to enjoy God's material blessing.)
You start from the Book of Ecclesiastes, but you are not willing to acknowledge the limited vision of this book. The pessimism of Ecclesiastes, his visible despair regarding the reward of virtues, is crying out for rewards in the afterlife or after resurrection, but the author knows nothing about all this, so the work is doctrinally crippled where there should be continuation. Where the righteous can receive the worthy reward for their righteousness.
The author does indeed write that the dead know nothing, but based on the context of the text, he does not refer to their consciousness but to their awareness of the events that happen on earth. Several biblical passages testify about the oppressive state in Sheol, yet these do not uniformly claim that existence ends with physical death. For example, in Isaiah 14:9 we read: "Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations. All of them will speak and say to you: 'You too have become as weak as we! You have become like us!" Therefore, existence does not cease, even though after the departure of the life-giving spirit to God, people continue to linger in a shadow-like existence. The story of the witch of Endor also talks about Samuel himself coming forward to the call (in this case, obviously with God's permission), so he did not cease to exist or manifest. The fact that this was a forbidden practice did not make it impossible.
We do not consider the sentences quoted above from the Qohelet as the final truth, but only temporary, which were overridden by later statements. Yet you all run about these as if no one spoke later as the mouth of God about the souls of the martyrs crying out for vengeance from under God's altar, or that it is better for man to depart (ekdemeo) from the body and be with the Lord. (2 Cor 5,8). As if it wasn't clear from the later ones that the soul (psyche) is inside the body of the living person, but it is not in the dead's (Acts 20,10).
It is indeed true that the Bible must be interpreted as a simple text, because it was written for simple people. But there is also a kind of progression in the Bible's revelation, and you should not step back from the later stage to the earlier one as if the later development hadn't occurred. You might ask, but doesn't that mean the Bible contradicts itself? We don't say that, because we are used to a more differentiated interpretation. We say that there is a progression of revelation in the Bible. This doesn't call the earlier statements (or in the case of the Qohelet: conjectures, conclusions) wrong, just limited. You could reconcile with this view, since your own leadership often says such things in defense when it routinely contradicts itself after thirty years.
Based on the Qohelet’s own words, I claimed that he is pessimistic. But perhaps you didn't read where he keeps repeating: "All is vanity, chasing after wind" or in another translation "the torment of the spirit"? Or his countless examples of many people not receiving the reward of their virtues? Or those cases where evil prevails on Earth? Behold, because of the fleeting nature of life he himself despised life (2,18), turned away from hope (2,21), called the miscarried fetus happier than the living (4,3), etc. I don't need to continue: this shows that the Qohelet’s point of view rests on the vanity of earthly life, and his statements should be understood in this way (not as some eternally valid divine statements, as you propose). We now have a better hope, so we can use this book as a somber background to say: this is the level that even the wisest man can reach without Christ, without the hope of resurrection.
The New Testament overrode the Qohelet insofar as it brought forth Christ, eternal life (immortality). The resurrected Jesus conquered death, and freed the contemplative sage from the somber bondage that the Old Testament's emphasis on earthly reward closed his thoughts to. And you constantly return to these somber thoughts!
Jesus didn't have to specifically retract the Qohelet’s words: he surpassed them by illuminating the reward waiting for us in heaven after earthly suffering (Lk 6:23 etc.) against his vision limited to things under the Sun, so he did everything that you hold him accountable for. He teaches the continuation of the souls of the dead (not frolicking in the clouds, as you demand mockingly) where he threatens the evildoers with the loss of both their body and soul (psyche) in hell (Mt 10:28). So at least the souls of the righteous will remain after physical death, otherwise there would be no difference between the two groups of people. But he teaches this more clearly where he talks about heavenly treasure (Mk 10:21) and similar things - because people don't enter heaven in body, but in spirit, as the prayer of the martyr Stephen proves (Acts 7:59).
We don't ignore the Qohelet (because I don't do this on my own, but the Lord himself made him surpassed), and it's also not true that we don't have biblical support to deviate from the axis of knowledge he provides (not "revelation", rather contemplation). What Jesus did with the Qohelet, is respectfully setting aside, just as he pushed old revelations into the past with the words "it was said to those of old". This is by no means an equivalent treatment to how biblical lies are handled, and I don't have to prove anything like that.
The Old Testament is indeed an integral part of the Bible, but not one that suppresses later revelations about the fate, reward, etc. of people after physical death. The divine revelation has a peculiar progression, and the later revelation often surpasses and makes the earlier one limited. Because this is the usual strategy of Jehovah's Witnesses: to deprive the Scriptures of a significant trait of its internal connections, i.e. the natural logical and illuminating order given by progression, and to grind the Old and New Testaments into a single homogeneous citation plane, where they can make jumps at will during their attempted proofs.
Mr. Foster,
thanks for your link. Please read both, there are other arguments here.
https://justpaste.it/ci3oj
https://www.bible.ca/su-extinction-refuted.htm
What kind of punishments does God inflict on the damned? There is no explicit statement of the Magisterium on this. However, there are numerous popular notions that sometimes prevail in the creations of artists and are hardly compatible with the seriousness of the revelation. Based on the sparse data of the revelation, theologians have since Pope Innocent III (DS 780) distinguished two types of eternal punishment: the pains of absence from God, or the "damnation" in the strict sense (poenae damni) and the perceivable sufferings (poenae sensus).
The Bible writes about eternal fire, inextinguishable fire, and a fiery lake burning with brimstone. Most in the patristic age identified this image with remorse. Since the Middle Ages, however, theologians thought of it as real fire, but not as the oxidation process that requires combustible materials for nourishment.
This refined fire would act on the body of the damned in such a way as hot iron, or cause torments like the "burning" pain of some wounds. Many have imagined the effect on the separated soul, following Thomas Aquinas, in such a way that perception almost shackles the soul's attention to tormenting thoughts and feelings. It is similar to when a mentally exhausted person is unable to get rid of a tormenting thought or feeling because it obsessively returns and holds attention captive (in the language of psychology: the thought or feeling "perseveres"), although the person does everything to be able to think about something else.
Today's theologians generally start from the assumption that in the Bible, fire is most often the companion and sign of God's appearance or presence (burning bush, fire cloud before the wandering in the desert, tongues of fire, etc.). Thus, the mention of the fire of hell simply indicates the presence of God's judgment, so we don't have to think about real fire: the damned are also tormented by the knowledge that they brought God's judgment upon themselves and are forced to acknowledge God's infinite power and their own foolishness. The "fire" is perhaps a symbolic indication of this tormenting knowledge. There are those who accept the symbolic nature of the fire, but still deem some sort of perceivable suffering necessary, so that the body can also partake in the torments, just as the bodies of the saved will partake in glorification.
The revelation undoubtedly teaches eternal damnation. It is mentioned seventy times in the New Testament alone, Jesus mentions it twenty-five times. However, the purpose of the revelations about hell, like those about final things in general, is not to inform, but that keeping their reality in mind influences our earthly behavior productively. Therefore, we must keep away from the anthropomorphic notions of popular fantasies about hell, and even in theology we must draw a clear line between the explicit ecclesiastical teaching and the disputable theological conclusions. We must not believe and emphasize the latter as certain.
The question remains as to why the Hebrew terms "sheol" and "nephesh" (which, let's assume, do not refer to an afterlife) were translated into Greek as "hades" and "psyche". when these in the Greek language already suggest a clear belief in the afterlife?
I am sorry that you are not willing to enter into an ecclesiological debate, even though it is even easier to get along there, since the question to be decided is simple, which version does the Holy Scriptures teach?
1) that the Church founded by Jesus and built by the apostles will continue to exist without false teachings taking over it (cf. indefectabilitas), so the true faith never had to be "restored", OR
2) that true Christianity practically disappears without a trace 1-2 generations after the apostles, and will only be restored about 1800 years later, so that in 1919 Jesus could examine it and THEN appoint the "slave class" over the believers.
Dear Nincsnevem,
I started from Ecclesiastes? I wasn't the first one to mention the book: you were.
Do I think Ecclesiastes is pessimistic? No I do not. The book must be read in context.
Is it ma stretch that "fire" can represent annihilation? Well, it's as simple as throwing a piece of paper into a fire or if you've ever seen a house burn to the ground. You also quoted one of the verses that supports the fire = annihilation belief--2 Thessalonians 1:6-9.
You claim that Acts 2:27 says Jesus' soul went to Hades. My exact words were that the NT does not say Jesus' soul "descended to Hades." Read it again, I was not wrong.
For a good discussion of how writers use psyche in the NT and other places, see Vol. IX of TDNT.
As for eternal torments, neither Matthew nor Luke indicate that eternal suffering is being discussed by Jesus since Matthew writes that the soul can be "destroyed" by God "in Gehenna," while Luke notes that Jehovah "after he has killed," has the power to throw into Gehenna (Lk 12:4-5).
Furthermore, TDNT IX:646 observes:
"In Mt 10:28, however, the reference to God's power to destroy the YUXH and SWMA in Hades [Gehenna] is opposed to the idea of the immortality of the soul. VII, 1058, 15. For it is again apparent that man can be thought of only as a whole, both YUXH and SWMA. This view of man comes up against the undeniable fact that men are killed, e.g., in the persecution of the community. As Mk 8:35ff . . . already maintains, however, the YUXH, i.e., the true life of man as it is lived before God and in fellowship with God, is not affected by this. Only the SWMA (-----> VII, 1058, 15ff.)"
In harmony with other OT usages, Mt 10:28 could be using YUXH in the sense of life.
Additionally, John L. McKenzie (SJ) has some interesting observations regarding YUXH and Gehenna. He writes:
"Gehenna is also mentioned frequently in the rabbinical literature where it also appears as a pit of fire, a place of punishment for the wicked. In rabbinical literature, however, the eternal fire is not surely eternal punishment. The rabbis at times see the possibility of annihilation of the wicked or even of their release after a period of punishment" (McKenzie 300).
For a text that I think has a bearing on Mt 10:28 and the use of Gehenna there, see Isa 66:24.
McKenzie adds:
"It [Gehenna] is a place where the wicked are destroyed body and soul, which perhaps echoes the idea of annihilation (Mt 10:28)."
He also contends that the "apocalyptic imagery" contained in certain NT passages should be taken for what it is, to wit, "imagery." The pictorial nature of "torments" should not be construed as "strictly literal theological affirmation" (300).
Gehenna is evidently neither a literal geographical place (in eschatological texts) nor an eternal locus of torture: Jesus seems to use the term in a figurative way. Gehenna appears to be representative of everlasting oblivion. NT Wright's advice is sagacious in this matter:
"It should of course be noted again that 'Gehenna' is the name of the smouldering rubbish-heap outside the south-west corner of Jerusalem . . . The extent to which it is used in the gospels metaphorically for an entirely
non-physical place of torment, and the extent to which, in its metaphorical use, it retains the sense of a physical conflagration such as might accompany the destruction of Jerusalem by enemy forces, ought not to be decided in advance of a full study of Jesus' meaning" (Jesus and the Victory of God, page 454-455).
Another perspective about the soul:
From Robert Alter, The Art of Bible Translation, page 68, elec. edition:
"It is also odd that the modern translators in all their zeal to put aside the precedent of the King James Version and redo everything from the ground up, continue to perpetuate some of the errors of the 1611 translation. Every biblical scholar knows that nefesh means 'breath,' 'life-breath,' 'life,' 'essential self,' and sometimes, by metonymy, 'throat,' 'neck,' and even 'appetite,' yet the number of times it is still rendered as 'soul' in the modern versions is disconcerting. It is as if the translators felt that you can’t really have a Bible without 'soul.' But it is always a misleading English equivalent because there is no biblical notion of the soul, and the several concretely physical meanings I have just listed reflect a rather different conception of the living human body."
