Jesus' Physical Resurrection = Take the Ransom Back?

by InterestedOne 64 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    I was shocked to read this thread. The Trinity was rejected. I can understand that. I never heard that Jesus was not physically resurrection but it was a long while ago and I was young. There was some blending of what I picked up from civilization and the Witnesses. Kennedy was president when I was young so Catholic doctrine was discussed a lot.

    Have the Witnesses always taught this? My father was a Behtelite. He would be shocked as would my mother.

    They would still believe, probably, b/c they did not know what else to do. The strange part is that they were estranged from their Witness famiiies.

  • Leolaia
    I never heard that Jesus was not physically resurrection but it was a long while ago and I was young.

    Oh yeah, it's a big doctrine, I've known it all my life growing's right in the Reasoning book. They believe that Jesus was raised as a spirit being w/o a physical body, and that he materialized bodies at will (as presumably angels would). A very docetic conception of the "resurrection".

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Ah, gnosticism has such allure today. People who never read the Bible rush to read newly discovered gnostic writings. Maybe it was mentioned and Ii forgot. Frankly, the part where not one of his followers recognized him post-Resurrection when first encountering him,spooked me a bit. The scene where he tells Magdalene not to embrace him is very spooky to me.

    If Jesus is Christ, why can't he manifest in the same body. Jesus said God could pick up stones to replace the sons of Abraham. If he can transform stones, why not the Risen Christ. It is very strange since they teach bodily resurrection on earth. The speculation of what could happen is endless.

    This is typical of Witness teaching. I knew about aluminum pans, not saying "God Bless," that Jesus did not die on a cross, a whole host of not central doctrine but the most important part, the nature of Christ, was never emphasized. They are so far from almost every Christian belief. Yet they are the actual Christians. I think not.

  • Ding

    "Jesus' physical resurrection = take the ransom back" is nothing more than WT speculation unsupported by scripture.

    Jesus laid down his LIFE, so you could equally argue "Jesus getting his life back = take the ransom back"

    Then there would be no resurrection at all unless Jesus went out of existence permanently, which certainly isn't NT teaching.

  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    If He materialized several bodies, wouldn't He have died several times when He disposed of them?

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    This is weird. Somehow his resurrected body always gave me the spooks. I asked a priest about the interaction with Magdalene, perhaps some Witness thought was in my mind. He said John was theology, not fact. It was mostly to say not to hold on to departing/ed ones too long. He shrugged it off. I thought I was watching a weird sci fi film.

    As with so much else, their reasoning does not hold up. It is always absurd? Maybe I'm skewing it that way for my own reasons. Perhaps their plan of action is to set out a document that contains cherished doctrines and traditions. Maybe they poke them one a time. It seems these beliefs are adopted on the fly. If this all fits in some view, I don't see it. My experience was so bad that I can not be neutral.

    When I studied Nt, I concentrated in those subjects to which I had no prior exposure. My grade was excellent. Catholic friends wrote about Catholic doctrine, believing their study would give them a head start. Their grades were poor in marked contrast to other classes. It is hard for me to have distance even after decades out of the Witnesses. Typically, I almost wrote out of the truth.

    I just listened to Jesus Christ Superstar on my ipod. When it played in NY, I saw both productions. Why could I not take my thoughts and write a novel like Katzenzakis or a musical like Andrew Lloyd Weber and Tim Rice? At least I'd see some income from the aggravation,

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Does anyone have any nonWitness thoughts on why his closest followers don't recognize him post Resurrection? I'm not talking about being an eye witness. There must be a teaching witness for it to be included in the gospels. MDs say conversion and extreme grief can lead someone to believe a loved one is not dead. They are the opposite, after all the prophecies. I don't think there was much messianic consciousness until after the Resurrection.

    Thomas' being able to touch Jesus' wounds, in contrast to Magdalene, always touched me. I am doubting Thomas. Jesus did not condemn him for his disbelief. Perhaps Thomas was the sane one. Jesus assisted his faith. It wasn't have faith or perish.

    The apostles are so clueless and not awe-inspiring during his earthly ministry. These same characters are transformed into extraordinary martrys and visionaries in Paul and Acts. My personal feeling is that something actually happened during Pentecost. It is so observable I don't believe it is a coincidence. Maybe the apostles were made to look foolish to make Jesus look more awesome by comparison.

  • Ding

    Regarding the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Luke 24:15-16 says, "As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus
    himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him."

    The non-WT explanation is that Jesus prevented them from recognizing him until he wanted them to. In the case of these disciples, Jesus wanted to explain the scriptures to them first. In the case of Mary Magdelene, the reason isn't given.

    If the WT were correct, then Jesus manufactured FAKE wounds for Thomas to inspect.

    Yet in Luke 24:39 (NASB), Jesus said, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones

  • cofty

    Surely "spiritual body" is an oxymoron?

    How come he walks through walls? I think the watchtower's feeble explanation is as valid as any on this subject. The bible is very vague and contradictory on this topic

  • peacefulpete

    Like Leolaia said the question goes to the heart of a larger controversy that divided Christianity for 400 years, namely docetism (or a number of variations) that insisted that the Christ was either a spirit that inhabited the man Jesus or that he was a spirit in the form of a man (in any appearnce of his liking). Both doctrinal angles meant that the Christ had not really died. However as it was seemingly (but not necessarily) in contradiction of the more Jewish notion of the Christ represented some actual blood sacrifice, efforts were made by those with that theological perspective to include phrases that were overtly anti-docetic, passages that emphasize his physicality. The NT Gospels themselves reveal differing perspectives both internally and between them. In specifically addressing the resurection story/ies, Mark makes no suggestion that Jesus had been raised as a spirit but rather that since the body was missing he must have been raised in a manner similar to OT resurrections, and so the controversy was taken up in subsequent revisions we now call Matt and Luke. The versions retain texts from their sources that have both docetic leanings and open renuciations of this position. Jesus takes on a different face then passes from view as a spirit but then eats a meal to prove he is not a spirit, he walks through walls like a spirit but then has Thomas touch him to prove he is not a spirit. etc.. Late additions such as Luke 22:43,4 which has Jesus weeping blood in a decidedly anti-docetic manner shows that this revision work in response to docetism was continuing centuries after the books were written. G.John may have been written in direct response to Cerithus' form of docetism but was itself subject to redaction. The confusion modern forms of Christianity experience is therefore quite understandable given the fact that many positions can be defended using a proof text method of exegesis.

    And BTW The story in Acts has Jesus appearing to Paul as a spirit so the idea that it must have been necessary to form a phsical body to appear to his disciples is just silly.

Share this