"Putting on and taking off the flesh" in more scientific terms ;)

by tec 21 Replies latest jw friends

  • tec

    I would like to share some understanding I received today, and I would like to share the understanding first and then the scientific understanding.

    As the faithful understand, we are spirit 'underneath' our flesh. I put underneath in quotations because that's not quite the right word. Spirit 'hidden' or 'covered' by flesh might be better. Because there isn't a particular spot inside of us that houses a spirit, like a cupboard. But as I now understand it, the flesh can be put off... and also put back on.

    Many who have faith already know this. But what had me 'leaping for joy' earlier, was that science is beginning to back this as well. I mean, of course it MUST, because there is no conflict between science and God. Only a conflict in our (mis)understanding of either one of them. But I didn't realize or e Xpect that it would begin to happen in my 'time'.

    In more 'scientific' terms though... it can be described as this:

    Spirit (energy) can manifest itself as flesh/physical (matter).

    Two things in science provide evidence for the truth of this. (not proof, yet, but evidence)

    One: Energy and Matter. Einstein stated that matter an energy were different forms of the same thing. Energy can be matter and vice versa.

    Two: The Standing Wave theory that a couple posters have pointed out. States that we are all energy at our most basic level, but that we manifest as physical, at least to our five senses. (I'm not sure I understood fully about this further point, but energy moves in waves... and standing energy manifests as matter.)

    I find both of these theories to be very eXciting! Not because I need them to believe what Christ already stated, but because these provide evidence for matters in my faith! Both of these seem to work together (and of course they must). And if one could control this transformation between matter and energy (such as this 'standing wave'), then one could literally put on and put off the flesh.

    In practical terms for believers, this takes care of one of the major sources of contention between various theological stands on the resurrected and risen Christ. I don't usually worry about theological matters, but my understanding became more clear when given this as an e Xample:

    Some say that Christ was resurrected in the flesh and ascended bodily into heaven.

    Some say that Christ had to have been resurrected and ascended in spirit because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. How could a physical being enter a spiritual place/realm? This was always my problem with a physical resurrection as well, although why go through the trouble of pointing out that you had flesh, if you were spirit?

    But by this understanding, and these theories, BOTH are right. Christ was resurrected in the flesh (as he said and showed his disciples). He was raised up bodily, sure... but then entered a spiritual realm as a spirit because he could return to spirit. He could put off his flesh. (He can also put it back on, since He is going to return as He left.)

    Spirit beings (angels) can also travel between both realms, because they also can put on or put off the flesh. (or move from energy/spirt to matter/flesh to energy/spirit)

    I know this science is very new (especially in terms of the age of mankind), and all of the implications still in the beginning stages. But these discoveries provide some of the 'how' of things I knew happened, but on faith in Christ and in His teachings. I'm sure what I understand is still just a drop in the bucket of things to come... but it would seem to me that those things, the evidence, is coming. It is very e Xciting! Christ said to his disciples that He could not share many things of the spiritual with them because they could not yet bear it or understand it. He kept his teachings in simple terms according to the understanding they could handle at the time. Now as we're discovering more and more, the science is backing those first simple terms in greater detail.

    Anyway, for believers, all that contention and arguing over physical resurrection or spiritual ascension for NOTHING. It can be both. It is both. And I have no doubt that there are other contentions that are not really in conflict as well... just our lack of understanding puts them in conflict.

    I hope this wasn't too disjointed. I am very e Xcited and my mind is going very quickly, lol. I am also deeply thankful to Christ and God for granting me this understanding.

    Peace to you all,


  • sizemik

    I enjoyed your post Tammy . . .

    As you probably know, the Spherical Standing Wave theory is one of great interest to me at present and, while still "emergent", is scientifically sound. It does indeed for the first time ever, represent the first possible convergence between scientific knowledge and the mysteries of spirituality (for want of a better word).

    I find it quite exciting also . . . and look forward to being enlightened further by the implications.

    Daniel 12;4 . . . perhaps?

    4 But as for you, Daniel, keep these words hidden and lock up the Book until the end of time. Many will travel here and there and knowledge will be more and more.”

  • palmtree67
    As the faithful understand, we are spirit 'underneath' our flesh.

    That is what I believe, too.