Acts 2:27 says Jesus' soul _WAS_ in Hades, and Eph 4:9 says that He descended to it. You only have to read these two verses together and you will get what the Apostles' Creed contains.
Fire _could_ represent destruction, in the case of combustible materials, but the soul is not one. And if the text speaks of torment and eternal punishment, it no longer represents destruction.
Acts 2:27 says Jesus' soul _WAS_ in Hades, Eph 4:9 says that He descended to it. You only have to read these two verses together and you will get what the Apostles' Creed claims.
2 Thessalonians 1:9 - "destruction" is not the same as annihilation. 'Olethros' rather means ruination, does not imply "extinction" (annihilation). Rather it emphasizes the consequent loss. Robert Scott's South Pole expedition was also destroyed, but not annihillated. Babylon was also destroyed, but its ruins remained. Even the Messiah himself perished, yet he did not cease to exist.
Mt 10:28 - That is why it is misleading to translate the word 'apollumi' here as "destroy", the more accurate translation is perish, get lost, like in Mt 10:6, Mt 10:39, Lk 15:6, Lk 15:9, Lk 15:24, Jn 3:16, Jn 18:9. Regarding Matthew 10:28, please read:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160304170541/http://www.aggelia.be/soul.pdf
For a broader meaning of the word, see Mk 14:4; Mt 26:8; Acts 8:20. This word is also in Rev 17:8.11, referring to the beast. The related sections, Rev 19:20, and Rev 20:10 tell us that the beast (together with Satan and the false prophet) will be tormented day and night, forever and ever. The same tragic fate awaits those who reject God (see Mt 25:41,46; 8:12; 10:28; 13:24-30,36-43,49-50; Mk 9:43-48; Heb 10:28-29; Rev 14:10-11; 20:15; 21:8). The cognate of this word is apollumi = perishing, which can be illustrated similarly. The application of an exaggerated, literal interpretation of the word apollumi often leads to obvious impossibility (see Mt 10:6; Lk 15:6.9.24; Jn 18:9). Proper scriptural interpretation requires that we compare scripture passages, evaluate the textual context, and properly understand the Greek and Hebrew expressions.
'Apollousthai' in the New Testament as the opposite of 'sodzesthai' and 'dzoe aioniosz' signifies ultimate failure, not merely the extinction of physical existence, an eternal sinking into Hades, the hopeless fate of death. Here too, it does not merely mean the extinction of existence, but the never-ending, tormenting state of death. Based on biblical evidence, it can be concluded that 'apollumi', 'apoleia' and forms with similar roots can have a whole range of meanings: "to be lost" (Mt 10,6.39; 15,24; 16,25; 18,11.14; Lk 15,4.6.8.9.24.32 etc.); "to perish" (Mt 7,13; 9,17; 10,28; 2Pt 2,1; Rev 17,8.11 etc.); "to waste" (Mt 26,8; Mk 14,4); "to lose" (=kill) (Mt 2,13; 12,14; 21,41 etc.); "to be lost" (=to die) (Mt 5,29k; 26,52 etc.). 'Apoleia' therefore primarily appears with the meaning of "to be lost", "to perish" rather than "to be annihilated". Apóleia is not the loss of existence/life, but the end of good existence.
By the way, God could really destroy the soul if he wanted to, but nowhere does he claim to do so. That is why Thomas Aquinas spoke of the incorruptibility of the soul instead of its "immortality".
Please read my link regarding the book of Ecclesiastes: https://justpaste.it/ci3oj
Moreover, the book of Ecclesiastes itself states that it contains reflections and inquiries (1:13), and that this too is an evil and vain occupation. So if your opinion were well-founded, you would also have to condemn Solomon for the same thing. But what do you do with the Book of Job, which contains contentious debates, even accusations and desperate laments? Man, as a sentient and thinking being, cannot be excluded from Scripture, and certainly not from here. In vain do you try to impose the pessimistic reflections of Ecclesiastes as an absolute divine revelation on everyone, the author himself did not intend them as such. Or do you also accept at face value that man has nothing better to do than to eat, drink, and enjoy life (8:15)?
Gehenna obviously originated from an existing (physical) place, but it goes beyond it, just as heaven goes beyond the starry sky, even though it also took its name from that. Therefore, one cannot necessarily infer from the fate of the fading garbage that the people thrown there would be annihilated. The prophecy about the devil in the Old Testament is undoubtedly more obscure than the same in the Book of Revelation, so I can disregard its literal meaning without offending it. The name (cultural history) of Gehenna also suggests that there is a burning going on there, and the description of the lake of fire burning with brimstone. All you need to do is identify these, and the conclusion that damnation causes pains similar to fire is roughly ready. Gehenna must definitely be taken metaphorically, because not every human will end up on the garbage dump of Jerusalem when they are taken out to our common mother's lap. This is similar to how the Bible talks about heaven as a spiritual sphere, and even uses it as a cover name for God (for example, in the Book of Daniel, but also in Matthew's). But in its primary meaning, heaven (sky) is indeed a created thing, which God will roll up in due time, which will burn crackling, which cannot receive God, and so on. Yet no one starts manufacturing a dogma from the fact that the state of being of God and the angels is like the starry sky, or that it will end, just as the starry sky will end one day.
Gehenna / Hell / The Lake of Fire: ". . . It is the loss of all good . . . and the misery of an evil conscience banished from God and from the society of the holy, and dwelling under God's positive curse forever . . . The decisive and controlling element is not the outward, but the inward . . . The figurative language of Scripture is a miniature representation of what cannot be fully described in words . . . the unholiness and separation from God of a guilty and accusing conscience, of which fire and brimstone are symbols . . . the future punishment of the wicked is not annihilation . . . the wicked enter at death upon a state of conscious suffering which the resurrection and the judgment only augment and render permanent."
(Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1907, 1033-1036)
Revelation ch.20:10KJV"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."
Likely you'll agree that the eternal fire here is symbolic ,do think that it is a symbol of eternal destruction or eternal suffering?
Jude v.7NIV"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Again which seems more likely,
That the intact polities of Sodom and Gomorrah are enduring eternal suffering or that the eternal fire is a symbol of their irreversible destruction.
When king Nebuchadnezzar threatened to throw those three loyal servants of JEHOVAH Into a superheated furnace for their dissent(see Daniel 3:15) was he threatening them with prolonged suffering or instant and permanent destruction?
Psalm ch.135:15-18NASB"The idols of the nations are nothing but silver and gold,
The work of human hands.
16They have mouths, but they do not speak;
They have eyes, but they do not see;
17They have ears, but they do not hear,
Nor is there any breath at all in their mouths.
18Those who make them will become like them,
Yes, everyone who trusts in them."
Here is the true (just) penalty for those who persists in resisting JEHOVAH'S truth ,oblivion,that they become like the lifeless images venerated by those alienated from God.
@Nincsnevem John ch.11:11KJV"These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep."
What manner of sleep is it that makes the the sleeper orders of magnitude more aware of his surroundings?
And how can it be regarded as a kindness to return Lazarus's freed Soul ,then in the presence of JEHOVAH and his saints, to his broken body?
At nincsnevem: 1Corinthians ch.15:32NIV"If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”"
An immortal spirit would have no need of a physical body rendering Paul's statement here a meaningless word salad. Does not Paul's assertion that if there is no resurrection of the dead one may as well please his flesh in the remaining time indicate that the resurrection is our only hope for a future existence and thus that there is no intermediate afterlife.
@Nincsnevem Psalms ch.115:17ASV"The dead praise not JEHOVAH, Neither any that go down into silence;" Why would righteous immortal spirits cease praising God Just because of separation from their superfluous physical forms.
Isaiah ch.38:18,19ASV"For Sheol cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: They that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.
19The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day: The father to the children shall make known thy truth."
Why, If death is a mere separation of an immortal spirit from a superfluous physical form and if Hades is the intermediate dwelling place of these immortal spirits righteous and wicked alike?
aservantofJehovah
The question is not whether the "fire" is symbolic, but since when does "eternal torment" "symbolize" annihilation? Destruction is not the same as annihilation, anyway.
All of this speaks about the deceased of Old Testament times, before Christianity. Before Christ's redemption, heaven was closed; then all the deceased were still together in the underworld (Sheol) (see, for example, Job 30:23) in a joyless, gloomy existence, even if they were chosen for eternal salvation. While they were separate from those condemned to hell (see Ezekiel 32:17-32), this place - the limbo - was not a place of joy, but of silent sadness, where God was not even glorified. This, therefore, is completely different from heaven, which was only opened by the death of Christ on the cross. At this point, death became joy, and from this point on, the saints who have died glorify God and can intercede for us.
The underworld (Sheol or Hades) before Christ is not the same as the triple condition (hell, purgatory, heaven) after Christ, although there are similarities. For the wicked, it was a real hell (Gehenna), but for the righteous, there was no happy state of union with God. It also follows from this that when Lazarus died, he could not yet go to heaven, at most to Abraham's bosom (Lk 16:12).
The Watchtower primarily refers to Old Testament scriptures, particularly the Psalms and the Book of Ecclesiastes, which speak of the transience of man, the broken relationship with God, and the created world found in the state of death (for example, Psalm 6:5; 49:14; 115:7; Ecclesiastes 3:18-22; 9:3-10). If we read these in isolation and do not take into account their place in salvation history, then we do indeed come to such a one-sided opinion as Rutherford and his successors. Such exegesis - which takes the texts out of their salvation-historical and entire biblical context and does not take into account progress - characterizes the Bible explanation of the Watchtower Society. What is the place of Ecclesiastes (Qohelet) in the history of salvation? This is the level of knowledge of the man of the Old Testament period, before the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here - as generally in the Old Testament - there is not yet such a clear certainty about eternal life and death as in the New Testament. Even if the existence after death is repeatedly echoed in certain places of the Old Testament (for example, Psalm 88:11; 139:8; Isaiah 26:19; Ezekiel 37; Daniel 12:1; Job 19:25ff).
Complete certainty was only given with the resurrection of Jesus Christ and by him, as the foundation of the general resurrection of the dead. In contrast, in the Old Testament, we often encounter the threatening judgment and the fear of the transience of earthly life, as also in Ecclesiastes. Qohelet is still strongly oriented in this present world and has no certainty of resurrection to life. However, he reckons that with death not everything is over (3:17; 12:7), that there is judgment. Ecclesiastes 3:18ff, for example, talks about the man without God, who is only concerned with himself, and compared to the animals, he sees and must admit that there is no difference until death. However, the line continues consistently until Jesus Christ who conquers death. The same applies to Ecclesiastes 9:3ff: "The 'placement under the sun' recognizes again that with his observations, Ecclesiastes is going beyond the sober reality of life under God's order.
When Jehovah's Witnesses rely on such places, they do not notice that these appear as questions, which find answers and fulfillment with Jesus Christ. When Ecclesiastes 3:21 asks, "Who knows if the spirit of man goes up high?", the New Testament place, 2 Corinthians 5:1 gives the answer: "For we know that, if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."
Nincsnevem, we're going in a lot of directions, which I'm not crazy about doing. My time is limited and has to be parceled out for teaching, shepherding, being a husband, etc. Plus I have other research/blogging projects, so I'm not getting into a drawn out discussion. However, I do want to provide some corrective to what you've said regarding Acts 2:27 and Ephesians 4:9.
From the NABRE:
Acts 2:27-"because you will not abandon my soul to the netherworld,
nor will you suffer your holy one to see corruption."
