angels and women (page 4)

Apognophos

Ah, I see, sorry, so the angel in Daniel was in fleshly form. But again, the JW doesn't believe that faithful angels had that ability stripped from them, only the ones who gave in to temptation pre-Flood. (That being said, I never hear JWs suggest that God's angels are taking material forms today.)

I guess caroline77 was asking about both the pre-Flood angels who descended, and the demons who were cast out around 1914. But the answer is the same, that the Society believes they cannot materialize. However, as you said, the Bible itself does not state this.

Btw, you can download the new NWT in PDF form from jw.org, if you can stand visiting there :)

Bart Belteshassur

AP _ That is the problem the angels that were sent to earth with Satan were only Rev 12:9 "Hurled". We can asume from the statement in revalation that is quite detailed that the ability not to do anything that they could not whilst in heaven was imposed, only that Rev 12:8 "neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven."

I take it that the dense spiritual darkness of Tartarus must be in heaven, although something about a well south of Babylon and they were sealed in there, and therefore the demons/ angels from preflood are still under lock and key in heaven. Therefore it was Big J's intention to cause problems on the earth when he could have just locked this lot up with the previous retrobates.

BB

Bart Belteshassur

Sorry line 3 should start: was not imposed.

BB

Apognophos

The JW interpretation of Tartarus (I can't speak for any others) is that it represents spiritual darkness or disfavor. It's not a place, it's a state. However, if it were a place, it would not be in heaven, because the angels "in Tartarus" are barred from re-entering heaven. Just to be clear, JWs do not believe that any angels/demons are currently "in prison" anywhere. Only when they are thrown into the Abyss at Armageddon will they be confined (for a thousand years).

caroline77

Thanks for your answers.

This leads me to another linked question about bodies and spirits.

JW's have told me that Jesus gave up his earthly body when he died.

But after his death he disappeared from the tomb, and later was seen and felt by the disciples and some women. They confirmed that it was him, as he showed them the injuries he sustained in his body during his dying hours.

He also ate and drank with them to show them that he was alive and well.

I was told that his mortal body disintegrated and that angels can't eat. It seems to me that the JW's believe that the angels lied when they said that Jesus had risen from death, and that his body was done away with to make the lie easier to swallow.

I have never had an explanation of why they believe what they do, though I have asked many times.

Apognophos

If you search around the forum, you'll find a good few discussions of this. There's a quote in the first post here, for instance, where the Society explains that Jesus' original human body had to be given up permanently upon his death because it represented the sacrifice he was making to ransom mankind from Adamic sin. Basically, the perfect man Adam got us into this mess, so only a perfect man could get us out by sacrificing himself. For Jesus/Jehovah to revive his original body three days later as if nothing had happened would be like taking back the sacrifice.

I don't think that is a logical conclusion, as Jesus' sacrifice was supposed to be about his faithful course on earth, not just giving his body up. But that's the slightly arbitrary stance that the Society has taken. The JW belief is that the body which bore Jesus' wounds was newly materialized in order to make that demonstration to them. This may seem like a silly explanation, but other times Jesus appears post-resurrection, his followers don't tend to recognize him, so that implies that he was either jumping from body to body or, as Luke says, hiding his identity from them.

Bart Belteshassur

AP - I think the logic for the JW view comes from 1Peter 3:18 20,

"Why, even Chirst died once for all time concerning sin, a righteous (person) for an unrighteous ones, that he might lead you to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but beingmade alive in the spirit. 19 In this (state) also he went his way and preachedto the spirits in prison, 20. who had once been disobedient whenthe patience of God was waitingin Noah's day, while the ark was being constructed, .......water."

This seems to be the scripture that they must take their position from and to be fair I think it has merit, although it only deals with the period between Jesus dying and his resurrection. It is evident though that Jesus was in physical form between resurrection and acension which account for the missing body. His physical form only needs to dematerialize during his acension does it not?

BB

jgnat

This is what happens when you try and reconcile the entire bible as being a cohesive and consistent whole. The ideas of bodies, spirits and souls had changed over time. To make all the scriptures fit, you end up pounding in puzzle peices that do not belong.

If the bible is treated as a collection of books over a span of history, not necessarily consistent, it starts to all make more sense.

jgnat

How about this one? The WTS teaches there are no ghosts, as this logically follows if we have no soul. And yet King Saul consulted the dead Samuel. (1 Samuel 28). So what is it?

Apognophos

jgnat: JW answer: it was a demon. Of course the verses say nothing to support this view. The account's a bit awkward for Witnesses to consider. But likewise today they believe that any seance where a dead one is supposedly speaking is actually a demon speaking through the medium, the goal being to confuse and mislead people.

Bart: You are right that the missing body implies that Jesus had come to life again just like Lazarus. Probably at least some early Christians believed that, though I've also heard about this docetism belief which was that Jesus was not ever truly flesh and blood in the first place. Over here, our old poster Narkissos discussed what he felt was a tension between docetic and anti-docetic statements in the NT which account for the differing details of the resurrection. I'm not sure I agree with him, but it's food for thought.

angels and women

Share this