Jesus' Human Body

UnDisfellowshipped

Have you noticed that when Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Lord of lords, said something in the Bible that the Watchtower Society disagrees with, the Society will either (1) ignore it almost completely or (2) talk about that Scripture, but then, they will twist it around to mean the exact opposite of what He plainly said?

A good example of this is the Insight Book (Volume 2), Page 1,083 ("Temple"):

On one occasion, when the Jews demanded a sign from Jesus, he replied: "Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews thought he was speaking of the temple building, but the apostle John explains: "He was talking about the temple of his body." When he was resurrected by his Father Jehovah on the third day of his death, the disciples recalled and understood this saying and believed it. (Joh 2:18-22; Mt 27:40)

So far so good. The Watchtower has just presented what the Bible (Jesus and John) said. It seems extremely clear, doesn't it? John and Jesus both clearly were saying that Jesus' HUMAN Body was going to be raised up on the third day.

But, now look at the rest of that quote:

He was resurrected, but not in his fleshly body, which was given as a ransom sacrifice; yet that fleshly body did not go into corruption, but was disposed of by God, just as a sacrifice was consumed on the altar. Jesus, when resurrected, was the same person, the same personality, in a new body made for his new dwelling place, the spiritual heavens.-Lu 24:1-7; 1Pe 3:18; Mt 20:28; Ac 2:31; Heb 13:8.

So, the Watchtower Society shows what Jesus Christ Himself said (that His Human Body would be resurrected), and then immediately contradicts this and says that Jesus' Human Body was disposed of by God and Jesus was raised in a NEW BODY. Where does the Bible teach that?

What authority does the Watchtower Society have to say that Jesus Christ did not mean what He said?

AlmostAtheist

Didn't you see all the scriptures at the end of that paragraph of conjecture, my poor apostate friend? Obviously those verses must be there to support everything that was said. No need to look them up, of course, it's enough that they're there and so we know that it's all right from the Bible.

Actually the verse in Peter does raise a question. It says Jesus was "raised in spirit". How is that explained in a "Christ was raised in his physical body" view of things?

Dave

UnDisfellowshipped

Hello Almost, How are you?

You asked:

Actually the verse in Peter does raise a question. It says Jesus was "raised in spirit". How is that explained in a "Christ was raised in his physical body" view of things?

Good question!

Some translations (such as the King James Version) render it this way:

1 Peter 3:18 (KJV) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

And others render it this way:

1 Peter 3:18 (Literal Translation) Because even Christ once suffered concerning sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God; indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit;

Notice that most translations interpret that Scripture to refer to The Holy Spirit and not Jesus' spirit.

There are different viewpoints on this Verse among different Christians. Here are a couple of the more popular interpretations:

1 Peter 3:18 was saying.....

1:) Jesus was raised from the dead BY the Holy Spirit

OR

2:) Jesus was put to death in the flesh, and then His spirit was still alive and went to the Paradise of Hades for 3 days.

Both of those are true according to the rest of the Bible.

Born again Trinitarian Christians believe that Jesus is, in Heaven, 100% Human and 100% God (Spirit) -- His Divine Nature is permanently united with His Human Nature.

AlmostAtheist

Born again Trinitarian Christians believe that Jesus is, in Heaven, 100% Human and 100% God (Spirit) -- His Divine Nature is permanently united with His Human Nature.

So just to play Devil's advocate for a minute, you're saying God changed? He had no human component, and then he did have a human component. Change is almost never neutral, causing a benefit or a detriment. Presumably this did not cause a detriment for God, but is it conceivable that God could be made better?

Dave

Shazard

AlmostAtheist... nice playing! Okey about Peters letter. Read whole context and you will notice that it is not contradiction to bodily ressurection, but just one more scripture where WT "life beyond death" doctrine is refuted. Christ was made alive (not rised) in spirit and in this spirit he descended into hell to glorify his victory. Ofcourse nobody can enter hades in body. And in the scriptures 1 Pet 3:22 it is written then after these events in hades he rised and was taken into heaven. Rised he in body. So no contradiction atall...

Honesty

This may shed some New Light on the matter:

1 Peter 3:18-20 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring you to God, after being put to death in the fleshly realm but made alive in the spiritual realm. In that state He also went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison who in the past were disobedient, when God patiently waited in the days of Noah while an ark was being prepared; in it, a few—that is, eight people —were saved through water.

Hellrider

My view on this is that Christs ressurection was primarily a ressurection of the body. The point is, that if Christs ressurection was not a ressurection of the body, then there is no ressurection . It couldn`t just be a case of "materializing", such as the WTS says, because the whole idea of, and belief in, the ressurection, is an actual raising of the dead, from the grave. However, of course this ressurected body of Christ has powers that we couldn`t possibly comprehend. He is able to change his appearance, apparantly walk thru closed doors, materialize/dematerialize, etc, but that is not the point. The WTS`s interpretation is wrong, when they write:

Christ appeared not (primarily) as a manifestation, but as a ressurected body! - and not in the sense of Adam before the fall, but something other than this, something we do not yet know what is. Secondly, he could manifest himself in forms/ways we do not understand, as this state is something very unclear to us, we are not yet familiar with this state. If one were to claim that Jesus ressurection was primarily in Spirit, such as the WTS claims, and that Jesus in bodily form after his death was just a "manifestation", then the term "ressurection" becomes meaningless, because it means that man has not been offered a promise, a hope. And if he has, then his offered hope is just a ressurection of the Spirit/Soul, and this is allready promised the righteous thruout the entire NT (although the WTS denies this), and then there would be "nothing new under the sun" in the ressurection of Christ, because the survival of the soul was something they allready believed in, back then. And Jesus never once denies that the soul survives and goes to heaven, in fact he builds on this belief in the parable about Lazarus and the dead rich man. In fact,if his ressurection was primarily spiritual, then it wouldn`t be a ressurection at all.

You can read a short, nice summary of the views on this thruout the ages here:

http://www.mustardseed.net/html/toressurection.html

Oh, and by the way:

yet that fleshly body did not go into corruption, but was disposed of by God, just as a sacrifice was consumed on the altar.

This is pure speculation by the WTS. There is nothing in scripture that would indicate that Christs body was "disposed of by God". The whole point of the passage where they open the grave, and see that his body isn`t there, is to prepare the reader for the next part of the story, when Christ (in his body) visits the apostles. Truly, that thing the WTS wrote there "disposed of by God", is the stupidest thing I`ve ever read.

Honesty

Truly, that thing the WTS wrote there "disposed of by God", is the stupidest thing I`ve ever read.

I respectfully disagree. Everything the WTBT$ writes is the most ignorant rhetoric I've ever read.

Narkissos

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/105011/2.ashx

gumby

So your saying it was impossible for Jesus to mean god could resurrect a differnt body because iot wouldn't be the SAME Jesus?

Let's suppose Jesus had been discussing the actual temple and he tore it down and built a new one. Would people say....."this isn't the real temple, the stones are different, the gold is different and everything else is different. It's pretty, but we want the real one back.....not some makeover".

Could Jesus not have been raised a spiritual body and been the SAME Jesus with the same qualities?

Gumby

Jesus' Human Body

Share this