As you know, the Greek word rendered "netherworld" here is Hades. The verse states that Jesus' (the Messiah's) soul/psyche would not be left in Hades but it does not say that his soul descended to that place. Moreover, "soul" is paralleled with "your holy one" in Acts 2:27. Compare 1 Peter 3:20-21; Romans 13:1ff. You assume that the "soul" spoken of here is immaterial but the early Christians did not make the same assumption.
Ephesians 4:9-"What does 'he ascended' mean except that he also descended into the lower [regions] of the earth?"
Where does this verse state that Jesus descended into Hades? Rather, does it not say the "lower [regions] of the earth" instead. Again, it's not his soul that the verse says descended, but "he" did.
I'm looking at how the NT uses ὄλεθρον (three occurences) and the explaination you give does not wash. See 1 Cor. 5:5 and 1 Timothy 6:9.
Regarding Ecclesiastes, see https://biblicalelearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Caneday-QohPess-GTJ.pdf
The paper somewhat gets at how I read Ecclesiastes. Qoheleth writes from the perspective of one who is "under the sun." The book is part of "all Scripture," which is God-breathed. It must be read carefully and within the broader context of the work.
If the body is not the person then sleep would not be a proper allusion for death. The proper allusion would be of a person putting off a coat or something similar. Because the physical body would have nothing to do with ones identity.
And of course they mocked him when he said the dead girl only slept they had no faith in him as JEHOVAH'S Prophet, the main characteristic of sleep is not outward composure but Loss of consciousness. Outward composure says little about state of consciousness. re: Isaiah ch. 14:9-11 do you believe that the king of Babylon literally fell from the sky into some mythical underworld or that the witch at 1 Samuel ch. 28 overruled JEHOVAH and his prophet both of whom despised witchcraft.
Matthew ch.17:3 see Matthew ch.16:28 is clearly a prophetic vision of the coming kingdom ,talk about butchering the scriptures. Like the Sadducees you keep projecting your insecurities upon JEHOVAH other than your unfounded assertions what proof is there that JEHOVAH cannot recreate ab initio the identical self that he first created ab initio. If the soul is the self it would be enough to say that the person sleeps to indicate that the soul was no longer conscious
As the body would have nothing to do with the person's identity if the soul is literally distinct from the body.
Matthew 22:31-32NIV"But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ b ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” If there is an afterlife this statement could not be used to prove of a future resurrection because the worship of JEHOVAH would continue in this "afterlife" but he is NOT the God of those in the underworld according to our Lord, why because they are DEAD .
Why are only those who died during the flood receiving this witness what about all the other dead 1peter3:19 if you took the time to review the context you would see that it was after Jesus' resurrection that he confronted these spirits so these are not in the "underworld" they are the rebellious angels mentioned mentioned at genesis ch.6 and jude v.6 they also misrepresent themselves as spirits of the dead that is why Israel's law had a death penalty for necromancy
1 Samuel ch.28:9NIV"But the woman said to him, “Surely you know what Saul has done. He has cut off the mediums and spiritists from the land. Why have you set a trap for my life to bring about my death?”
So this unclean spirit's word cannot be taken as a counterargument against the plain teaching of scripture. There re:Luke 16:19-31
How is it that these disembodied spirits have eyes and tongues and can drink water into whose bosom the dead go before the death Abraham. This is clearly one of our lord's parables. That is your problem what you clearly ought to take figuratively you take literally and vice versa.
Luke 23:43 our lord was not in any kind of paradise that day So he could not be in paradise with anyone. As you know there was no punctuation in the original text.
John ch.3:13NIV"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. "
None of the souls of the ancient worthies were in heaven during Christ time on earth according to our Lord.
Acts ch.2:34NIV"For David DID NOT ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
“ ‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand" so Even after Christ's glorification none of JEHOVAH'S ancient servants were in heaven.
So no one goes to heaven when they die including Jesus.
Hebrews ch.11:39,40NIV"These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect."
If they were all waiting in heaven for those enduring trial to receive exactly the same reward to join them,in what way could those who inherit the kingdom be said to receive a better reward.
It is clear from the apostolic letters that Paul the Apostle emphasizes the hope of resurrection for the obviously transworld believers who converted from Hellenistic paganism, which was new to them - however, he never denies the intermediate state between death and resurrection. The Apostle Paul did not rule out that he was "in the third heaven," with God, outside of his body (2 Cor 12:2-3). He did not identify himself with his body (earthly tent), from which he himself wanted to "move out" and "move home" to Christ (i.e., into the heavenly home, life form). He hoped that between the death of his physical body (collapsed tent) and his resurrected spiritual body (heavenly house), he would not have to be "naked" (5:3) in a transitional life form, but would experience the return of the Lord and the resurrection. He did not consider death to be a gain because he could sleep, rest, and perhaps Jesus could be his first conscious moment after thousands of years, but because his existing fellowship with the Lord could finally become direct, he could finally be with Him (5:6, cf. 1 Cor 13:12). See also: Matthew 10:28, Lk 23:43, 2 Cor 5:1.8, Phil 1:23, Rev 6:9, Rev 14:13.
In my opinion, these all certainly prove that those who died in Christ begin the eternal life in some sense immediately after death, although not yet in full with the resurrected body. To this, it is obviously necessary that the person be judged in some sense. It was a well-established position within Judaism long before the time of Jesus that the righteous and the wicked ones are separated in Sheol, which obviously had its revelational background, such as Ezekiel 32:17-32 already distinguishes between the fate of the enemies of Israel and the ancient heroes. So late Judaism developed the concept that God gives different fates to the good and the evil in Sheol, consequently, they assumed that Hades is divided into parts.
Jesus also openly talked about this: Lk 16:12: Lazarus rests in Abraham's bosom, which is separated by a chasm from the other part of Hades, where the greedy rich man suffers. Luke 23:43: the righteous go to Paradise. There is also more where Jesus suggests that there is judgment before the final judgment: John 3:17-18, John 12:31. Acts 1:25 suggests that Judas went to his place (or to damnation) immediately after his terrible death. The Book of Revelation says of the deceased martyrs, obviously before the resurrection, that they are in heaven: Rev 7:13-15.
What you say about scriptural anthropology about the nefesh and the ruah, there is some truth to it, in that the anthropological picture of the Old Testament is not as advanced as that of the New Testament. The Hebrew Bible indeed uses the term nefesh as a substitute for the personal pronoun, but Christian theology does not assert that this kind of nefesh survives bodily death. The Greek term psykhe used in the New Testament is obviously a much more spiritual concept. I think Jesus best summarizes New Testament anthropology in Matthew 10:28, according to which man is a combination of a material body and a spiritual soul, the body can be killed, but the soul survives the death of the body.
Since this also came up, let's say a few words about the resurrection of Lazarus. According to the Gospel, Jesus resurrected Lazarus, who had been lying in the tomb for four days. The question is whether this Lazarus is the same one mentioned in Luke 16:19-31. Jehovah's Witnesses refer to the fact that Lazarus, who spent four days in the afterlife, said nothing about the afterlife. Indeed, he could have convinced many non-believers with this information. And certainly, if I had just a quarter-hour glimpse of the afterlife, I would share everything I saw there.
But this leads one to think, how could there be an afterlife if even those who returned from it do not speak of it?
Firstly, a counter-question: how does the one who asks this know that Lazarus didn't talk about what he saw in the afterlife? Of course, we don't know this because the Gospel does not happen to mention it. So, this objection fails at this point. It's possible that Lazarus indeed spoke about the afterlife, and in that case, he undoubtedly said the same thing as Jesus. However, we concede and consider it likely that Lazarus indeed did not talk about the afterlife. Simply because, although he died, for him this first death did not mean the end of life and thus the judgment, i.e., Lazarus had not yet started his afterlife during his time in the tomb.
For us, death means two things: 1. the separation of the soul from the body, and 2. stepping into the afterlife, i.e., the judgment and the beginning of eternal life. In Lazarus's case, as God intended to resurrect him, obviously only the first occurred: the separation of the soul from the body; the second did not. And since Lazarus's soul, although separated from the body, did not see the afterlife, it is natural that he did not talk about an afterlife he had not experienced.
Now, only a highly speculative mind might ask: where was it then, what kind of life did the soul live separated from the body, if it was neither in the body nor in the afterlife? Our sincere answer is this: we do not know; but we do know that it is by no means impossible for a soul, even though separated from the body, to still be here on Earth, if indeed the spiritual soul needs a place, a location, to exist. Perhaps that time for him passed in a dreamlike, unconscious state, with his operation suspended, until he was reunited with the body as the principle of life. What would be impossible in this?
However, we certainly do not subscribe to the idea that the return of Lazarus or any other deceased person from the afterlife would in any particular way benefit or strengthen the belief in the afterlife. No. Jesus spoke so clearly about the afterlife, eternal life, and provided such powerful evidence for the truth of his words, that in comparison a testimony from a deceased person would be of minor importance; and yet, how many close their eyes to the testimony of Jesus? How many still doubt and continue to deny, simply out of a lack of thought, or because they do not want their frivolous lives to be disturbed by the afterlife?
The resurrected dead would certainly be called phantoms, suggestions, hallucinations, and it would be no surprise that under no circumstances would such a huge mass of objective certainty fight next to a resurrected dead as it does next to Jesus's revelations. Jesus himself alludes to this when, at the end of the parable of the rich man and the beggar, he has Abraham reject the rich man's request to send Lazarus to his brothers to "testify to them so they do not also come to this place of torment." Jesus has Abraham give this response: "They have Moses and the prophets, let them listen to them." But the rich man said: "No, father Abraham! But if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent." And he said to him: "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone rises from the dead." (Lk 16,31).
Mr. Foster (12:34 PM),
I know what Acts 2:27 and Ephesians 4:9 contains, what is in one and what is not in the other, etc. But since the two verses report on the SAME event (what happened to Jesus between his bodily death and his resurrection, and this is what 1 Peter 3:18-19 and 4:6 also talks about), it is therefore simply necessary to read these parts TOGETHER.
According to this, when Jesus died, while the disciples put his body ('soma') into the tomb ('mnemeion'), but his soul ('psyche') descended to the underworld ('hades'), and within that to the "part" of it, which was called on the one hand "paradise" ('paradeisos', Lk 23:43), on the other hand "Abraham's bosom", and in Latin theological language it was called 'limbus patrum'. And here he proclaimed the gospel to the spirits of the DEAD in "prison" (that is, in sheol) and set them free, that is, as Ephesians 4:8 says "when he ascended, he took many captives" (with him to the heaven), he therefore took the righteous of the Old Testament times to heaven, only then did the closed gates of heaven open.
You write:
"You assume that the "soul" spoken of here is immaterial, but the early Christians did not make the same assumption."
- and I do this with every right, since the word 'psyche' had absolutely such a meaning in the Greek language, and the fact that the early Christians were annihilationists is denied by the early Christian literature, here are a few quotes:
https://www.bible.ca/H-hades.htm
Why would the writers of the Greek biblical texts have used terms such as 'hades', 'psyche', 'tartaros', which clearly had spiritual-herafter meanings in the Greek language? In a cultural-religious environment that believed in an afterlife, shouldn't the apostles have clearly taught annihilationism? Why is the part of the book of Ecclesiastes much quoted by JWs never quoted in the New Testament? Why did the apostles NEVER warned those freshly converted from paganism, "Do not believe in a spiritual soul or the afterlife, because it is paganism"?
The Greek apollymi, apoleia does not mean annihilation, is this evident from the use of the given word. For example, were the sheep of Israel mentioned in Matthew 10:6 annihilated? This term means to lose, to perish, not to wipe out of existence. Or Luke 19:10?
Regarding the Book of Ecclesiastes, it is worth stating that, of course, Christianity considers it an inspired book; there is no debate about that. Here we have an Adventist influence on the side of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is well known that Russell's movement sprang from early Adventism. Russell, at least in theory, adopted devotion to the Scriptures, belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible, even if arbitrary, and also the notion of equal substantive value of the Old and New Testaments.