    Anyway, for believers, all that contention and arguing over physical resurrection or spiritual ascension for NOTHING.

    That's why I don't get too involved in some of the debates here.

    Really enjoyed this topic, thank you Tammy!


  • tec

    It is e Xciting, isn't it Size? For me, it is also "evidence of the thing already beholden".

    Thanks to you, too, Palm.

    Love and peace to you both,


  • EntirelyPossible

    As you probably know, the Spherical Standing Wave theory is one of great interest to me at present and, while still "emergent", is scientifically sound.

    I am curious, in what way is it sound? Standing waves are nothing new. Everything I can find on standing wave theory or speherical standing wave theory (which, BTW, is at BEST a hypothesis, not a theory) starts with a simple explanation of standing waves and then proceeds to get allo metaphysical on my ass with a LOT of stuff that is asserted that is simple metaphysical ideas without any scientific backing behind them.

    Am I missing something?

    Or I could have just gone with a pun? "In what way is it sound? The waves are STANDING!!!". Yeah, that pun sucked.

  • clarity

    Tec, do you think 1cor15:53,54 has that same thought.................

    not necessarily giving up the body but a putting on of incoruption, a putting on of immortality.

  • soft+gentle

    nice thread Tec, thumbs up from me.

    I don't understand the specifics of the science but what I like is the marriage between ancient wisdom and modern wisdom.

  • sizemik
    Am I missing something? . . . EntirelyPossible

    Yep . . . heaps. Try doing some actual research instead of a 10 minute google search before getting your knickers in a twist over what is no more than a challenge on my semantics. You may even have to leave your computer if that's possible, and actually talk to a scientist.

    But just to keep you happy in the mean time . . . "hypothetical theory" not "theory" . . . OK? Just be sure to call the "big bang theory" the "bing bang hypothetical theory" in future to remain consistent.

  • bohm

    sizemik: Im sorry but i am with EP on this one. Spherical wave theory make all my warning lights go off. Its not about the metaphysics, it just seem like it consist of extremely little physics and (worse) the author blow it completely out of proportions.

    I would recommend you to ask the following questions of SWT:

    • How do you calculate/derive X assuming SWT? (X being some quantity of interest, for instance the energy levels in an atom. It is assumed the calculation is different than the classical counterpart)
    • What kind of (mesurable) predictions does SWT make which are not allready an integrated part of classical quantum physics?

    As for this topic..mew.

  • sizemik
    it just seem like it consist of extremely little physics and (worse) the author blow it completely out of proportions.

    I'm not sure which "author" you are referring to Bohm. I didn't present SWT as a proven fact of quantum physics . . . nor did I endorse the work of any particular "author"

    I described it as "emergent" . . . which is conveniently overlooked by you both. Wave theory has been postulated as a possibility since the emergence of Wave-Particle duality quite some time ago. Like a lot of emergent theory . . . it has survived falsifiability in spite of some outstanding and pressing questions. Also, even the likes of Bohr, De Broglie and Heisenberg were influenced by philosophy in their scientific hypotheses on Quantum Physics . . . which is still not banned as far as I know. But some seem to take postulation and hypothetical theory as unutterable and worthy only of derision if not proven beyond doubt already.

    Healthy skepticism is fine . . . but to dismiss out of hand for want of evidence makes little sense to me. You may avoid the embarrasment of sliding down a snake or two . . . but you won't climb any ladders either. That's fine if you're comfortable with the "start here" square. Thankfully, the great minds of the past who have brought us to this point weren't self-hobbled by the same thinking.

    The process of scientific discovery is, in effect, a continual flight from wonder. - Albert Einstein

    For the record . . . I have neither embraced nor defended SSW theory . . . merely responded to the OP because it interests me . . . nothing more. The metaphysical inferences are plastered all over the net . . . I've seen them too. They are philosophical to be sure . . . so what? I'm open minded on all matters relating to emergent scientific theory, hypothetical theory, hypothesis, and speculation . . . nothing gets wholly embraced, nothing gets wholly dismissed.

    I have no "territory" I wish to protect by pissing on anyone . . . unlike some here. I'm not sure what "mew" means . . . an Americanism? . . . a cats cry?. If it is a dismissive term to describe this thread . . . then I wonder why you waste your time on it.

Share this