He does not view and take seriously the biblical revelations in their salvific historical context, but as if he were mining stones, he extracts them from the textual context and combines them according to his own ideas. I have already spoken about the so-called "knight jump" "hermeneutics" method of Jehovah's Witnesses. Equating the Old Testament with the New Testament leads, among other things, to the celebration of the Sabbath in the Adventists and to a very legalistic way of thinking in Jehovah's Witnesses, which is particularly noticeable in the prohibition of blood.
They couple the entirely correct statement that all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) with the false conclusion that therefore all parts are equally valuable, of equal weight. This viewpoint results in neglecting the history of salvation, as well as deviating from Christ as the center of Scripture towards primarily eschatological side tracks. Just as stones are extracted from a quarry, revelations are drawn from the most diverse places in the Bible and - mostly without regard to context and the circumstances of origin - are freely combined. That's why they hardly make a distinction between the Old and New Testaments, between promise and fulfillment, in fact, they reject the terms Old and New Testament, replacing them with "Hebrew Scriptures" and "Christian Greek Scriptures".
Dear aservantofJehovah,
Here are a series of quotes about what the earliest Christians really believed on the matter:
* https://www.bible.ca/H-hell.htm
* https://www.bible.ca/H-nature-man-definition-death.htm
* https://www.bible.ca/H-hades.htm
This portrayal of death as sleep is a euphemistic description, not only common in Judaism but also in other cultures. In our language, we also use expressions like "resting in the grave". This is a phenomenological language, that is, it describes the appearance of something, not what it actually is. An outside observer sees a dead person as if they were sleeping (especially as most people tend to die in bed). The same goes for phrases like "the sun rises" or "sets" or "travels across the sky". This image appears frequently in the Bible (both in the Old and New Testaments), and two heretical views have emerged from it. The Watchtower Society interpreted this to mean that the soul ceases to exist after death ("is annihilated" = doctrine of annihilation), and God recreates this soul at the resurrection (Interestingly, in this case, it is this "copy" that God will reward or punish, not the actual, original soul). The other heresy suggests that the soul indeed sleeps, unconscious until the resurrection when it awakens from this sleep (Luther, Adventists). However, both views are contradicted by numerous parts of Scripture, e.g. 1 Sam 28; Job 19:26; 26:5-6; Is 14:9-11. 15-17; Mt 17:3; 22:,31-32; Lk 16:19-31; 23:43; Phil 1:21-24; 2 Cor 5:1-8; 1 Thess 5:10; 1 Pet 3:19; Heb 12:1; Rev 5:8; 6:9-10; 7:10; 20:4. In these places, the souls of the dead are always living, feeling and conscious.
In Mark 5:39 and Luke 8:52, Jesus is playing with words, foreshadowing the resurrection (it's no coincidence that he uses these expressions precisely at the resurrection of the dead). "He is not dead, but sleepeth": meaning, he will wake up/rise. The others took sleep literally (that's why they laughed at him; if Jesus had talked about the sleep of the soul, why would they have mocked it, when the Old Testament also talks about death in this way several times?) The same misunderstanding is present in John 11:11 and following: they think that Jesus is talking about "the rest of sleep" "So then Jesus said unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead". Meaning, Jesus was not talking about the rest of sleep, but about death, when he said, "Lazarus sleepeth". Here too, Jesus only used the word sleep to allude to the resurrection, which he clearly explains to Martha in the following section (John 11:21-26). In addition to all this, it can be noted that in none of these cases does Jesus speak about the "sleep of the SOUL", but simply about sleep, which can therefore be interpreted, say, as referring to the body, i.e. the body sleeps, the soul lives (cf. Rom 8:10; 1 Pet 3:18).
And additionally: https://www.bible.ca/d-death=sleep.htm - Sleep as a metaphor for Death proves life after death
Dear aservantofJehovah (2:50 PM)
The Catholic view of the relationship between body and soul is not extreme dualistic, as according to Platonism the body is the prison of the soul, it is only a garment, so transmigration of souls is also possible; and the soul alone is the human being. In contrast, according to Catholic teaching: "The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature." (CCC 365). According to the Council of Vienne (1312): "The substance of the rational or intellectual soul is the form of the human body in itself and essentially." ("Substantia animae rationalis seu intellectiva sit forma corporis humani per se et essentialiter.")
* spiritual substance of the human soul => substantia incompleta
* material substance of the human body => substantia incompleta
* spiritual-material human => substantia completa
* body and soul => metaphysical difference + metaphysical interdependence
* forma substantialis => substantial form
* substantia incompleta => incomplete substance
* The unity-difference of man – the hylomorphist synthesis of body and soul.
The body and the soul are indeed distinguished in many places in the New Testament, a classic example is Matthew 10:28, in connection with which there is a study: https://web.archive.org/web/20160304170541/http://www.aggelia.be/soul.pdf
The metaphor of sleep does not prove unconsciousness or nonexistence, as nor is a living sleeping person non-existent or annihilated, and the soul is never said to sleep. Check out what I wrote above, along with the link: https://www.bible.ca/d-death=sleep.htm
The Old Testament prohibition and fact of spirit invocation are evidence (Lev 19:31 20:6.27 Deut 18:11; 1 Sam 28,75) that the Old Testament books also know about the other world. The story of the witch of Endor also talks about Samuel himself coming forward to the call (in this case, obviously with God's permission), so he did not cease to exist or manifest. The fact that this was a forbidden practice did not make it impossible. The text does not say that it was actually a demon, what appeared, it's just your interpretation.
Nowhere does Scripture speak of non-existence and the "recreation" of a person, it is only a JW interpretation (without any direct biblical evidence) that resurrection actually means regeneration.
1Peter 3:19 - here it is clearly not about (fallen) angels, since 4:6 clearly calls them deads, and the Scriptures always only call people dead. Besides, why would Jesus have preached the GOSPEL to the fallen angels in 'hades'? Furthermore, according to Ephesians 4:8, Jesus took these imprisoned spirits into heaven with him.
Luke 16:19-31 - Regarding the Rich Man and Lazarus, please read this: https://justpaste.it/7y3d1
John 3:13 - This is also adressed in this text: https://justpaste.it/arng4 By the way, who said that anyone would have gone to heaven when Jesus was still alive? John didn't go the heaven THEN.
(to be continued...)
Luke 23:43 - Of course Jesus went to paradise that day. Paradise is not the same as heaven, it refers to the place of the righteous who died during the given order of salvation history, which Christ's death and resurrection was not heaven, but "Abraham's bosom", the part of Hades reserved for the righteous, also known as the limbus patrum. There really were no punctuation marks in the original text, and the burden of proof would be on you anyway. Read this about this verse: https://justpaste.it/c30bo
For apollumi, please see the answer given by Dr William Bounce at https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/does-apollumi-mean-%E2%80%9Cdestroy%E2%80%9D
Of course, that's Dr. Mounce. Autocorrect strikes again.
No the burden of proof would be on you . The dead don't worship God
Mark ch.12:27NASB"He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken"
See also Isaiah ch. 38:18
There is NO paradise in Hades.
1Peter ch.3:19 happens after Christ is made alive see 1Peter ch.3:18 thus these are not spirits of the dead 1Peter ch.4:6 would refer to any who do not believe in the gospel not to any spirits in the underworld
See Luke ch.9:60.
Note these spirits are from the period of the flood only. Why should any post mortem witness be confined to them.
Jesus is the forerunner of those entering heaven no one went to heaven before Christ did and no one would go to heaven other than Christ until the first resurrection.
john ch.6:39NIV"And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." That is our hope not an afterlife a resurrection
Not only did John not go to heaven when Jesus was on earth but having died before Jesus return to heaven John will not be going to heaven.
Matthew ch.11:11NIV"Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.."
John ch.3:5NIV"Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. "
This is a thing impossible for those literally dead.
If there is a post mortem evangel in an afterlife why bother with evangelism in this life. Surely the better course would be to simply evangelise everyone once they got to the spirit world then belief would not be a matter of faith they would see the spiritual realities for themselves
Re:Luke ch.16:19- it is the physical nature of this spirit world that is the problem these spirits have physical bodies that can be affected by fire and water into whose bosom do the gentile dead go. What about before Abraham went to hades
When the rich man ask for someone from the dead to warn his brothers he is told.
Like ch 16:29NIV"“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them LISTEN to them.’" So at what period in the history of the Hebrew nation would anyone literally be able to listen to Moses and the prophets.
Either story is literal or is not this convenient mixing of literal with figurative isn't going to cut it.
The notion that any witch could override JEHOVAH'S prohibition is absurd on its face. the bible clearly shows that those messages came from unclean spirit's.
1Chronicles ch.10:13,14ASV"So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against JEHOVAH, because of the word of JEHOVAH, which he kept not; and also for that he asked counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire thereby , 14and inquired not of JEHOVAH: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse."So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against JEHOVAH, because of the word of JEHOVAH, which he kept not; and also for that he asked counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire thereby , 14and inquired NOT of JEHOVAH: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse."
So the spirit that the witch channeled was NOT the spirit of JEHOVAH'S prophet
Of course the metaphor of sleep proves unconsciousness the burden of proof would certainly be on anyone claiming otherwise.
Genesis ch.3:19NIV"By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you RETURN to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust YOU are
and to dust YOU will RETURN.”
Note the personal pronoun thus this cannot be a reference to the man's body which according to Catholics has absolutely nothing to do with the man's identity but to the PERSON So death is a RETURN to the person's pre-creation state.
Psalms ch.104:29,30NIV"When you hide your face,
they are terrified;
when you take away their breath,
they die and RETURN to the dust.
30When you send your Spirit,
they are CREATED
and you renew the face of the ground."
The resurrection is a creative act.
The distinguishing of body from soul would be akin to the distinguishing of eyes from sight there can be eyes without sight but not sight without eyes.
Note at Matthew ch.10:28 that both the body and soul are destroyed in Gehenna.
JEHOVAH Calls things that are not as though they are so He regards those He is determined to resurrect as though they already were
Romans ch.4:17KJV"even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. "
The hope of the resurrection is why we never truly lose our lives even when persecutors go to the limit in expressing their hatred for us.
@ Nincsnevem : Leviticus ch.17:11NIV"For the life of a creature(Nephesh) is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life(Nephesh). "
Obviously if one accepts the premise of spiritualism blood would have nothing to do with the soul(person) and would be unsuitable for use as an emblem of same, and hence could not serve for purposes of atonement.
The blood of Christ could only serve as an atonement if it sustained his personhood which would not be the case of he were an incarnated Spirit. Blood cannot redeem spirits
Hebrews ch.2:14-16NIV"Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels(Spirits)he helps, but Abraham’s descendants.'
Matthew ch.20:28BIV"just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give(not lend) his life(Psyche) as a ransom for many.”
Except that if spiritualism is true he did nothing of the sort.
Good thoughts @servant:
Just to add a couple of thoughts to the mix:
"Trust not in princes -- in a son of man, For he hath no deliverance. His spirit goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, In that day have his thoughts perished" (Psalm 146:3-4 YLT).
"For in death there is no remembrance of thee: In Sheol who shall give thee thanks?" (Psalm 6:5).
"For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust" (Eccl. 3:19-20).
Job 3:16-19 (NIV):
Or why was I not hidden away in the ground like a stillborn child,
like an infant who never saw the light of day?
17 There the wicked cease from turmoil,
and there the weary are at rest.
18 Captives also enjoy their ease;
they no longer hear the slave driver’s shout.
19 The small and the great are there,
and the slaves are freed from their owners.
Dear aservantofJehovah (5:05 PM),
The burden of proof is on that one who came later and disputes the status quo by coming up with new claims. Christianity, branded by you as "apostate", has claimed this for two thousand years, and you have only come recently, claiming we were all wrong. Well, at least the burden of proof is on you. The traditional reading is also supported by Syriac Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus.
The word "paradise" taken by itself does not mean heaven, but the abode of the virtuous dead. This represented Abraham's bosom in the Hades before Christ's redemption. Theology called this place/state Limbo of the Patriarchs, Latin 'limbus patrum'. Jesus' soul descended here when he died, and he promised the Good Thief that too. Jesus' presence among the righteous, turned it into a paradise, and He took the them to heaven later.
According tot the Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
"Some would remove the stop, and place it after "today", and read the words thus, "I say unto thee today"; as if Christ only signified the time when he said this, and not when the thief should be with him in paradise; which, besides it being senseless, and impertinent, and only contrived to serve an hypothesis, is not agreeably to Christ's usual way of speaking, and contrary to all copies and versions. Moreover, in one of Beza's exemplars it is read, "I say unto thee, that today thou shalt be with me", &c. and so the Persic and Ethiopic versions seem to read, which destroys this silly criticism."
Mark 12:27. The strength of the argument lies in the fact that in the time of Moses the patriarchs were long dead and yet the Lord is called their God, which assumes that they are alive somewhere. So the patriarchs, Jesus concludes, even though they seemed to die, are alive in their souls before God, whom he created immortal and will reunite with their bodies. Jesus shows the resurrection of the body from the immortality of the soul, since both are inseparable. Man is made up of body and soul, and the soul has to unite with the body again, as a matter of necessity, in order to share the reward or punishment with the body with which it was endowed.
In 1 Peter 3:13-22, Apostle Peter offers consolation in persecution, and to strengthen them in the sufferings of persecution, he points to Christ, who was killed in his body for our sins, but his soul was revived or enjoyed the beatific vision of God due to his personal unity with divinity. At the moment of his death, his sacred soul descended to the souls in prison, or the porch of hell, where there were also the souls of those who did not believe in Noah's call to repentance while the ark was being built, but in the face of impending danger they turned to God. He preached redemption to all of them, which was completed with his death.
The meaning of verses 19-20 is this: After the death of his body, the soul of Jesus descended to the underworld, not only to the holy patriarchs but also to the unbelievers who, while the ark was being built, did not believe God's threats, but when punishment came upon them, they found salvation in faith and repentance. Christ proclaimed to these righteous forefathers, and to these once unbelievers but later converts, that he had completed the redemption and opened the gates of heaven. Before Christ died, all the souls of the dead, both the good and the bad, went to the underworld. But this was separated in itself (Luke 16:26) so that the righteous went to a place where they awaited the Redeemer, while the wicked were pushed to the place of eternal torment. This is properly called hell, while the former is called the limbo of hell, which also existed in the underworld, but at the same time was a purgatory for the heaven. The underworld (Genesis 4:16,30,33), where all the dead gathered (Job 30:23) before Christ had completed his great work, was indeed a place of prayer for the wicked (Job 26:5.), but for the righteous too, as the limbo of hell, it was not a place of joy, but of silent sorrow (Psalm 30:10. 87:13. Isaiah 38:18. Ecclesiastes 9:10), and in this respect it was not that place where God is exalted and praised, as on earth. Only through Christ did death cease to be sad, because he opened heaven, the place where God is exalted and praised. When the Apostolic Creed says: "descended into hell," this does not mean the actual hell, the place of punishment for the damned, but the underworld, into which Christ descended insofar as he appeared in its part, in the limbo of hell. Apostle Peter calls the limbo a prison because souls were kept there until the coming of Christ. That's why it talks elsewhere (Acts 2:24-25) about the chains of Hades. Under the unbelievers, some understand those who died in unbelief and wickedness, to whom Christ proclaimed repentance to convert them, or at least some of them. According to others, these were irretrievably damned, whose condemnation Christ confirmed. This latter opinion is unlikely, because confirmation of damnation is not preaching, especially not the gospel (good news), as Christ's teaching here is called in 4:6.
( to be continued ... )
... The first opinion cannot be accepted because there is no salvation for those who die in unbelief, i.e., outside the grace of God. However, the Church Fathers and older Bible interpreters, correctly understanding the words of the text and comparing them with the teaching of Scripture in this regard, found a suitable solution. Since, on the one hand, the text only speaks of such unbelievers who were unbelievers at the time when the ark was being built, and it does not exclude that these unbelievers could still repent before their death; on the other hand, because the clear teaching of Scripture stands that the one who dies in unbelief can do nothing more for his salvation, - so we must understand such unbelievers who did not persist in unbelief and sin, like the monstrous rebels at the time of the flood (Job 26:4), but who by repentance and contrition did not physically, but at least spiritually saved their lives. Furthermore, the text says: Christ preached also to those who were once unbelievers, so he preached not only to these unbelievers but also to others, i.e., to all the ancient righteous and saints; because the word "also" cannot refer to people living on earth, because it is not Christ who taught on earth, but Christ who preached in the limbo. The fact that Peter does not mention these righteous here, but only mentions these unbelievers, is particularly explained by the opinion generally held among the Jews at the time, that those who perished in the flood were completely rejected by God, and could not even appear in public life. The baselessness of this opinion could not be better illustrated by Peter than by bringing up from those unfortunate ones who Christ proclaimed the redemption. These are in the best agreement with the context. Since it is said of Christ that he died a violent death bodily for the sins of others, but preserved his spiritual life: so it is quite appropriate to talk about those who died violently bodily for their own sins, but saved their lives spiritually. In addition, they serve as special examples for the peaceful endurance of life's sufferings, to which Peter advises above.
Dear aservantofJehovah,
Matthew 11:11: These articles also deal with this verse, read it through:
* https://jpst.it/3j5g9
* https://shorturl.at/axJR2
* https://docdro.id/v8YgOqs
Luke 16:19-31 - Regarding the Rich Man and Lazarus, please read this: https://justpaste.it/7y3d1 - so far, not a single JW has been able to answer the points raised in the article, they are all confused that if this and that must be symbolic, then the whole thing is symbolic, if it is symbolic, then it is not true, etc.
"The distinguishing of body from soul would be..." - Say this to Jesus, who clearly distinguished the body from the soul in Matthew 10:28.
"Note at Matthew ch.10:28 that both the body and soul are destroyed in Gehenna." - Precisely, the original text uses the verb 'apollumi', which does not mean erasure from existence, annihilation, but rather perish, loss.
Romans 4:17: here we are not talking about non-existent deads, but about God, who is all-powerful, and thus can make peoples who were not before become the sons of Abraham. The foretelling from nothing refers to Abraham's faith, which is why he believed that God would fulfill his promise of a large number of offspring, gifting him with a fetus, despite the fact that both he and his wife were already of advanced age. With this, Paul forms a very suitable transition for the following description of the strength of Abraham's faith.
Dear Mr. Foster,
I think I have already discussed the probative force of these Old Testament biblical passages with typical literary characteristics above. It is no coincidence that in this respect the WTS refers almost exclusively to Old Testament verses, and with this they want to evade the much more specific statements of the New Testament.
Psalm 146:4 does not teach that self-awareness would be extinguished, but that the person will no longer be able to carry out what he had planned.
You should probably read a chapter from a book on biblical anthropology about the word "nefesh" to see that this word in the Old Testament signified throat, neck, desire, life, a complete person - and indeed the soul, in its usual theological sense. You all have a great battle against those scripture passages where the word cannot mean a complete person, because it is about a person's breath. Such are Exodus 23:9, Job 19:2, Isaiah 53:11, and many others that I could copy from my source, Hans Walter Wolff's book 'Anthropology of the Old Testament'. These cannot be pinned down to mean the "complete person", but rather a constituent part of the person. Obviously, in many places 'nefesh' means the whole person, but these do not absorb the ones I mentioned, nor several key places in the description of the soul, such as 1Thes 5:23, Hebrews 4,12. Therefore, neither nefesh nor psyche exclusively mean the complete person.
The conceptual element of death is not existence, but the loss of life. The loss of existence would be annihilation, and you still have to prove that this is identical with physical death.
There is a good article about the many uses of the word "soul" in the Bible: https://www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/diafora/enoies2.htm
The Scriptures refer to physical death and resurrection with the metaphor of sleep and awakening. This tells us nothing about the state of the spirit. When a Christian dies, their spirit departs to be with Christ, who will then bring this spirit back with him to earth, where it unites with a new body in the resurrection.
The difference between what happened to the body and spirit is seen in the story of Stephen's death: "While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' Then he fell on his knees and cried out, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them.' When he had said this, he dies." (Acts 7:59-70).
Book to read: D. M. Canright, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, 1914.
Assertions are not evidences Nincsnevem. If the person is immortal they can't die and hence can't be resurrected.
Acts ch.17:32NIV"Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked... "
Spiritualism leaves space for reincarnation not resurrection
1Corinthians ch.15:36NIV"You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. "
Death is return to ones pre-creation state making a resurrection possible if such is JEHOVAH'S will.
Of course Jesus receiving Stephen's Spirit spirit does not mean that he went to heaven when he died. Any more that his lord did
Luke ch.23:46NIV"Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last."
We know that it would be another 40 days after his resurrection before our Lord ascends to heaven he sets the pattern. No one goes to heaven when they die those who are born again. Ascend to heaven after they are resurrected like their Lord.
John ch.6:44NIV"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him(Not his body) up at the last day."
If it is symbolic that does not mean that what it symbolises is not true.
As for the attempted defense of the point made at Matthew ch.11:11 no one was literally in the kingdom at that time so it was understood that being in the kingdom was a prospect.
So clearly it is prospect of the kingdom that is meant both for John and Jesus disciples.
The bible clearly teaches that only those born again by water and spirit are in line for heaven
John ch.3:5
1Peter ch.1:11,12KJV"Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 12Unto whom it was revealed, that NOT unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."
Here are the Characteristics of those sharing in the first Resurrection .
Revelation ch.20:4KKV"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."
None of this would be true of the ancient worthies.
If there is a post mortem evangel to spirits who could witness first hand the spiritual realities why bother with any witness to those blinded by the imperfect flesh.
Let remind you of the testimony of what JEHOVAH'S word.
John ch.3:5KJV"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. " The only way into heaven is to hear and believe the gospel while alive because the dead cannot hear anything.
James ch.1:18 NIV"He chose to give us birth through the word of truth(The preaching of the gospel), that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created."
10:17NIV"Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. "
So this can't pertain to any post mortem evangel because faith would not be required to accept what is heard by the inhabitants of the spirit world.
Assertions are not proofs if the righteous dead are waiting hopefully for their reward as you insists is depicted by Luke ch.16 then it is inconceivable that they would not be praising the source of their hope.
Mark ch.12:27ZNIV"He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. YOU are badly mistaken!”
JEHOVAH receives no worship from the righteous dead, the only possible reason for that is that they are incapable of such worship
The strength of the argument for the RESURRECTION is that the dead cannot worship so if their death was irreversible JEHOVAH'S claiming to be their God would be senseless he could claim to be their creator But not the one entitled to their worship. If Jesus was using this argument to prove spiritualism he could not also use it to prove a resurrection the deincarnation of a spirit is not a death and the reincarnation of a spirit is not a resurrection
Paradise ought to mean fellowship with JEHOVAH
Yet we know that the righteous dead are not praising the source of their hope Isaiah 38:18 I find your handwaving re:the clear implications of this verse even less persuasive than your other non-arguments.
If the writer believed that death was merely a deincarnation of a spirit being he would not be surprised that the wicked spirits were not praising JAH. Obviously what would require explaining would be why the righteous spirits were not praising JEHOVAH.
The only possible reason is that they are unable to because death means a return to our pre-creation state.
Genesis ch.3:19ZNIV"By the sweat of your face
YOU shall eat bread,
till YOU RETURN to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust YOU shall RETURN.”
But before we argue about anything, it wouldn't hurt to clarify what the Catholic doctrine is in the matter you want to attack. Because if you understood the Catholic understanding of the soul, you wouldn't say that it allows reincarnation, you wouldn't call it spiritualism. The Council of Constantinople (869) rejected the Neoplatonic-Origenist conception, then on the Council of Vienne (1312) extreme monist and extreme dualist conceptions of man were condemned. At the Fifth Lateran Council (1513), the condemnation of the Renaissance-era Neoplatonic heresy, which the Council labeled as "Averroism," involved the condemnation of the myth of the "transhuman spirit."
Since when does the teaching of resurrection exclude the conscious existence between physical death and resurrection? Resurrection represents "recreation" only in the ideology of denominations like the Watchtower (lacking any precedents in the church history and history of theology). The term "heaven" doesn't mean a separate place, but it's a synonym for salvation, and to be saved doesn't mean only to "survive" from such a Watchtower-like meteor shower, but to experience a supernatural elevation. The earth where the bodies of the saved rise won't be THIS earth (as it will perish, see 2 Peter 3:10-13), but that new earth where the new heaven descends, the heavenly Jerusalem (see Revelation 21). From this, murderers, poison mixers etc. will be excluded, not some second-class caste of so-called "Jonadab class".
So, that earth will be no less heaven than earth - as the two will overlap each other, see Ephesians 1:10.
According to Scripture, what God has prepared for the redeemed has not been seen by any eye nor heard by any ear, and this cannot simply be the restoration of the state before original sin and the Edenic Garden, as Adam and Eve obviously saw and heard that. Therefore, salvation is much more than the recovery of the state before original sin.
According to traditional Christianity, the saved exist in heaven without a body/materially only until the physical resurrection. After the resurrection, that Kingdom in which they will be will be just as much earth as it will be heaven, since the new, heavenly Jerusalem will descend to earth, thus fulfilling Ephesians 1:10.
This is a completely clear explanation of how the same group can claim both that they will go to heaven and that they will inherit the earth - without dividing the hope of redemption between two castes, which contradicts Ephesians 4:4.
So, the question of Jehovah's Witnesses whether eternal happiness will be in heaven OR on earth is a simple false dilemma because the correct answer is that it will be in that Kingdom, which can be said to be both in heaven AND on earth, as stated above.
The fulfillment of the soul's fate after the death of the body doesn't require "resurrection". It's only the theology of the Watchtower that says the anointed "resurrect" to heaven. If you look at the beginning of the second Corinthians 5, you can read that Paul also hoped that he could return to the heavenly home WHEN he dies, regardless of (physical) resurrection.
Those who died before the resurrection, whose souls go to heaven (without a body) in the intermediate state, their bodies don't "transform". Paul states the going to heaven in 2 Corinthians 5, independent of the body (and resurrection). Then, of course, the "transformation"/"change" signaled in 1 Corinthians 15:51-53 doesn't yet occur, when the corruptible body puts on incorruptibility. The time spent in heaven in the intermediate state is more pleasant than the life full of suffering on earth, but this is not yet the full existence that comes after the resurrection when the body will also be glorified.
JWs commonly misunderstand the term "heaven", which leads you into the error of believing that if a person's body is resurrected on the NEW earth, they have to come out of heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven, or Kingdom of God is nothing more than the place of perfect happiness, the fulfilled state of God's Kingdom. Thus, this word is an expression of final salvation, where people participate in God's life through Christ. Christ's Ascension did not mean that he was detached from this world, but rather that he gave and demonstrated the possibility of cosmic glorification. Our salvation and happiness is nothing more than participating in his glory. Heaven is not some external place where a person arrives, but rather being with Christ, participating in his glory, which he has earned for himself and for us through his earthly merits. Heaven cannot be understood as a separate place or a completely different state, but rather as the communion of people with God. Therefore, when we talk about a "higher" world, we should not understand it in terms of space, but in terms of the order of existence.
The earth to which the bodies of the saved will be resurrected will not be THIS earth (since it will perish, see 2 Peter 3:10-13), but that new earth onto which the new heaven, the heavenly Jerusalem descends (see Revelation 21). This "place" will be as much earth as it is heaven - so the saved do not need to "come out" of heaven for their souls to reunite with their bodies resurrected on the new earth, because the (new) heaven, the heavenly Jerusalem, will descend to earth.
Of course, not only the saved will be resurrected, but the wicked as well: Christ specifically proclaims the resurrection of the wicked too. For example, "...your whole body goes to hell" (Matthew 5:29-30); "...to be thrown into eternal fire with both feet" (Matthew 18:8-9); "Fear rather the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell" (Matthew 10:28); "...those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned" (John 5:28-29). They obviously won't be in the new Jerusalem but will be tormented forever in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10). The resurrected bodies of the damned must possess the most general characteristics of the otherworldly state (such as immortality and some form of transcendence of time and space), but they must be the opposite of the glorified ones. So, there will be passivity, and the transcendence of time will probably manifest itself in the boredom of monotony and hopelessness. They do not receive the joy and freedom of life, they feel trapped, they become unable to give and accept love, and as a result, the greatest disharmony reigns in their souls, which becomes externally perceptible. However, we must be careful not to let unfounded anthropomorphic fantasies mislead us in this regard, as well as in our imagination of otherworldly sufferings and rewards.
Paul the Apostle and the other saved souls exist in heaven. Before Christ's redemption, heaven was closed; at this time, all the deceased were still together in the underworld (Sheol) in a joyless, mournful existence, even if they were chosen for eternal salvation. Although they were separate from those condemned to hell (see Ezekiel 32:17-32), this place - as the limbo - was not a place of joy, but of mute sorrow, where they did not even praise God. This is completely different from heaven, which was only opened by Christ's crucifixion. From that point on, death became joy, and from then on, the saints who died praised God. The saved ones who died before Christ went to heaven when Christ "ascended on high, leading a host of captives" (Ephesians 4:8).
We are not saying that the role of heaven is for a person to live there forever without a body, like a spiritual being. For here, we do not necessarily understand heaven as a separate place that only represents the spiritual realm, but as the state of cosmic glorification. We also profess the resurrection of the body. Immortality and resurrection relate to each other as shell and core, as beginning and end. Resurrection is one way of believing in immortality. It can only be imagined if life after death can be imagined at all. However, resurrection does not mean that a person "comes out" of heaven (since it is not a place, as I mentioned above), but that the body also resurrects and glorifies and unites with the already glorified soul.
The soul is not a separate "being", Christians do NOT understand this in a Platonic way, they REJECT the idea that the body is the "prison" of the soul, it is just a garment, and that the soul alone is the person. Therefore, we cannot be accused of denying the tragedy of the reality of death if we profess the possibility of the conscious continuation of the soul after the death of the body. The unity of the soul and the body is so deep that the soul must be regarded as the "form" of the body; that is, the body made of matter is a human and living body because of the spiritual soul; the spirit and matter in man are not two united natures, but their unity forms a single nature. The soul in itself is NOT a separate "being", we do NOT say that the soul alone is the person. The soul is destined to exist together with the body, it is an element of a spiritual nature.
Furthermore, in the articles (which you apparently refused to read) that I linked to, there are many verses mentioned where it is stated that the righteous of the Old Testament will also be members of God's kingdom, the heavenly kingdom, e.g. Job 19:25-27, Matthew 8:11-12, Luke 13:28-29, Galatians 3, Hebrews 11:13-16. In Matthew 11:11 Jesus is speaking in the present tense. He is not speaking of John the Baptist's final position.
By the way, it is striking that you write "JEHOVAH" in all caps so many times, how many times did Jesus and the apostles say "Jehovah"? That this is a wrong reading is even admitted in the 'Aid' WTS publication.
Nincsnevem, you write:
"Psalm 146:4 does not teach that self-awareness would be extinguished, but that the person will no longer be able to carry out what he had planned."
I disagree and have posted information to the contrary. You've asserted things about Psalm 146:4 and ignored verses/data that go against your preferred interpretation of the verse.
"You should probably read a chapter from a book on biblical anthropology about the word 'nefesh'; to see that this word in the Old Testament signified throat, neck, desire, life, a complete person - and indeed the soul, in its usual theological sense."
I don't mean to sound disrespectful or condescending but do you really think I don't know the foregoing information? I've only been studying the Bible for about 40 years and went to grad school along with teaching in a university. I've read plenty of books on theology in general and I'm up on theological anthropology. I even posted something from Robert Alter about the soul, which you apparently chose to ignore. Here is also what another book states:
"The Jewish origin of the word [YUXH] is determinative: NEPES is the living quality of the flesh. The soul belongs to man's earthly existence. It does not exist without physical life. It is not, say, freed by death, then to live its untrammeled purity. Death is its end. The word YUXH can also mean the person, and this is related to SWMA, SARX and PNEUMA (Rom. 16:4: hUPER THS YUXHS MOU 'For my life')" (Hans Conzelmann. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament, page 179).
"You all have a great battle against those scripture passages where the word cannot mean a complete person, because it is about a person's breath. Such are Exodus 23:9, Job 19:2, Isaiah 53:11, and many others that I could copy from my source, Hans Walter Wolff's book 'Anthropology of the Old Testament'. These cannot be pinned down to mean the 'complete person', but rather a constituent part of the person. Obviously, in many places 'nefesh' means the whole person, but these do not absorb the ones I mentioned, nor several key places in the description of the soul, such as 1Thes 5:23, Hebrews 4,12. Therefore, neither nefesh nor psyche exclusively mean the complete person."
The word "soul" (Hebrew nepes and Greek psyche) apparently has three primary meanings in the Bible:
(1) A human person.
(2) An animal.
(3) The life enjoyed by a person or animal.
Genesis 2:7 describes Adam becoming a "living being" (Amplified Bible) or a "living soul" (New World Translation). The apostle Paul also invokes this account when reproving some in the Corinthian ecclesia (1 Cor. 15:45). Furthermore, animals are called "souls" in Numbers 31:28; Ezekiel 47:9; Revelation 8:9; 16:3. For an example of psyche denoting "life," see Matthew 16:25; 20:28.
Technically, I do not believe that there is any metaphysical dichotomy between the body and the soul in the OT or NT: the usages in both testaments bear this out.
For Matthew 10:28, see also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/10/peter-pett-and-matthew-1028.html
Dear Mr. Foster (3:22 PM),
Psalm 146:4 does not prove the annihilationist position for three basic reasons:
A) Because the literary nature of the Psalms and their being from the Old Testament allow only a limited doctrinal proof.
B) Based on the context of the verse, it is not a revelation of a doctrinal truth about the state of the dead - especially not in such an explicit and definitive way that it can be played against the much more specific New Testament statements, but it calls for trust in God, as opposed to human finitude.
C) The corresponding Hebrew term 'eshton' used here does not denote a person's full self-awareness, consciousness, but his plans regarding the earthly life, which perish with the death. I even asked a native Hebrew rabbi about this, and he also professed this interpretation.
You may have heard or read about the broad nuances of the Hebrew term "nefesh", but basically your denomination wants to derive the doctrinal description of anthropology from the earliest Old Testament meaning of the word "nefesh". Any Catholic theology book will tell you that "nefesh" in Genesis 2:7 does not mean soul, which is what we specifically mean by "soul". This meaning also appears clearly in the Bible, although it is a fact that it is mainly in the later books.
In the first two chapters of Genesis, we read two types of descriptions of the creation of man. Primarily, these descriptions show that man owes his origin to God, just like other creatures. On the other hand, it is also clear from the texts that he is the crown of creation, a much more excellent creature than the other creatures: apart from the description and the instructions given to man, we also see this from the fact that in the Elohist text, man is not created with the word "let there be...!", but the text mentions the creation carried out by God three times (1:26-27), and then in the figurative description of the second creation narrative, God breathes his own life-giving power into the inanimate into man made for him (2:7). The description indicates that there is something in man that God gave separately, breathed into him separately. What it is, will be definitively revealed by the later revelation, and this description cannot be considered definitive, which you can use to knock the later ones to death.
The body-soul dichotomy appears quite concretely, for example, in the first half of Matthew 10:28. You usually focus on the second half of the verse, even though it wouldn't hurt to stop at the first half, read it 2-3 times, and think about it. In the second half, the exegetical problem is that you started from one meaning of the Greek word, and from there you deduce one of the meanings of the given English term, even though there are many Greek terms specifically for annihilation, and apollymi does not mean annihilation based on the biblical context.
In Matthew 10:28, the psyche obviously does not mean either the whole person (because it is about his physical death) or his (eternal) life, since it is not denoted by the term 'psyche', but by the term 'zōē aiōnios' in the New Testament.
And it remains unanswered why, if Israel's original faith was annihilationism, why the translators of the LXX translated 'sheol' as 'hades' and 'nefesh' as 'psyche', when these words clearly have an after-life meaning in the Greek language. And then the writers of the New Testament adopted this terminology and then proclaimed the Gospel in the Greco-Roman world, without saying a word about these converted pagans abandoning their faith in the after-life in its entirety, since there is supposedly nothing until the resurrection.
If the soul can exists apart from the body at all that would constitute spiritualism.
Spiritualism does not allow for a resurrection because there has been no death. There has merely been a disembodiment .
In times past JEHOVAH's angels took on physical forms indistinguishable from human forms see genesis 19:1 the dissolution of those forms were not regarded as deaths. A dismemberment is not a death
We reject the idea that any man has the authority to overrule scripture. Ecclesiastes.ch.3:19ESV"For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity.b 20All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. " In death man and beast are equal death means the return to ones pre-creation state.
Jesus spent no time in heaven in any intermediate state. There is no intermediate state one is either alive or dead those literally dead can be figuratively alive or those literally alive can be figuratively dead but the bible speaks of no intermediate state. This earth will never be destroyed earth can also be used as a reference to human society it is the civilisation that has corrupted the earth that will be destroyed.
2Peter ch.3:5,6refers to previous heavens and earth destroyed in the flood obviously not referring to the cosmos or the planet. But to human civilisation the body is the necessary substrate for the soul no body no soul.
Genesis ch.2:7ASV"And JEHOVAH God formed man( not man's body) of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man BECAME a living soul." So the man who was formed from dust BECAME a living soul he did not receive a soul. So there can be no soul apart from a body. In fact the body not merely outlast the soul it outlives the soul. The soul needs the body more than the body needs the soul.
If the intermediate state is better than life in a sin laden body how can Jesus recall of Lazarus from paradise to return to his sin laden body be considered a kindness?
Acts ch.16:25 NIV"25About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. "There is nothing that will stop a loyal servant of JEHOVAH from praising his His once he is able to. The idea that that the spirit having past all its test and now awaiting it's reward would not be praising his lord is nonsensical.
If the death results in the person becoming more aware comparing to sleep to death would not be euphemistic ,if death resulted in the cessation of all sensation then sleep could be considered a euphemistic metaphor for death.
And this makes sense as the bible plainly teaches that death results in a return to our pre-creation state.
Genesis 3:19
There is no part of the bible that is old in the sense of irrelevant.
To put your rant in more succinct terms those parts of the bible that meddle with your preferred beliefs you will simply declare outdated.
Matthew ch.24:36KJV"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father ONLY. " So even if the incarnation fudge could be made to work why does the Spirit not know the day or hour.
And that fits with Jesus declaration at
John ch.29 KJV"My Father, which gave them me, is greater than ALL..."
It is the only name in all of scripture declared, Holy it irritates the demons more than any other name that is why they have gone all out to remove it from JEHOVAH'S own book.
But JEHOVAH has declared
Malachi ch.1:11ASV"For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name'shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense'shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name'shall be great among the Gentiles, saith JEHOVAH of hosts."
The brothers did not invent the name in fact it is derived from the masoretes, Jewish scribes from the ninth century and I suspect that ,careful scholars that they were ,they did not conjure it out of thin air.
Incidentally the name Jesus is derived from the form JEHOVAH.
aservantofJehovah
I think you should read again what I said about the Old Testament, well, not that it is "irrelevant".
You simply forgot to apply Proverbs 4:18 to the Bible itself, because it would be an apt analogy that revelation was gradual, and the old should be interpreted in the light of the newer revelation.
I did not invent the "veiling", but Paul did, who uses such an analogy to describe reading the Old Testament, not only for the unbelieving Jews, but also for Moses' contemporaries. This is not a deception, but a way of conveying the message they could not yet handle through shadows. It's futile for you to try to make my viewpoint seem arbitrary as if I were talking about the progression of the revelation at whim. I understand, of course, that for you, the Bible is essentially just a compilation of "one-liner" "proof" texts, and in this leapfrogging array of cherry-picked verses, one must not show substantial differences in the question of authority, or else, alas, we make God a liar. I do not rehash the Old Testament, I only say that its statements, which can be considered limited in the light of the New Testament, are limited.
The problem is that you assume that your Jaundiced view of those text would be axiomatic to everyone. But no I did not see any reference to heaven in ANY of those text
Remember the kingdom also has an earthly(i.e human) component.
In order for Christ to be a genuine substitutionary atonement he could not reclaim his human perfection.His sin offerings must be consumed completely in order to conform to the type.
Hebrews Ch.13:11,12ESV"For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood."
So Christ had to exchange his human perfection for superhuman perfection.
Those who rule as kings and serve as priest over the earth with him also must trade human perfection for superhuman perfection.
Only those suffer the hatred of the world for their loyalty to JEHOVAH'S kingdom right up to their death will have a share among these kings and priests so that excludes the ancient worthies.
Matthew ch.20:23NIV"He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
Hebrews ch.11:40NIV"since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect."
What could be better than heaven
Dear servant of Jehovah,
Mocking a concept with a term (in this case "spiritualism") is good for name calling at most, not an argument. You are attacking a straw man because you have failed to understand the Catholic Thomist view of the soul, which is far from Platonist.
It is useless to contrast the survival (incorruptibility) of the soul with the resurrection, since the Holy Scriptures nowhere contrast the two. It is precisely the soul that ensures that the resurrection is truly a resurrection, not a re-creation. If you've seen the movie 'The 6th Day' with Schwarzenegger, you should know what the problem is that your perfect copy isn't actually you.
"We reject the idea that any man has the authority to overrule scripture." - Why do you think we are doing this?
I have already commented above on the perspective and validity of the Book of Ecclesiastes, I am unnecessarily repeating myself. The narrator here does not deny the immortality of the soul, in 3:19 he is not dealing with the soul (in Hebrew, nefesh) but with the breath of life (in Hebrew, ruach). According to him, the soul also ends up in the joyless underworld after death (9:10), so it does not perish; however, death ends organic life, and in this point, there is no difference between man and animal. The Psalm 104 (verses 29-30) partially reflects the same view, where God is presented as the one who sends out and retracts the breath of life of all living creatures. This breath of life is a comprehensive term for organic life and its operations.
"Jesus spent no time in heaven in any intermediate state." - I didn't even claim that, read more carefully.
"There is no intermediate state one is either alive or dead" - Yet Jesus said that the soul does not die with the death of the body (Matthew 10:28). It's clear in the apostolic letters that for the converts from Hellenistic paganism, Saint Paul emphasizes the hope of resurrection, which was new to them - however, he does not deny the intermediate state between death and resurrection on any occasion. The Apostle Paul did not rule out that he was "in the third heaven," with God, outside of his body (2 Cor 12:2-3). He did not identify himself with his body (earthly tent), from which he himself wanted to "move out," to "move home" to Christ (i.e., into the heavenly house, form of life). He hoped that he would not have to be "naked" in a transitional form of life between his bodily death (collapsed tent) and his resurrected spiritual body (heavenly house), but would experience the return of the Lord and the resurrection. He did not consider death to be gain because he could sleep, rest, and perhaps after millennia his first conscious moment could be Jesus, but because his existing communion with the Lord can finally become direct, he can finally be with him (5:6, cf. 1 Cor 13:12).
"This earth will never be destroyed..." - Matthew 24:35, Luke 12:49, 2 Peter 3:7-13, Revelation 21
"earth can also be used as a reference to human society" - A "can" is pretty weak "evidence" that it specifically means just that here.
[Genesis 2:7] "So the man who was formed from dust BECAME a living soul he did not receive a soul." - At least it is not declared here, and the two are not mutually exclusive, so that the person mentioned here as nefesh will also receive a soul. Where did I, or the Catholic theology book, say that the "nefesh" mentioned in Genesis 2:7 is meant by soul? In any case, it is not difficult to see that the "nefesh" mentioned here is understood in a different sense than "psyche" in Matthew 10:28. Why should the anthropological description of man be limited to the narrative of Genesis?
"So there can be no soul apart from a body." - According to the above passages, yes, so this must be interpreted in the light of the later statements.
( to be continued ... )
"In fact the body does not merely outlast the soul it outlives the soul." - Yes, for example Matthew 10:28 says exactly that the "psyche" mentioned there survives the physical death of the person described as the "living nefesh" in Genesis 2:7.
"If the intermediate state is better than life in a sin laden body how can Jesus recall Lazarus from paradise" - I don't know what a "sin laden" (???) body is. By the way, you can find the answer at 3:07 PM.
I recommend interesting articles for your attention:
http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/06/where-is-jesus-body-after-ascension.html
http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/06/are-there-three-personalities-in-god-i.html
http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/07/trinity-is-our-father.html
Also, Mr. Foster, I recommend you a good book on the 4th century Arian controversy:
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/index.html
If the soul survives it cannot be resurrected because by definition it would be alive and only the dead can be resurrected by definition 1Corinthians ch.15:36.
Revelation ch.20:4 Note it is the souls that are raised up not the bodies 2Corinthians ch.5 points out those going to heaven receive superhuman bodies they can' t take their human bodies with them. Matthew ch.10:28 plainly states that both soul and body are destroyed not tormented in Gehenna. We know that JEHOVAH regards those in line for a resurrection as already alive
they live to him no one else he is not the God of the dead because the dead are unable to worship
Mark ch.12:27, Luke 20:38
The soul only lives from JEHOVAH'S Standpoint if there were an intermediate state JEHOVAH would most definitely be the God of those in the afterlife.
Yes receiving a soul is mutually exclusive to becoming a soul, the man made from dust did not receive a spirit soul he is a living soul
That is why second person pronouns are used to describe the man's RETURN To the ground because it is not merely a body that returns to its pre- creation state at death but a soul
Genesis ch.3:19NIV
The soul RETURNS to its pre-creation state at death.
I did not merely state that heaven and earth can refer to human civilisation I illustrated that it is likely the case by refering to 3Peter3:5,6
Obviously not refering to the cosmos or the planet he then goes on to state that those heavens and earth were succeeded by the present heavens and earth which are what will be destroyed.
2Peter ch.3:7
Ecclesiastes:ch.1:4
Genesis ch.8:21 Plainly show that the destruction of the planet is not part of JEHOVAH'S purpose.
Time would stop running at death so the shift from the human body to the superhuman one would be an instant one from the standpoint of the one being resurrected one cannot go into heaven with a human body or without a body.one would need a superhuman body to enter the presence of JEHOVAH.
Jesus set the pattern he did not enter JEHOVAH'S presence until he was clothed with the superhuman body.
The man being referred to at 2Corinthians ch.12 was alive when he had these visions so this says nothing about an intermediate state. The weight of scriptural precedent favours a figurative understanding of a LIVING person being apart from his body.
Ezekiel ch.8:3NIV
So the prophet Ezekiel while alive was transported in vision to Israel even though his body remained among the Babylonian exiles.
The sight of the risen Christ that blinded the apostle on the other hand was a physical phenomenon he was wide awake and not in a trance
Acts ch.9:7NIV
Acts ch.12:9-11NIV
Note the expression"When Peter came to himself" we certainly won't take that literally.
If the penalty for sin is eternal suffering how could Christ's losing his unessential body( there are people who live full lives missing various body members)
For parts of three days be regarded as a substitutionary offering?
@ Nincsnevem: Psalms ch.83:18KJV"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."
JEHOVAH is the most high.
By common consent Jesus is not the most high.
Therefore Jesus is not JEHOVAH.
Thanks Nincsnevem, I will check out the links today. I've read Newman before: he's an interesting writer and the other links look worthwhile.
@nincsnevem: Mark ch.9:45-48NASB"And if your foot is causing you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life without a foot, than, having your two feet, to be thrown into [ae]hell.( Gehenna)[af] 47And if your eye is causing you to sin, throw it away; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be thrown into [ag]hell(Gehenna), 48where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT EXTINGUISHED. " Is it your position that these words are to be taken literally? For instance are we to to expect that some will enter heaven lamed and maimed?
@ nincsnevem if anyone took the the time to visit the literal Gehenna of Jesus day ,they would see the fire they would see the worms but they would see no suffering they would see fire doing what fire does i.e destroying and worms doing what worms do consuming lifeless refuse.
The medium constrains me to prooftexting but the bible overwhelming supports our position it is in fact the basis of the substitutionary atonement flesh and blood cannot substitute for spirit if the penalty for sin is eternal suffering then losing a nonessential body for less than three days cannot be regarded as an equivalent punishment.
The presupposition of a physical soul is necessary for the atonement to conform to law
There is no comparing of the limits of what men can do with JEHOVAH'S creation with what JEHOVAH can do with his creation. Our souls had a beginning caused by JEHOVAH the essence of the self is informal though it requires a formal medium for expression JEHOVAH has the inscrutable means of preserving this informal essence and causing it's re-expression at another time and place and through a different medium. So we are not talking about a copy it is literally the essence of the identical soul re-instantiated. I don't understand how any one who can claim to believe that God is both immutable and yet subject to infinite change up to and including death could balk and this way simpler concept
Hebrews ch.7:10NIV"because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor."
the abstract essence of would eventually be instantiated as the man levi came through the prophet Abraham but its ultimate source is JEHOVAH Himself.
Acts ch.17:28NIV"‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ b As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ c"
There is no life no movement no existence apart from JEHOVAH
That is why there can be no immortality for the wicked.
But in as much as he is the source of the information that makes us the unique souls that we are it is not a question of him copying us it is simply a matter of him preserving the abstract essence of our selves and re-instantiating it at a time place and through a medium of his choosing.
@nincsnevem I've looked and I can't locate where you have dealt with the question of how it would be a kindness to remove the righteous soul from the intermediate state that you claimed was superior to dwelling in the physical body and return same to said physical body. If you could be do kind as to repeat it. I mean you never know that might be the straw breaks the camel's back( though I have my doubts)
@nincsnevem : when I asked earlier as to how removing Lazarus from what you asserted was the superior state of the spirit world and returning him to a sin laden physical body in the present corrupt world can be considered a kindness, you claimed to be ignorant as to what would constitute a sin laden body,perhaps our brother Paul can help.
Romans ch.7:24NIV"What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?"
It does beg the question as to how a superphysical soul would be under the control of a physical body?
#Nincsnevem1Corinthians ch.8:6 NIV" yet for us there is one God, the Father, from(ex) whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."
One expression that will never be found in scripture is 'ex nihilo'
The God and Father of Jesus is the most high God "ex hou" comes all the information and energy manifest in the creation. His son is the instrument "Dia" from which is derived the word diameter this through whom JEHOVAH Channels his power and wisdom. We note that the Spirit is not even mentioned.
Dear servant of Jehovah,
it is quite difficult to have a dialogue with someone who only works in output mode. You won't convince me with this, you'll tire me out as much as possible, and I'll get bored of the discussion. And you don't have to convince your fellow believers, so I suggest you give it another go.
if you compare John 12:41 with Isaiah 6:1, it also proves that Jesus is Yahweh too.
Another example: compare Isaiah 44:24 with Hebrews 1:10.
The Father is indeed the only true God, which is not the same as the JWs read it, ie. that "only the Father is true God alone". The apostle Paul also uses this wording in 1 Cor 8:6. This is therefore not opposed to the deity of Jesus, but to the false deities. In the same way, the fact that Jesus is the only Lord does not mean that only Jesus is truly Lord alone, opposed to the Father. This is the answer of Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I, q.31, a.4) too, that it's to be understood in syncategorematical, and not in categorematical sense.
If the father is the ONLY true God then logically no one else is The true God the statement is about identity not nature. Similarly at 1Corinthians ch.8:6 the the God and Father of Jesus is not merely a single person but a single God . The implication of nicean creed is that none of the persons can be Gods in there own right for there are not three gods but three persons the fact that the Father is the God of the Son and one God falsifies the claims of the creed for it shows that the Father is a God indeed the God in his own right. No those scriptures.prove that Jesus represents JEHOVAH. Hebrews 1:2 shows that world was created "Dia" the Son So the power is coming from the God and Father of the Son through the Son thus the act can be attributed to both of them but not equally so the Father as the source of the power and wisdom is greater than all
Jesus is the one Lord through (Dia)whom JEHOVAH Channels his power and wisdom. We know that his lordship is derived while his God's is not
Acts ch.2:36NIV"“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
JEHOVAH'S lordship is underived so Jesus is not JEHOVAH.
But in the category of Lord to which Jesus belongs he is its exclusive member.
Likewise his Father is the only God who is the ultimate source of all the power and wisdom manifest in the creation thus in the category of God who is the ultimate source of all the power and wisdom manifest in creation the God and Father of Jesus is its sole member
Let's deal with Isaiah ch.6
Isaiah ch.6:5,6ASV"Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts.
6Then flew one of the seraphim unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: 7and he touched my mouth with it, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin forgiven."
In this vision JEHOVAH is not alone he is accompanied by heavenly messengers one of which performs a priestly service for the prophet mediating between him and JEHOVAH when he felt unworthy. So here we have a prophetic picture of Christ priesthood.
You nicely sidestepped my point. If the statement in 1 Corinthians 8:6 that "there is but one God, the Father" means that only the Father is God alone (and the Son is not), then the second half of the same sentence, that "there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ" would mean with the same logic that the Father cannot be Lord. And since, based on the context, it is against the "so-called gods" here, it cannot be raised against the deity of the Son.
Just read: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1031.htm#article3
When WTS thinks of God, Jehovah, of course, it automatically thinks of the Father. It is true that the name of the God of Israel is Yahweh or Jehovah. It is also true that Jesus called the Father God and God his Father. But of this, the formula Jehovah / God = the Father is only logical for the Watchtower Society. The divine name Yahweh or Jehovah does not denote only one person, but the Godhead itself (theotes, Col 2:9), in whom three persons can be identified. The name of the second person is "the Son" (ho húios), his human name is "Jesus", and his mission is "Christ." The third person does have a name, since there is only one "Holy Spirit" in the Bible, so it is often simply "the Spirit" (to pneuma). Christians worship the same God with the same name (Jehovah / Yahweh) as Jehovah's Witnesses, they only claim that Jehovah God is more than Father: Son and Holy Spirit as well.
You nicely sidestepped my point. If the statement in 1 Corinthians 8:6 that "there is but one God, the Father" means that only the Father is God alone (and the Son is not),
Read the comment again and do some actual thinking this time PLEASE
Moses is called God in the bible
Exodus ch.7:1 1And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. "
As you know there is indefinite article in Hebrew
Angels are called elohim in the bible Psalm 8:5
So the issue is not whether one of JEHOVAH'S subordinates can be a God
1Corinthians ch.8:5KJV"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods MANY, and lords MANY,) "
There is a category of God in which the Father is the only member and that is not supposed to be the case if the trinity is a fact there is a category of Lord in which Jesus is its only member again if the trinity true that ought not to be the case
Ephesians ch.4:6KJV"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.,"
Deuteronomy ch.10:17NIV"For JEHOVAH your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and the terrible, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. "
The Father is the only God who is above every other God
Psalms ch.83:18KJV"That they may know that thou alone, whose name is JEHOVAH, Art the Most High over all the earth."
Thus no one not numerically identical to JEHOVAH can be the God of Israel or the most high God
If the claim is that the triune God is JEHOVAH Then it logically follows that no one other than this triune God can be called JEHOVAH in as much as Jesus nor the Father are triune according Trinitarian orthodoxy then neither Jesus nor the father can be called the most high or the God of Israel
it is also claimed that no member of the trinity is a God there are not three gods but three persons.
So the fact that the father is called the God and one God is a problem because it means that the father is A God in his own right also the Father is the God of the son
Revelation ch.3:12 KJV" that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out thence no more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and mine own new name. "
There fore the Son is definitely not the most high
Acts ch.3:13NIV"The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him. "
Luke ch.1:32NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The LORD God will give him the throne of his father David,"
So the God and Father of Jesus is the Most High God I.e JEHOVAH
"But of this, the formula Jehovah / God = the Father is only logical for the Watchtower Society. The divine name Yahweh or Jehovah does not denote only one person,"
Well how about this then
Luke ch.1:32NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the LORD God will give to him the throne of his father David, "
Most high =Father of Jesus
JEHOVAH = Most High Psalm ch.83:18
JEHOVAH =Father of Jesus
Of course if the Father of Jesus is truly the MOST HIGH as per the dictionary no other can be his equal or even his approximate
This is really easy to answer: according to his human nature, Jesus is a Messianic King, according to his human nature he is the heir to David's throne, and of course Jesus' humanity is not God, not YHWH. Jesus' human and divine natures are distinct but inseparable.
"This is really easy to answer: according to his human nature, Jesus is a Messianic King, according to his human nature he is the heir to David's throne, and of course Jesus' humanity is not God, not YHWH. Jesus' human and divine natures are distinct but inseparable.,"
Here is the thing Mr.nevem the verse makes no mention of a nature but of a person so if this person( not nature) is equal to his Father is not the most high or he is his own Father stop putting words in the prophet's mouth
Also there is a small matter of the Holy Spirit who is not the Father of Jesus according to the Nicene creed and not incarnated if he is equal to the Father then obviously the Father of Jesus is not the most high.
So your fudge fails the person (not the nature) of the Father is greater than the person of the Son and if the spirit is a person greater than the person of the spirit.
Luke ch.1:32NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, "
A similar problem exists with Matthew ch.24:36
Matthew ch.24:36KJV"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my FATHER ONLY. "
Why would the unincarnated Spirit not know the day or hour
And if you could just put the smug away for a minute(because it is clearly impeding your judgment) you will see that the question was mainly about the identity of the most high because, by definition the most high can have no equals so who is this unequalled Father of Jesus.
So it really doesn't matter whether the human Jesus was less than his father if there is a divine Jesus that is equal to his Father his Father is not the MOST HIGH as per the dictionary definition of that term
Post a Comment